Religious Right Claims Others Can't Be Christian, Have Values

[Temporal Renegade]

I'll admit it: this was posted, for no other reason, than to get people talking.

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/2007/08/religious_right_22.html?tr=y&auid=2906984

[JoeEllison]

Hey, we already know that they are bad people, and bad citizens. What specifically would you like to talk about?

[Dumbledore]

Well how about the fact that these people are allowed to dominate the moral and ethical high ground with no challenge to that status. Only in politics could a group that preaches hate and a very narrow wrathful view of God is the only correct moral and ethical code and not be challenged for doing so. We as a country are allowing these people to assert that they are the moral and ethical ones without any challenge to that claim. The Republicans and the religious right/fundies are going to use there supposed moral righteous against the rest of us like a political club to get there way. Are we going to stand up to them and challenge their stance as the moral and ethical righteous in this country? In short are we going to allow them to dictate to us what morals and ethics are correct with no challenge to the hate and bigotry they preach? Maybe I am crazy but I think these issues are very important to discuss!:)

[quixotecoyote]

Unless one of a half dozen select posters happen by this thread, you will be <ahem> preaching to the choir.

[danielk]

In short are we going to allow them to dictate to us what morals and ethics are correct with no challenge to the hate and bigotry they preach?

Steven Dutch, who styles himself a political conservative, touches on this: Lessons Learned: Election 2006 (http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/LessonsElec2006.htm). Excerpt:

Do you believe God was in control of the 2006 election? Did you, or anyone you know, pray for a Republican victory? Do you believe God answers prayers? Do you believe God was capable of steering the election the other way?

If you answered "yes" to these questions, answer this: why did the Democrats win in 2006? There can be only one possible answer: God permitted it to happen. Now why would he do that?

I like this guy. He's one of the most outspoken anti-woo Christians I know.

[Dumbledore]

Steven Dutch, who styles himself a political conservative, touches on this: Lessons Learned: Election 2006 (http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/LessonsElec2006.htm). Excerpt:



I like this guy. He's one of the most outspoken anti-woo Christians I know.

Excellent, at least someone is standing up to these fundies and their Republican whores!;)

[Achán hiNidráne]

He's one of the most outspoken anti-woo Christians I know.

Sorry, but "anti-woo Christian" is an oxymoron.

[danielk]

Sorry, but "anti-woo Christian" is an oxymoron.

No it isn't. Read his Science, Pseudoscience, and Irrationalism (http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSCINDX.HTM) pages. While I'm an atheist myself, I don't feel the need to alienate decent and clear-thinking Christians like Steven Dutch. None of us is completely rational all of the time. We need more Christians like him.

[Foster Zygote]

I'll admit it: this was posted, for no other reason, than to get people talking.

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/2007/08/religious_right_22.html?tr=y&auid=2906984

It's statements like these that make my hair stand on end. This sort of talk is usually the first step in dehumanizing and devaluing another group of people in order to facilitate acts of oppression and violence against them. If you can define the "others" as evil and dangerous then you needn't respect their differing views at all. If you want to destroy a democracy one of the first orders of business is to change dissent from a right to a crime.

[Darth Rotor]

No it isn't. Read his Science, Pseudoscience, and Irrationalism (http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSCINDX.HTM) pages. While I'm an atheist myself, I don't feel the need to alienate decent and clear-thinking Christians like Steven Dutch. None of us is completely rational all of the time. We need more Christians like him.
Danke, mein freund. We need more atheists like you. :)

DR

[danielk]

Danke, mein freund. We need more atheists like you. :)

Cheers! :alc:

[Achán hiNidráne]

No it isn't. Read his Science, Pseudoscience, and Irrationalism (http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSCINDX.HTM) pages.

So in other words, psychics, UFOs, lake monsters, and John Edward are all woo.... but JEEZ-us healing, walking on water, and rising form the dead. That's rational.

Sorry, A is A, woo is woo, and "God" is the ultimate woo.

While I'm an atheist myself...

You could have fooled me.

...decent and clear-thinking Christians...

Another oxymoron.

We need more Christians like him.

No we don't.

I point of fact, we don't need Christians or any other religionists, period.

[danielk]

So in other words, psychics, UFOs, lake monsters, and John Edward are all woo.... but JEEZ-us healing, walking on water, and rising form the dead. That's rational.

Nope. See what he wrote about What Religion Can and Cannot Do (http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/WhatReligionCanCannotDo.HTM).

Sorry, A is A, woo is woo, and "God" is the ultimate woo.

Depends on the definition of god.

I point of fact, we don't need Christians or any other religionists, period.

Religion is here to stay for the foreseeable future. Besides, just being non-religious is no guarantee for having a rational mind.

[Temporal Renegade]

Well, if my 'Morals' and 'Values' aren't the same as the RRs versions, I think I'm somewhat better off.

[Darth Rotor]

Religion is here to stay for the foreseeable future. Besides, just being non-religious is no guarantee for having a rational mind.
Indeed, as being religious is no guarantee for any number of virtues, vices, and various points in between. Regardless of outlook, the mechanics strike me as identical: it's a lot easier to build up and justify a ration of hate by broad brushing the religious, or the atheistic, or whomever in a manner that ignores the human variability within any group.
"Atheism is no safeguard against stupidity."-- The Atheist

DR

[quixotecoyote]

Nope. See what he wrote about What Religion Can and Cannot Do.

.

Good article, like his politics, but he's still got a major woo blindspot. He endorses a "synthetic capability that can at once accommodate belief and its contradictions (http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/TOXICVAL.HTM)." Basically when it comes to the kind of religion he likes, doublethink is ok.

As I said, I like most of his ideas, but when he gets on religion I still call woo. when a skeptic is shown that his ideas are irrational, he/she should drop or change them to something rational. Dutch does that in many places, but exempts religion (that he approves of) from the requirement of rationality.

[danielk]

Good article, like his politics, but he's still got a major woo blindspot. He endorses a "synthetic capability that can at once accommodate belief and its contradictions (http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/TOXICVAL.HTM)." Basically when it comes to the kind of religion he likes, doublethink is ok.

Er, he's quoting Ralph Peters there and calls it "Another perspective". It isn't clear whether he endorses this viewpoint.

As I said, I like most of his ideas, but when he gets on religion I still call woo. when a skeptic is shown that his ideas are irrational, he/she should drop or change them to something rational. Dutch does that in many places, but exempts religion (that he approves of) from the requirement of rationality.

My impression is that he confines his religion to the domain of philosophy, and in particular to questions of purpose and morals. (We had an email exchange a while ago discussing whether moral values require absolute foundations.) But when it comes to observable phenomena you can't get much more rational than this:
If your religion says something that conflicts with objective evidence, your religion is wrong.

Anyway, the real question is whether it's sensible to use a definition of "rational person" that excludes people like Steven Dutch just because he's religious. Since all of us have to believe in some things we cannot prove (solipsism is no fun), it seems appropriate to cut some slack.

[vexed]

I never understood why some people could be 'skeptical' about most things in their life, but still buy into religion. I guess the only real possibility is that they need it to be true. Smart people are very good at rationalizing irrational ideas for irrational reasons.

[joobz]

Anyway, the real question is whether it's sensible to use a definition of "rational person" that excludes people like Steven Dutch just because he's religious. Since all of us have to believe in some things we cannot prove (solipsism is no fun), it seems appropriate to cut some slack.I agree.

Compartmentism allows for rationality in all aspects except that which you are not rational about. I see no reason to alienate the reasonabe. indeed, it is rather irrational to believe that a person is either 100% rational or not at all.

Atheism isn't a precursor to rationality.
Religion isn't a precursor to morality.

[Miss Anthrope]

Or as I like to say, everyone is at least a little bit crazy in at least one way.

[Tricky]

I never understood why some people could be 'skeptical' about most things in their life, but still buy into religion. I guess the only real possibility is that they need it to be true.
There are probably a lot of reasons. I know that many of the "mostly rational" Christians I know are religious because "that is how they were raised". Indeed, religious indoctrination is a powerful force that cannot always be overcome by rational thinking. The social and familial implications of rejecting religion are too great. You could catagorize this under "need it to be true" if you want, but it can also mean that being skeptical about religion is simply not a very high priority for them.

There are a number of things I learned "at my mother's knee" which I have since discovered were questionable or even untrue. There are probably still some I haven't yet discovered. They're not a really high priority for me.

Everybody has some things they are skeptical about and some they are not. My goal is to make the latter category very small, but I have no illusions that it will ever be absent completely.

[Temporal Renegade]

Or as I like to say, everyone is at least a little bit crazy in at least one way.

Ain't that the truth! :D

[Darth Rotor]

I'll admit it: this was posted, for no other reason, than to get people talking.

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/2007/08/religious_right_22.html?tr=y&auid=2906984
Didn't the Pope recently come out and state that the "True CHurch" is the Catholic Church and the others are thus not real Christians?

Seems to be a lot of this going around lately, with the humor being that this is a very, very old argument.

A bunch of splitters, the lot of them. :D

DR

[Ichneumonwasp]

Where's Ramakrishna when you need him?:D

[newlyfound]

Didn't the Pope recently come out and state that the "True CHurch" is the Catholic Church and the others are thus not real Christians?

Seems to be a lot of this going around lately, with the humor being that this is a very, very old argument.

A bunch of splitters, the lot of them. :D

DR

Christians have their own multiple god versions as do muslims and jews, this is a perfect proof of how there is no god and the only thing aall seem to be into worshipping are their own freaking egos, nothing more.

[Dumbledore]

So in other words, psychics, UFOs, lake monsters, and John Edward are all woo.... but JEEZ-us healing, walking on water, and rising form the dead. That's rational.

Sorry, A is A, woo is woo, and "God" is the ultimate woo.



You could have fooled me.



Another oxymoron.



No we don't.

I point of fact, we don't need Christians or any other religionists, period.

Well that is very exclusionist of you. What is wrong with religious people who are rational and logical and don't preach hate, or push their religious agenda. Beside the fact you believe they don't exist!;)

[TsarBomba]

Hidden in the originally linked article is the fact that the Family Research Council has half of a valid point. Here is what I am talking about:


The Family Research Council is launching a project aimed at convincing its supporters before the 2008 election that liberal politicians “are spouting God-talk” in order to “confuse people of faith” and hide their “true agenda.”


Normally left of center politicians running for President (and historially other offices) have continuously pandered to the religious vote by talking about how important their faith is in their lives, and for most of them, how it will "assist" them in thier decision making process. I don't think that it can be seriously contested that much of this pandering is a cynical and hypocritical attempt to get religious voters to elect these politicians. I think that there can be little doubt that for some of these politicans their pandering sometimes constitutes gross hypocracy in that they really don't believe the nonsence that they are spouting. So, I say that FRC is correct in telling voters that caveat emptor should apply to religious cliams by politicians.

[Dumbledore]

I agree.

Compartmentism allows for rationality in all aspects except that which you are not rational about. I see no reason to alienate the reasonabe. indeed, it is rather irrational to believe that a person is either 100% rational or not at all.

Atheism isn't a precursor to rationality.
Religion isn't a precursor to morality.

Here, here, well put!!:)

[Dumbledore]

Christians have their own multiple god versions as do muslims and jews, this is a perfect proof of how there is no god and the only thing aall seem to be into worshipping are their own freaking egos, nothing more.

Wow! You might want to get a better understanding of religion, and why people are religious before you go around blasting all religious people without having any real understanding of them at all!;)

[Dumbledore]

Hidden in the originally linked article is the fact that the Family Research Council has half of a valid point. Here is what I am talking about:



Normally left of center politicians running for President (and historially other offices) have continuously pandered to the religious vote by talking about how important their faith is in their lives, and for most of them, how it will "assist" them in thier decision making process. I don't think that it can be seriously contested that much of this pandering is a cynical and hypocritical attempt to get religious voters to elect these politicians. I think that there can be little doubt that for some of these politicans their pandering sometimes constitutes gross hypocracy in that they really don't believe the nonsence that they are spouting. So, I say that FRC is correct in telling voters that caveat emptor should apply to religious cliams by politicians.

But that also assumes that politicians on the left have no religious values or beliefs, thats not true. Many politicians on the left are religious they just don't ram their religion down everyones throat! Though trusting a politician in general is a bad idea!;)

[Foster Zygote]

Didn't the Pope recently come out and state that the "True CHurch" is the Catholic Church and the others are thus not real Christians?

Seems to be a lot of this going around lately, with the humor being that this is a very, very old argument.

A bunch of splitters, the lot of them. :D

DR

Bloody PFJ!

[Lord Muck oGentry]

A bunch of splitters, the lot of them. :D

DR

Splittists.

Bourgeois lickspittle! Imperialist running-dog!

[Katana]

Didn't the Pope recently come out and state that the "True CHurch" is the Catholic Church and the others are thus not real Christians?

Seems to be a lot of this going around lately, with the humor being that this is a very, very old argument.

A bunch of splitters, the lot of them. :D

DR


Hah!

I love that these fools call themselves the "values voters" as if they have a moratorium on what are considered values.

:wackyskeptical:

[quixotecoyote]

Er, he's quoting Ralph Peters there and calls it "Another perspective". It isn't clear whether he endorses this viewpoint.


Immediately after the quotation is a paragraph where he explains how it dovetails with his own view.


My impression is that he confines his religion to the domain of philosophy, and in particular to questions of purpose and morals. (We had an email exchange a while ago discussing whether moral values require absolute foundations.) But when it comes to observable phenomena you can't get much more rational than this:
If your religion says something that conflicts with objective evidence, your religion is wrong.

Well morals is a pretty big part to be wooish about, even if he has company. Again, I don't have many objections to what his morals seem to be, but religion is still a poor way to find or justify them.

Also, with the quoted bit about objective evidence, in the next sentence he stated that his private beliefs are not going to be discussed, so unless he lays 'em out somewhere, it's tough to see how he's following through on that quote.



Anyway, the real question is whether it's sensible to use a definition of "rational person" that excludes people like Steven Dutch just because he's religious. Since all of us have to believe in some things we cannot prove (solipsism is no fun), it seems appropriate to cut some slack.

I'm not condemning him as a bad person, I'm pointing out an apparent blindspot where he's rationalizing instead of applying skepticism as he seems to normally do.

[newlyfound]

Wow! You might want to get a better understanding of religion, and why people are religious before you go around blasting all religious people without having any real understanding of them at all!;)


As if you do! LMAO, I WAS, religion at one point in time, and I am sure you knew that since the capacity in which you speak is that of the all mighty himself :rolleyes: !!! ...let me think hard, Uhu..., am I gonna go to hell your big-ness since I've just blasphemed you or against you, and blaspheming the eternal is an unforgivable sin??!! hhugh :yikes: ?

[Hokulele]

My beef with the OP has to do with determining which values are uniquely Christian. For example, "thou shalt not kill" doesn't strike me as being something that had never been considered in any other culture before. What is the list of "Christian values" as opposed to "societal values" or "just being plain human values"? Is there such a thing as uniquely Taoist values? Jewish values? Discordian values? Well, maybe not the last.

[newlyfound]

My beef with the OP has to do with determining which values are uniquely Christian. For example, "thou shalt not kill" doesn't strike me as being something that had never been considered in any other culture before. What is the list of "Christian values" as opposed to "societal values" or "just being plain human values"? Is there such a thing as uniquely Taoist values? Jewish values? Discordian values? Well, maybe not the last.


Forgiveness is A Christian Value. ...and Love. ...and Peace.
Yep, Forgiveness, Love and Peace are Christian Values.

[quixotecoyote]

Forgiveness is A Christian Value. ...and Love. ...and Peace.
Yep, Forgiveness, Love and Peace are Christian Values.

I love that you think no one valued love, forgiveness and peace prior to Christianity.

I also get a good chuckle at the thought that Jews, Atheists, Buddhists, Hindus, etc don't value love or peace.

eta: If that was sarcasm you should add a smiley because it is not implied in your post.

[six7s]

Yep, Forgiveness, Love and Peace are Christian Values.

If that was sarcasm you should repent because Jaysus hates a smart ass and will wage war on you


---

In a more serious vein, the Christian version of forgiveness might, I think, be unique... similar to but definitely different from (simpler too?) Judaism and Islam, and v different from karma in Hinduism and Buddhism

[Damien Evans]

As if you do! LMAO, I WAS, religion at one point in time, and I am sure you knew that since the capacity in which you speak is that of the all mighty himself :rolleyes: !!! ...let me think hard, Uhu..., am I gonna go to hell your big-ness since I've just blasphemed you or against you, and blaspheming the eternal is an unforgivable sin??!! hhugh :yikes: ?

You were religion?

When did you become human?;)

[Hokulele]

In a more serious vein, the Christian version of forgiveness might, I think, be unique... similar to but definitely different from (simpler too?) Judaism and Islam, and v different from karma in Hinduism and Buddhism


In what sense do you mean forgiveness is different? The main difference I can see between forgiveness in the major religions is that I am under the impression that forgiveness in Christianity needs to be bought. Originally by sacrifices, generally animal, but there seems to be some implication for human what with the whole story about Abraham being requested to sacrifice his son, and seeming more nonchalant about the whole thing than I certainly would have been. In Catholicism, it seems as if you have to "pay" for your sins in order to receive forgiveness, saying Hail Mary's for example.

I am curious as to what differences you see.

[newlyfound]

I love that you think no one valued love, forgiveness and peace prior to Christianity.

I am sorry for being non-specific. From my standpoint, as in being an ex-muslim female, that is what Christianity taught me (any muslim out there, just stay off my "perimeter"!), the muslims would immediately counter attack by claiming they do have those values (or just check out the "undercover moque" vid someone has posted in the same sub-forum), I never experienced them, or hardly, as such I studied islam a bit so I know, muslims can preach all they want, but if what is preached is not practiced, it doesn't exist.

I also get a good chuckle at the thought that Jews, Atheists, Buddhists, Hindus, etc don't value love or peace.

eta: If that was sarcasm you should add a smiley because it is not implied in your post.

No it was not sarcasm, and like I said, I am sorry for being non-specific :) .

If that was sarcasm you should repent because Jaysus hates a smart ass and will wage war on you


---

In a more serious vein, the Christian version of forgiveness might, I think, be unique... similar to but definitely different from (simpler too?) Judaism and Islam, and v different from karma in Hinduism and Buddhism


Again, sorry for being non-specific.
You were religion?

When did you become human?;)

Every religious person is A face or a single facet of the religion they belong to. And in that sense, they are Religion since they are its acting body. I was born a muslim and been kind of a hard core christian for few years b4 I "run into" you guys. I had religious doubts throughout my life that I was too frightened to confront, the easiest solution at the time was simply to repress everything, one day I accidently run into A name that is spelled as follows "MICHAEL SHERMER" on the internet, I started to go to his site www.skeptic.com for about a year and half before I started coming here. The sharks there (one of them is Articulett) simply woke me up.

[six7s]

...forgiveness in Christianity needs to be bought. Originally by sacrifices...

In Catholicism, it seems as if you have to "pay" for your sins in order to receive forgiveness, saying Hail Mary's for example

Disclaimer: I am not a theologian, much of what I think is based on anecdote

In christianity, you don't have to pay extra for forgiveness, it comes free (like steak knives) when you buy the whole package from JC Salvation Inc.®

According to some of my school teachers (priests), Hail Marys are used primarily cos they can be recited by rote - much like the 10-times-table - leaving your conscious mind to 'think' (meditatate???) about what you did wrong and how you can't trick god... if you ain't really sorry, he'll know

The animal sacrifices is an Old Testament thing, and Christ essentially rewrote/superceded the OT

20+ years since I last recited it, I still remember the "Lord's Prayer', word for word... brainwashed? me? Anhoo...

"Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us"

Christian salavation has an all-or-nothing warranty. See : Matt 18:23-35
The Parable of The Unforgiving Servant (http://www.bcbsr.com/survey/pbl14.html)
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/mt/18.html

(brainwashed I might be - but I had to Google that)

Judaism and Islam seem (unsurprisingly) similar to christianity - but with an added proviso, I think, that the sinner has to (where possible) make material reparations and make amends with the victim

Ask Rabbi Simmons: Forgiveness in Judaism judaism.about.com (http://judaism.about.com/library/3_askrabbi_o/bl_simmons_forgiveness.htm)

Forgiveness - A Halachik Perspective (http://home.aol.com/lazera/forgive.htm)

Forgiveness: The Islamic Perspective (http://www.geocities.com/mutmainaa/food/forgive_islam.html)

Buddhists and Jains both have their take on the Hindu idea of karma. I have just been talking to a Buddhist neighbour from Thailand and her idea is that no amount of grovelling/repentance will exempt you from payback in this or a subsequent incarnation: If you kill someone, someone else will kill you... even if you were mentally ill at the time of the offence! How enlightened!

[Robin]

The animal sacrifices is an Old Testament thing, and Christ essentially rewrote/superceded the OT

Not rewrote, he said of OT laws that not a letter or the smallest part of a letter of them will pass away. So they all still stand.

But the whole Christian Mystery is based on the symbolism of the animal sacrifice - hence "Lamb of God" so Christianity did supercede this practice, but kept the principle.

So in effect any Christian will not sacrifice animals but will accept the principle behind this primitive god placating ceremony as valid.

[Hokulele]

Disclaimer: I am not a theologian, much of what I think is based on anecdote


No worries, I rarely expect answers on an Internet forum to be the final word on anything. :)

In christianity, you don't have to pay extra for forgiveness, it comes free (like steak knives) when you buy the whole package from JC Salvation Inc.®


It was my understanding that the JC package was strictly about forgiveness. That the animal sacrifices from the OT were no longer necessary simply because of this one big sacrifice.

According to some of my school teachers (priests), Hail Marys are used primarily cos they can be recited by rote - much like the 10-times-table - leaving your conscious mind to 'think' (meditatate???) about what you did wrong and how you can't trick god... if you ain't really sorry, he'll know


Ah. I wasn't raised as a Catholic, so never really understood their penance system.

The animal sacrifices is an Old Testament thing, and Christ essentially rewrote/superceded the OT


I thought that most Christians believed that Christ fulfilled the OT, not necessarily superceded/rewrote. Hence the description of him as a sacrifice.

Judaism and Islam seem (unsurprisingly) similar to christianity - but with an added proviso, I think, that the sinner has to (where possible) make material reparations and make amends with the victim


I think that some of that is tempered by who exactly the victim is. ;)

Buddhists and Jains both have their take on the Hindu idea of karma. I have just been talking to a Buddhist neighbour from Thailand and her idea is that no amount of grovelling/repentance will exempt you from payback in this or a subsequent incarnation: If you kill someone, someone else will kill you... even if you were mentally ill at the time of the offence! How enlightened!


Some Hindus would argue that the mental illness is a punishment for previous misdeeds, so the killing and karma accrued was already earned, so the punishment would be equally earned.

[six7s]

I am sorry for being non-specific :)
You're forgiven ;)

Every religious person is A face or a single facet of the religion they belong to. And in that sense, they are Religion since they are its acting body

I was taught that a church is not a building but the people who associate with (not necessarily in) it

Despite this, the phrases "I was religion" and "they are religion" didn't make any sense to me on my first few readings

[six7s]

I thought that most Christians believed that Christ fulfilled the OT, not necessarily superceded/rewrote. Hence the description of him as a sacrifice.

Maybe most christians do

I was taught by rather strict nuns and then relatively liberal priests

Anyhoo... I was left with the impression that the OT wasn't worth reading cos JC rewrote it in 2 lines:
Love god 100%
Love yourself and your neighbours 100% too
and evrything else was just padding

[Robin]

Maybe most christians do

I was taught by rather strict nuns and then relatively liberal priests

Anyhoo... I was left with the impression that the OT wasn't worth reading cos JC rewrote it in 2 lines:
Love god 100%
Love yourself and your neighbours 100% too
and evrything else was just padding
Actually love God and love your neighbours is in the old testament too, so that is a restatement rather than a rewrite. Although most scholars believe that Leviticus intended that "neighbours" encompass a smaller scope than Jesus did.

But I think anybody who left you with the impression that those two lines sum up Christianity would be regarded as heretical in most Christian sects and having ignored the most important theme of Christianity.

[six7s]

restatement, schmeestatement, already ;)

...regarded as heretical in most Christian sects and having ignored the most important theme of Christianity.

I neither doubt nor care that many would label it heresy, for me its history... so much so that I need to be reminded of what is the "most important theme of Christianity"

Edited to add: Note, I said "I was left with the impression". It is highly likely those "relatively liberal priests" tried to teach me otherwise, but I have rejected all of their theological nonsense and 'discipline', a term they misappropriated to mean corporal punishment rather than JC's style of leadership by example

[Dumbledore]

As if you do! LMAO, I WAS, religion at one point in time, and I am sure you knew that since the capacity in which you speak is that of the all mighty himself :rolleyes: !!! ...let me think hard, Uhu..., am I gonna go to hell your big-ness since I've just blasphemed you or against you, and blaspheming the eternal is an unforgivable sin??!! hhugh :yikes: ?

Well no I don't speak for God, do you think most religious people believe they do so? Secondly I don't believe in blasphemy or hell, so wrong on both of those counts. Finally you asserted that all religious people only worship their own egos, I don't believe this to be true. And I would argue with you that just because multiple versions of the idea of God exist does not exclude the actual existence of God. I am glad that you use to be religious, this however does not make you an expert on all religious people!;)

[Dumbledore]

You were religion?

When did you become human?;)

How can you tell he is human now???!;)

[newlyfound]

You're forgiven ;)

Thank you, I really appreciate that :D .


I was taught that a church is not a building but the people who associate with (not necessarily in) it

Exactly, I think that works the same way for all religions (as far as the body is concerned only, not the types of deeds executed by it). I first learned about it from Chrisitianity, and Christ and His Body, meaning the people who represent him and work for Him. When they come together as one, one can distinctly see Christ in Action, not necessaryly in supernatural way but just by seeing the followers act on His Commandments therefore bringing them and Him Alive through them. It's truly fascinating.

Despite this, the phrases "I was religion" and "they are religion" didn't make any sense to me on my first few readings That's ok, you needed for the context to be determined for sure, which is within your right :) .

[UnrepentantSinner]

I never understood why some people could be 'skeptical' about most things in their life, but still buy into religion. I guess the only real possibility is that they need it to be true. Smart people are very good at rationalizing irrational ideas for irrational reasons.

Probably because what we are able to apply the scientific method to and investigate to support our skepticism cannot be applied to the supernatural.

[Beerina]

Do you believe God was in control of the 2006 election? Did you, or anyone you know, pray for a Republican victory? Do you believe God answers prayers? Do you believe God was capable of steering the election the other way?

If you answered "yes" to these questions, answer this: why did the Democrats win in 2006? There can be only one possible answer: God permitted it to happen. Now why would he do that?

For the same reason he put festering boils on Job's butt? :)

[Temporal Renegade]

How can you tell he is human now???!;)

Coming from a person with a TARDIS avatar, that's an interesting question... :D

[newlyfound]

Coming from a person with a TARDIS avatar, that's an interesting question... :D


Does either one of you know what the word human means? and by the same token, is either one of you human? ....if so can you prove it, as in being civil. I doubt it. Therefore either one of you.....does not qualify to bear such burden. ...Now why don't both of you go munch on your left over hay!

[Dumbledore]

Coming from a person with a TARDIS avatar, that's an interesting question... :D

I more than anyone should be able to legitimately question whether someone is human, so many aliens masquerading as humans, so little time.;)

[Dumbledore]

Does either one of you know what the word human means? and by the same token, is either one of you human? ....if so can you prove it, as in being civil. I doubt it. Therefore either one of you.....does not qualify to bear such burden. ...Now why don't both of you go munch on your left over hay!


Wow, who pissed in your cheerios? :confused:

[Zep]

Meanwhile, back at the OP...

Why do I get the impression that the group being referred to (Value Voters??) are starting to sound more and more like Fred Phelps? Basically, the country's going to hell because people didn't vote for their version of "Christianity"??

News for them: Most other first-world countries didn't vote for their version of "Christianity" either, but they don't seem to have gone to hell much. In fact, we're quite sane and stable and happy and free. As is most of the rest of the USA, I gather. Unlike them.

[princhester]

While I'm an atheist myself...


You could have fooled me..


Which part fooled you? Be specific. Try, if possible, to stick to known facts and recognised principles of logic.

Avoid, if you can, showing your propensity for being an arbiter of who is and who is not a True Scotsman.

[newlyfound]

Meanwhile, back at the OP...

Why do I get the impression that the group being referred to (Value Voters??) are starting to sound more and more like Fred Phelps? Basically, the country's going to hell because people didn't vote for their version of "Christianity"??

News for them: Most other first-world countries didn't vote for their version of "Christianity" either, but they don't seem to have gone to hell much. In fact, we're quite sane and stable and happy and free. As is most of the rest of the USA, I gather. Unlike them.


When versions of this and that are spoken about in the matter of god and religion, that means delusion is alive and well. versions of gods, versions of religions, versions of hell, versions of chrisitianity etc. all mean one thing= paganism.

[Miss Anthrope]

Please stop the personal bickering and keep the topic. Thank you!

[newlyfound]

Was that for me Miss Anthrope?

[Miss Anthrope]

Was that for me Miss Anthrope?

It's a general warning intended to reach more than one poster as this thread slides down into bickering.

[newlyfound]

"A rich man may be wise in his own eyes, but a poor man who has discernment sees through him." -Proverbs 28:11-

[Miss Anthrope]

And a wise man stays on topic :D

[Zep]

19:30 And Lot went up out of Zoar, and dwelt in the mountain, and his two daughters with him; for he feared to dwell in Zoar: and he dwelt in a cave, he and his two daughters.

19:31 And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth:

19:32 Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.

19:33 And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.

19:34 And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.

19:35 And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.

19:36 Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father.Genesis 19:30-36

I think there's something in that for all of us, don't you agree? ;)

[boloboffin]

Genesis 19:30-36

I think there's something in that for all of us, don't you agree? ;)

I don't understand what an ancient Hebrew joke about how their rivals were the product of incest has to do with anything, but it's a wide, wide world. ;)

[newlyfound]

And a wise man stays on topic :D


And a wise person is discerning, especially when they are moderator :cool: .

If you would like to address moderation issues, please start a thread in forum management.

[Temporal Renegade]

I more than anyone should be able to legitimately question whether someone is human, so many aliens masquerading as humans, so little time.;)

Why, I might be somewhat offended...if that wasn't so true! :D

[articulett]

Maybe most christians do

I was taught by rather strict nuns and then relatively liberal priests

Anyhoo... I was left with the impression that the OT wasn't worth reading cos JC rewrote it in 2 lines:
Love god 100%
Love yourself and your neighbours 100% too
and evrything else was just padding

I was raised Catholic too-- they're not big on bible reading... they just tell you the stuff you need to know from it. How the hell could you tell if you loved god enough?--I mean, it's not like you can kiss him or anything. And those others you are supposed to love -- you can't covet them...but you're supposed to love them...

I wasn't sure I could control my coveting or loving--they're primal feelings-- my actions I could work with--but feelings?-- Heck, even threats of hell couldn't keep the priests from fondling kids. I'm sure they didn't choose to have feelings for kids, but you would have thought that if god allowed you to control your feelings, his henchmen would be able to do a better job of it, don't you? And if they really believed in hell, why wouldn't they just castrate themselves. Eternity is a long time. I never could make sense of religion. Especially once I learned that there was more than one person claiming to have "the truth"-- to be infallible-- to have the secret rubric that would ensure you a blissful eternity. How can you make yourself believe something... or be sure you believe the right thing enough to please the invisible guy who knows how it's all going to end anyhow?

I now think faith and trying to control feelings and beliefs are all nebulous nothingness. I can't believe people told me that such things were good or necessary. I grew up. I prefer facts, truth, and actions/utility when assessing people, ideas, and so forth. I think inculcating people with faith stunts higher thinking. Morality evolves. I'm not sure religion every kept anyone from doing anything bad-- I think it's just allows them to justify their egregious acts by seeing the person they hurt as "other" or "evil". Religious people certainly aren't more honest than anyone else.

And how do you explain the dysfunction associated in more religious societies in comparison to more secular societies if religion is necessary for values.
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html

With religion, you can just make any claim and people accept it on faith... you don't need evidence, afterall, and "it's arrogant to question god".

Anyhow, I'm a refugee from Catholicism too, and I enjoy your posts.

[six7s]

...And if they really believed in hell, why wouldn't they just castrate themselves. Eternity is a long time...
This type of (il)logic rang one the first 'alarm bells' in my mind... and I was only about 11 years old! Now, very much in retrospect, I am well and truly gob-smacked that (otherwise) intelligent people persevere with such a blatantly nonsensical set of 'morals'. And I have a hunch that faith is an insignificant factor... instead, I think religion fills what some call a 'god shaped hole' in peoples heads/lives

I can't believe people told me that such things were good or necessary. I grew up... Morality evolves...
It occurs to me that the longer someone 'buys into a scam' the more difficult/embarrassing/etc it is to break free

I suspect that the freedoms championed by cultural revolutionaries in the 50s and 60s were far too radical for many under the grip Roman dogma, and for many, breaking habits of a lifetime was no easy task... at least that's my rationale for cutting my parents some slack

And how do you explain the dysfunction associated in more religious societies in comparison to more secular societies if religion is necessary for values.
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
Great link, thanks! Although I have done v little in the way of reading on the subject, I have thought about it quite a bit and a quick skim of the linked study contained no surprises

Maybe widespread dysfunction is unavoidable in a society that actively discourages thinking about (real) personal rights and responsibilities

With religion, you can just make any claim and people accept it on faith... you don't need evidence, afterall, and "it's arrogant to question god".

My hunch is that the human propensity for religion has been exploited by the 'authorities' as a simple (uncomplicated by logic) yet effective means of mass crowd control

Anyhow, I'm a refugee from Catholicism too, and I enjoy your posts.
Thanks! :)

As you can tell, I haven't been active here all that long, but I have already noticed that you and several other regulars contribute more than enough erudite and thought-provoking posts to feed my grey matter with a varied and nourishing diet

Note to self: Don't share any scraps with the trolls