One reason some religious people are such a turn-off.

[raccoon]

Some religious people think what somebody believes is more important than the kind of person they are.

They think because someone believes Jesus was the son of God, that the Bible is literally true, etc., that makes that person “good,” and if someone DOESN’T believe these things, s/he is “bad” and is going to hell.

To me, all that doesn’t mean jacksquat. What does it matter if somebody does believe all those things—and is an asshole in their real life?

The important thing is to be a good person, not to believe a bunch of fairy tales. Which is not to say you can’t do both.

My late uncle married this woman who professed to be Baptist. She did talk the talk; she was a regular attendee at church, helped sew choir robes, etc. But she was a hateful, abusive woman. She used to pick on me, and sometimes one of my sibs, just to be a bitch. (My mother should have taken up for me, but she was too much of a wuss.) This woman was a total controlling bitch. Her husband and daughter probably had to ask her permission to pass gas. And there are others like her. Many others.

It’s people like this that give religious people a bad name.

[meegbear]

1. One needs to look no further than 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue ...

to see how wrong that line of thought is.

[knitter4democracy]

2. I agree. Try going to college with those types.

So hard not to want to run screaming in the other direction when you see them coming at you in the cafeteria just because you hang out with an atheist, a couple of liberals, and the rest of the drama club. *sigh* So many bad memories of that hellhole.

[Warpy]

3. Ah, yes, the Tinkerbell people

who think if they believe hard enough and keep clapping their hands, Tinkerbell will live and St. Peter will punch their ticket for heaven.

You have to admit, though, that Dispensationalism is awfully attractive: all you have to do is give adequate lip service to the myth to be "saved," although bribes help prove your "faith." Never mind all that giving to the poor or inconvenient good works nonsense. All you need do is (metaphorically) clap your hands and Paradise is yours. You can tell the people who are clapping the loudest--they have the most toys here on earth.

Still, whenever I'm around anyone who feels compelled to tell me what a great Christian he is I check my wallet to make sure he hasn't stolen it yet and sprint for the nearest exit. The conspicuously and vocally Christian are the most likely to be Dispensationalists, glad of permission to do their worst on earth.

Christians who keep their mouths shut about their righteousness while they try to live up to what the man told them to do with their lives are among the best people I know. It's a dirty shame the Dispensationalists are giving them all such a bad name.

[azmouse]

4. Words without the actions to back them up are meaningless.

It isn't enough for these people to just voice their beliefs, they must live their beliefs for them to have any power. It's something many Christians forget... myself among them. We're imperfect beings.

[China_cat]

5. The saddest thing I think was the declaration by

somebody very close to me that he had no more responsibility for his daughter's problems (she...rightly...feels that he ignores her for his sons and really couldn't care less about her) since he had 'turned it all over to god, who is the only one who can "fix" her' and that was all he needed to do.

Too often, this is the attitude with religious people..."god forgives me therefore I don't have to say I'm sorry, apologize or make amends for anything I might have done".

And that's just bullshit.

[Zebedeo]

6. Strawman alert

They think because someone believes Jesus was the son of God, that the Bible is literally true, etc., that makes that person “good,” and if someone DOESN’T believe these things, s/he is “bad” and is going to hell.

Who thinks this? You said "some religious people." Who? Links, please.

I am a Christian, and I know many other Christians. I have NEVER heard any Christian assert that faith in Jesus or belief in Scripture makes the Christian "good." Quite to the contrary, Christianity is a very humble religion, whose adherents acknowledge their own sinfulness and unworthiness.

[raccoon]

7. Nope, I don't think so.

I'm speaking from my experience, and, judging from the responses, I'm not the only one on this board who's had this kind of experience.

"Who thinks this? You said "some religious people." Who? Links, please."

You think somebody should provide a link to everything, even if it's something they've observed in real life? :shrug:

SOME people who profess to be Xians, from the way they act and talk it's obvious that they think if you're not "saved" and don't believe exactly what they believe, they're superior to you. If you've never met people like this, you must be either extremely lucky or extremely sheltered.

[Zebedeo]

20. O-fer

six so far. You and your buddies have come up with a big goose egg of actual evidence to support your bigoted anti-Christian rant.

Since this sentiment is so prevalent among Christians that you felt compelled to post a thread complaining about it, you should have no trouble finding dozens of examples of this actually occuring. But instead, it turns out to be just what I said it was - a strawman, and a poor one at that.

[varkam]

22. Uh-oh! It's a "bigoted anti-Christian rant!"

Why don't you alert on it then, Zeb, if it's so bigoted? Surely the mods will swiftly quash it. Otherwise, why don't you stop calling anything that ruffles your feathers "bigoted". It really is just a lame way of trying to stifle any discussion, and it does get pretty old.

And like the other poster noted, we shouldn't have to post links for things that we have experienced in order to satisfy your solipsism. If you're really curious, Google is your friend.

Oh and saying that you've prevailed in discussion doesn't make it so.

[Zebedeo]

24. I think it is better to leave bigotry exposed

than to "quash" it. And I am not trying to "stifle any discussion." Quite to the contrary, I am engaging in discussion. If you take any criticism of your worldview as an attempt to "stifle" discussion, then the problem may lie with your own thin skin, rather than any defect on my part.

What prompted me to post in reply to this OP is that it contains a claim so outrageous that it is the exact opposite of the truth, and I knew that the poster would not be able to offer any actual evidence for it. The truth is that Christianity is unique among the major religions (or perhaps unique among all religions) in that it is the one religion whose adherents acknowledge that they are sinful and unworthy of salvation, and who rely on the grace of God through the Savior Jesus Christ, rather than their own perceived merit. For the poster to claim that Christians are to be singled out for criticism because Christians think they are "good" in contradistinction to non-Christians is an outrageous falsehood, because Christianity is the faith whose adherents acknowledge that they are not good, and that they deserve eternal hellfire and damnation for their sins.

Take the Apostle Paul, for example. He confessed:

"Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners—of whom I am the worst." 1 Tim. 1:15

Does that sound like someone who is claiming he is "better" than others?

[varkam]

26. Where to begin...

The simply fact is that it is not bigotry. It is quite rightly calling out some religious folks - note that it was not a blanket condemnation of Christianity. Your insistance that it is bigotry only reveals your desire to discredit it at face value without actually refuting it, which I sincerely doubt that you could mount an honest attempt to do so.

What prompted me to post in reply to this OP is that it contains a claim so outrageous that it is the exact opposite of the truth, and I knew that the poster would not be able to offer any actual evidence for it.

Again, Zeb. Open your newspaper. Turn on your television. Remove your head from your nether-regions. Seek and ye shall find, Zeb. Seek and ye shall find. As I said, if you are genuinely interested then Google is your friend. Hell, I found the link that I gave you after just two clicks on google. So google away, my god-fearing friend - otherwise I might be tempted to think that you've got your fingers in your eyes.

The truth is that Christianity is unique among the major religions (or perhaps unique among all religions) in that it is the one religion whose adherents acknowledge that they are sinful and unworthy of salvation, and who rely on the grace of God through the Savior Jesus Christ, rather than their own perceived merit.

As another poster noted, would that were actually so. Do you ever notice all those "God Bless America" stickers on cars? What about the Christian fishes? What about the "In Case of Rapture This Vehicle Will Become Unmanned" stickers? How about all the door-to-door bible thumpers telling you how great Christianity is? It's not humility, my friend, it's a faux-humility, a boastful humility, and it is the worst kind.

For the poster to claim that Christians are to be singled out for criticism because Christians think they are "good" in contradistinction to non-Christians is an outrageous falsehood, because Christianity is the faith whose adherents acknowledge that they are not good, and that they deserve eternal hellfire and damnation for their sins.

Now you're just having a laugh I think.

Does that sound like someone who is claiming he is "better" than others?

Wow! You're absolutely right! Something that was written down in a 2,000 year old book and attributed to someone proves that's actually the way Christians operate in modern society!

Give me a break. Just because the bible says so doesn't mean that it is reflected in any sense in reality. The bible also says that Christians should stone adulterers to death - you don't see Christians doing that. The bible also says that people should pray in private - so why are we subjected to countless instances of very public prayer? The bible is essentially meaningless in that people pick and choose what they want to follow, or rather they live how they would like to live and then in an ad hoc fashion pick the parts that they already agree with. That is, of course, unless the bible is your reality, in which case I wish you the very best of luck.

[Zebedeo]

68. Defending bigotry is

quite unbecoming for you, varkam. And the thin reed behind which you hide is an embarassment. Yes, the OP referred to "some religious people" rather than "all Christians." However, the intent was clear. The smear was against Christians, specifically, and including the word "some" is nothing more than a transparent effort to create deniability in case someone called the poster on his/her bigotry.

Suppose I started a thread that said "the reason people can't stand some atheists is that they are total assholes and they commit mass murder alot." Then, if anyone called me on my broad-brushing, I could safely hide behind the fact that I only accused "some" atheists of assholery and mass murder. At least I would be able to provide links proving that "some" atheists are mass-murdering assholes. But I wouldn't post the thread in the first place, because it would be obvious flamebait - as is the OP in this thread.

Again, Zeb. Open your newspaper. Turn on your television. Remove your head from your nether-regions. Seek and ye shall find, Zeb. Seek and ye shall find. As I said, if you are genuinely interested then Google is your friend. Hell, I found the link that I gave you after just two clicks on google. So google away, my god-fearing friend - otherwise I might be tempted to think that you've got your fingers in your eyes.

As another poster noted, would that were actually so. Do you ever notice all those "God Bless America" stickers on cars? What about the Christian fishes? What about the "In Case of Rapture This Vehicle Will Become Unmanned" stickers? How about all the door-to-door bible thumpers telling you how great Christianity is?

What link? Nothing you have listed constitutes Christians claiming that their faith in Jesus makes them "better" than others, which is the claim that was made in the OP. In my experience, door-to-door Bible thumpers do not claim that Christians are "better" than anyone else. They might tell people "how great Christianity is," but that is not evidence for what was claimed in the OP. Neither is a bumper sticker that says "In Case of Rapture This Vehicle Will Become Unmanned." That is a claim that the driver believes s/he will be taken up in the Rapture. It is not evidence to support the claim in the OP, because Christianity does not claim that salvation is based on the individual merit of those that are saved. Quite to the contrary, Christians freely acknowledge their own lack of merit. If I am Raptured or otherwise saved, it will surely not be because I am "better" than anyone else. It will be because Jesus Christ paid for my sins on the cross.

That's what Christians believe. And Christianity is distinguished from all other major religions - and perhaps all religions - by this very fact. Christians do not believe that salvation is dispensed to them based on their own merit. The adherents of many other religions do believe that. And yet raccoon reserved his/her hateful accusation for Christians - the one religion whose adherents acknowledge that they are unworthy. This is what is so outrageous about this thread. All the hysterical caterwauling by atheists in this thread is marked by one very important feature - a lack of evidence that supports the central claim of the OP.

[varkam]

91. You have a very funny conception of what bigotry is.

And the thin reed behind which you hide is an embarassment. Yes, the OP referred to "some religious people" rather than "all Christians." However, the intent was clear. The smear was against Christians, specifically, and including the word "some" is nothing more than a transparent effort to create deniability in case someone called the poster on his/her bigotry.

No, Zeb. That's just you reading into things what you want to read into them. Note at the end of the post, the OP said that "It's people like this that give religious people a bad name". Seems to me that sentiment is trying to say that religious people are generally decent folks, but that there are a few nutters fucking it up for everyone. Are you disagreeing? Is that "anti-Christian bigotry"? Are you saying that the fundies do not give religious people a bad name? Are you agreeing with the fundies?

You see, this is a quite perfect example of playing the bigotry card in a (rather poor) attempt to stifle discussion.

Suppose I started a thread that said "the reason people can't stand some atheists is that they are total assholes and they commit mass murder alot." Then, if anyone called me on my broad-brushing, I could safely hide behind the fact that I only accused "some" atheists of assholery and mass murder. At least I would be able to provide links proving that "some" atheists are mass-murdering assholes. But I wouldn't post the thread in the first place, because it would be obvious flamebait - as is the OP in this thread.

Where did mass murder come from?

For one thing, I wouldn't even say that's a bigoted statement. I would just say that's plain ignorant. There is a difference between ignorance and bigotry, and lucky for you I recognize such a difference. I would set about to correct you on your ignorance, namely the implication that atheism was something other than an accidental trait of tyrants like Pol Pot or Stalin, or that they were killing in the name of atheism (unlike various theists throughout history, I might add).

But also consider this - the thread hasn't been locked and, as another poster's deleted messages surely attest to, the moderators have certainly been here. If it is such transparent anti-Christian bigotry as you claim it is, then why hasn't the thread been locked? Is there a conspiracy among the moderators? Are they setting to to persecute you and your god?

What link? Nothing you have listed constitutes Christians claiming that their faith in Jesus makes them "better" than others, which is the claim that was made in the OP.

I can't find the link I posted, or rather thought I had posted, so here is a different one (but the same subject material). It is a regurgitation of the same old tired apologetics argument that one cannot be moral without god:

Link

Here's a winning quote from the article (that was backed up with scripture!)

Without morality, there is no basis for reconciliation, and without God, there is no basis for morality.

The article also talks about how a rejection of god could be construed as an immoral act.

In chapter 1 of his letter to the Romans, Paul spells out very clearly the moral consequences of people turning away from God. Three times he declares that, as a result of rejecting the truth of God that he has clearly made known in his creation, "God gave them over..." (vv. 24, 26, 28). But what did he give them over to?

"God gave them over in the sinful desires of their heart to sexual impurity..." (v. 24).

"God gave them over to shameful lusts..." (v. 26).

"God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done" (v. 28).

Or hell, if you need more why don't you head on over to GodTube or Conservapedia? You'll find a lot of "humble" Christians speaking about the evils of not believing in a sky-daddy.

In my experience, door-to-door Bible thumpers do not claim that Christians are "better" than anyone else.They might tell people "how great Christianity is," but that is not evidence for what was claimed in the OP. Neither is a bumper sticker that says "In Case of Rapture This Vehicle Will Become Unmanned." That is a claim that the driver believes s/he will be taken up in the Rapture. It is not evidence to support the claim in the OP, because Christianity does not claim that salvation is based on the individual merit of those that are saved. Quite to the contrary, Christians freely acknowledge their own lack of merit. If I am Raptured or otherwise saved, it will surely not be because I am "better" than anyone else. It will be because Jesus Christ paid for my sins on the cross.


In your experience? There is nothing that you have posted to substantiate your claims. I believe you though. I really do ;).

Let's see...in my experience I have been told that I am going to hell, that all other gods are false gods, that the true and only path to forgiveness and salviation is through jesus, et cetera, et cetera, on and on ad infinitum. I have been told all of this by complete strangers who took it upon themselves to knock on my door. Mighty, erm, humble of them.

That's what Christians believe. And Christianity is distinguished from all other major religions - and perhaps all religions - by this very fact. Christians do not believe that salvation is dispensed to them based on their own merit. The adherents of many other religions do believe that. And yet raccoon reserved his/her hateful accusation for Christians - the one religion whose adherents acknowledge that they are unworthy. This is what is so outrageous about this thread. All the hysterical caterwauling by atheists in this thread is marked by one very important feature - a lack of evidence that supports the central claim of the OP.

I know, that's pretty fucked up if you ask me. The notion that someone could live a perfectly good life, helping out everyone along the way, and then be punished for eternity in hellfire for simply not showing the appropriate adulation is, IMO, a fucking disgusting belief system. Even more preposterous is that it is a god of "love" that sends you there.

All this, however, is a complete and total non-sequitur when it comes to the points raised in the OP. I do find it humorous, however, that you have apparently proclaimed yourself god-king of what christians do and do not believe. I know, for example, that there are many christians that believe differently than you do. Are they not christian? Are they really bigoted anti-christians in disguise? Perhaps they're self-hating christians.

What is humility, again?

[Zebedeo]

107. Aaaack!

I am at a loss as to why you are not getting the point.

None of what you have posted or linked to supports the claim set forth in the OP that "some religious people . . . think because someone believes Jesus was the son of God, that the Bible is literally true, etc., that makes that person “good,” and if someone DOESN’T believe these things, s/he is “bad” and is going to hell."

Your link to www.christianity.co.nz does not support this claim, because it does not contain any statements from Christians saying anything of the sort that the OP claimed was the belief of "some religious people." Nowhere in that site is there any claim that Christians are "good." As you point out, there is a claim that without God, there is no basis for morality. That much is true, and is self-evident when you confront the fact that moral relativism leads to the absurd conclusion that no act is objectively more moral than any other act. Still, this claim does not in any way include an assertion that Christians are "good" and therefore deserving of salvation from Hell. The Christian belief is the exact opposite - it is the belief that Christians are sinful and unworthy of salvation, but that salvation is an unearned free gift from God - that's what we mean by saying it is by God's grace.

As for the mass murder comment - I am not asserting in this thread that atheists are mass murderers. Who wants to reopen that can of worms that has been hashed to death already? I just used it as an example of disingenuous use of the phrase "some religious people" or "some atheists." If I posted a thread criticizing "some atheists" in that manner, you would recognize it right away as flamebait, intended to tar atheists in general, not just "some atheists." In the same way, the OP in this thread is flamebait, and is intended to broadbrush Christians in general. The use of the term "some religious people" clearly means Christians, because it says those "some religious people" believe Jesus is the Son of God.

Your pointing out that the thread has not been locked is a nonsequitur. No one has suggested that the thread is deserving of being locked. I don't think it should be. It has sparked some very interesting conversation. Plus, the fact that a thread has not been locked does not in any way imply that the contents of all posts in the thread are approved by the mods, if that is what you are trying to argue.


Let's see...in my experience I have been told that I am going to hell, that all other gods are false gods, that the true and only path to forgiveness and salviation is through jesus, et cetera, et cetera, on and on ad infinitum. I have been told all of this by complete strangers who took it upon themselves to knock on my door.

OK. So? How is that confirmation of the OP's claim? Did the door-to-door Bible thumpers say that they are "good" and therefore deserving of salvation, while others are deserving of damnation? No, they didn't. That may (or may not) be what Muslims believe, or Jews believe, or Hindus believe, or Buddhists believe. But it sure isn't what Christians believe. Nope, Christians believe the exact opposite. "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." Ephesians 2:8-9 You can invent a strawman Christian who believes that he is worthy of salvation by virtue of his own "goodness", but you're going to be hard-pressed to find a Christian outside of your own imagination who believes that.

[varkam]

108. Aaack, indeed.

Your link to www.christianity.co.nz does not support this claim, because it does not contain any statements from Christians saying anything of the sort that the OP claimed was the belief of "some religious people." Nowhere in that site is there any claim that Christians are "good." As you point out, there is a claim that without God, there is no basis for morality. That much is true, and is self-evident when you confront the fact that moral relativism leads to the absurd conclusion that no act is objectively more moral than any other act. Still, this claim does not in any way include an assertion that Christians are "good" and therefore deserving of salvation from Hell. The Christian belief is the exact opposite - it is the belief that Christians are sinful and unworthy of salvation, but that salvation is an unearned free gift from God - that's what we mean by saying it is by God's grace.

It was written...by...a...Christian. Sorry that you seemed to miss that. Also, it's not exactly isolated - rather it is endemic in our society. Oh, and bonus: it had scriptural support! I know how you love those scriptures. Thank you for conceding the point in that Christians believe that they are better people than atheists as they have a basis for morality.

Again, you astound me with your humility by asserting what it is that all Christians believe.

Did you check out Conservapedia? How about GodTube?

As for the mass murder comment - I am not asserting in this thread that atheists are mass murderers. Who wants to reopen that can of worms that has been hashed to death already? I just used it as an example of disingenuous use of the phrase "some religious people" or "some atheists." If I posted a thread criticizing "some atheists" in that manner, you would recognize it right away as flamebait, intended to tar atheists in general, not just "some atheists." In the same way, the OP in this thread is flamebait, and is intended to broadbrush Christians in general. The use of the term "some religious people" clearly means Christians, because it says those "some religious people" believe Jesus is the Son of God.

Your analogy is inept and broken. The fact that Stalin and Pol Pot were atheists is accidental, the fact that some people like those talked about in the OP are religious is not accidental.

And I disagree with your assertion that such a comment would be "broadbrushing". Rather, such a comment (or the implications of it) would simply be mind-numbingly ignorant.

Your pointing out that the thread has not been locked is a nonsequitur. No one has suggested that the thread is deserving of being locked. I don't think it should be. It has sparked some very interesting conversation. Plus, the fact that a thread has not been locked does not in any way imply that the contents of all posts in the thread are approved by the mods, if that is what you are trying to argue.

You said it was bigotry. I said it was not. Note that the rules forbid posting of bigoted comments, and bigoted threads get locked. This thread has not been locked. The OP is not bigotry. You following?

OK. So? How is that confirmation of the OP's claim? Did the door-to-door Bible thumpers say that they are "good" and therefore deserving of salvation, while others are deserving of damnation? No, they didn't. That may (or may not) be what Muslims believe, or Jews believe, or Hindus believe, or Buddhists believe. But it sure isn't what Christians believe. Nope, Christians believe the exact opposite. "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." Ephesians 2:8-9 You can invent a strawman Christian who believes that he is worthy of salvation by virtue of his own "goodness", but you're going to be hard-pressed to find a Christian outside of your own imagination who believes that.

I wasn't advancing that to support the OP, but was rather advancing it to point out (though that was obviously lost on you) the utility to generalizing personal experience to an entire group of people (something which you did via your own personal experience).

Speaking of strawmen, notice that I didn't say Christians believe that people are worthy of salvation through their own goodness. Rather, I affirmed that faith is necessary, and merely pointed out the morally repugnant nature of such a belief. I'll try to simplify my argument for you.

Good person believe. Good person go heaven.
Bad person believe. Bad person go heaven.
Bad person believe AND bad person go heaven? BAD BAD BAD!
Bad person no believe. Bad person go hell.
Good person no believe. Good person go hell.
Good person no believe AND good person go hell? BAD BAD BAD!

Oh, and you still haven't answered my question: what is humility, zeb?

You also never answered my questions about Christians who believe differently than you do. Are they secretly atheists who seek to sabotage Christianity? Are they self-hating Christians? Are they not Christians at all?

[Zebedeo]

109. Last post of the evening

It was written...by...a...Christian. Sorry that you seemed to miss that. Also, it's not exactly isolated - rather it is endemic in our society. Oh, and bonus: it had scriptural support! I know how you love those scriptures. Thank you for conceding the point in that Christians believe that they are better people than atheists as they have a basis for morality.

It was written...by...a...Christian ... but ... it ... didn't ... say ... that ... Christians ... are ... saved ... by ... virtue ... of ... their ... own ... "goodness" ... or ... that ... they ... are ... deserving ... of ... salvation. And I conceded no such point. Christians do not believe they are better people than atheists. Atheists have a basis for morality, too. It is the very same Law of God that is written on the hearts of us all. While atheists would be loath to admit it, their objective standard of morality is the very same one that applies to us all.

Did you check out Conservapedia? How about GodTube?

I did read the article on Christianity at Conservapedia. Nothing in there about Christians being better than non-Christians, or more deserving of salvation. The part on morality said that Christians believe we are to love God and one another. The part about salvation said that it is through God's grace, not works.

I went to Godtube. Don't know what you are referring to there. There was a video called "bad evangelism" that showed how not to evangelize. Is that what you find objectionable? Or was it the little girl reciting Psalm 23? Or the "99 Balloons" video about a little boy who lived for only 99 days, but for whom his parents thanked God?

Good person believe. Good person go heaven.
Bad person believe. Bad person go heaven.
Bad person believe AND bad person go heaven? BAD BAD BAD!
Bad person no believe. Bad person go hell.
Good person no believe. Good person go hell.
Good person no believe AND good person go hell? BAD BAD BAD!

First, I disagree with your premise that people are classified as either "good" or "bad." I believe that all people are sinful. Where do you draw the line between a "good" person and a "bad" person? If 51% of a persons acts are "good" and 49% of his acts are "bad," does the person qualify as a "good" person?

Second, I would like to know by what objective standard you conclude that it is "BAD BAD BAD" that "bad" believers go to Heaven or that "good" nonbelievers go to Hell. Is it just your personal preference, like favoring pistacchio ice cream, or is it something more than that?

Oh, and you still haven't answered my question: what is humility, zeb?

I never set out to define humility, but since you asked, I'll give it a shot: Humility is the opposite of pride or arrogance. It is the recognition that oneself is not worthy, either in comparison to others, or in comparison to a standard of worthiness.

You also never answered my questions about Christians who believe differently than you do. Are they secretly atheists who seek to sabotage Christianity? Are they self-hating Christians? Are they not Christians at all?

Depends on what the difference is. Christianity is a big tent, with many groups that have different theological beliefs. There certainly are central beliefs, however, and I think if you lack some of these central beliefs, it is erroneous to call yourself a Christian. For example, if you don't believe in the existence of God, I don't really think it is fair to call yourself a Christian. If you don't believe in the divinity of Christ, I don't think you are a Christian. If you don't worship Jesus Christ, I'd say you are not a Christian. Still, I would consider Catholics, Baptists, Pentacostalists, Presbyterians, Eastern Orthodox, Lutherans, Nazarenes, Methodists and all manner of other denominations to be Christian. I visited Southern Italy this year, and met some very nice Catholics who had some very strange beliefs and practices. They seemed to worship Mary. They had large statues of Mary in their churches, set high over the altar in glass cases. It was hard to find a cross anywhere in the churches, and if you did find one, it was off to the side and very small. They took their Mary statues out from time to time and paraded them around the village. Each church in the village had its own distinct Madonna statue and shopkeepers displayed pictures of their favorite Madonna. People would come into the church and drop coins into a machine at the foot of some smaller statues of Mary, thereby triggering a mechanical mechanism that would light up some electric candles for a period of time. The more coins dropped into the slot, the more candles lit up. If you ask me, those nice people were committing a grave theological error in seeming to worship Mary above Jesus. I would conclude that it was idolatry, pure and simple. And yet, I believe that these people are saved and are going to Heaven when they die, because they are Christians who have accepted God's gift of His Son.

[varkam]

112. .

It was written...by...a...Christian ... but ... it ... didn't ... say ... that ... Christians ... are ... saved ... by ... virtue ... of ... their ... own ... "goodness" ... or ... that ... they ... are ... deserving ... of ... salvation. And I conceded no such point. Christians do not believe they are better people than atheists. Atheists have a basis for morality, too. It is the very same Law of God that is written on the hearts of us all. While atheists would be loath to admit it, their objective standard of morality is the very same one that applies to us all.

Totally irrelevant. The point wasn't that the article was supposed to prove was that Christians are saved by virtue of their own goodness, nor that they are deserving of salvation. Rather, the point of my posting that was to illustrate the oft-heard argument that one cannot be moral without their sky-daddy. It is rather hard to discuss something with someone when the goal-posts keep moving around all the time.

I did read the article on Christianity at Conservapedia. Nothing in there about Christians being better than non-Christians, or more deserving of salvation. The part on morality said that Christians believe we are to love God and one another. The part about salvation said that it is through God's grace, not works.

I went to Godtube. Don't know what you are referring to there. There was a video called "bad evangelism" that showed how not to evangelize. Is that what you find objectionable? Or was it the little girl reciting Psalm 23? Or the "99 Balloons" video about a little boy who lived for only 99 days, but for whom his parents thanked God?

Obviously if you don't see it then it doesn't exist, right Zeb? Hence the original title of my first post here "Solipsism alert".

Oh, try reading the Conservapedia article on atheism. One of the possible mentions for a reason to be an atheist is "moral depravity".

All that being said, I know that this is hopeless. I know that even if I took the time to give you pages upon pages of links of Christians being anything but humble, you would dismiss it all out of hand. That's really why I haven't - I don't want to waste my time any more than I already do.

First, I disagree with your premise that people are classified as either "good" or "bad." I believe that all people are sinful. Where do you draw the line between a "good" person and a "bad" person? If 51% of a persons acts are "good" and 49% of his acts are "bad," does the person qualify as a "good" person?

Second, I would like to know by what objective standard you conclude that it is "BAD BAD BAD" that "bad" believers go to Heaven or that "good" nonbelievers go to Hell. Is it just your personal preference, like favoring pistacchio ice cream, or is it something more than that?

You're missing the point, and getting dragged down into the minutiae. Your first question is totally irrelevant to my objection.

Oh, and why do I think that it is wrong that theists who do fucked up things like rape and murder go to heaven, whereas non-theists who try to help other people go to hell? Are you seriously saying that without god one can have no conception of right or wrong? Are you saying that without god there can be no objective moral standards? Are you advancing the same nuttery that, like mentioned in the OP, gives religious people a bad name?

I'll turn that back around on you, though - how do you account for morality, or rather how do you account for it in the context of a good god? I mean, it seems rather empty to say that god is good, because he set up all the rules in the first place. Otherwise, god is merely saying what is and what is not good on the basis of some external morality - which means that you don't need the sky-daddy to have morality.

And why aren't you stoning adulterers to death, Zeb? Get to work, baby!

I never set out to define humility, but since you asked, I'll give it a shot: Humility is the opposite of pride or arrogance. It is the recognition that oneself is not worthy, either in comparison to others, or in comparison to a standard of worthiness.

I know that you never set out to define humility, Zeb. I was just curious where the part about declaring yourself god-king of Christianity and insinuating other people to be mentally unfit squares with your personal definition of humility.

Depends on what the difference is. Christianity is a big tent, with many groups that have different theological beliefs.

I would like you to re-read that bit Zeb, and meditate on it for a moment.

There certainly are central beliefs, however, and I think if you lack some of these central beliefs, it is erroneous to call yourself a Christian. For example, if you don't believe in the existence of God, I don't really think it is fair to call yourself a Christian.

Okay.

If you don't believe in the divinity of Christ, I don't think you are a Christian. If you don't worship Jesus Christ, I'd say you are not a Christian. Still, I would consider Catholics, Baptists, Pentacostalists, Presbyterians, Eastern Orthodox, Lutherans, Nazarenes, Methodists and all manner of other denominations to be Christian.

Okay.

I visited Southern Italy this year, and met some very nice Catholics who had some very strange beliefs and practices. They seemed to worship Mary. They had large statues of Mary in their churches, set high over the altar in glass cases. It was hard to find a cross anywhere in the churches, and if you did find one, it was off to the side and very small. They took their Mary statues out from time to time and paraded them around the village. Each church in the village had its own distinct Madonna statue and shopkeepers displayed pictures of their favorite Madonna. People would come into the church and drop coins into a machine at the foot of some smaller statues of Mary, thereby triggering a mechanical mechanism that would light up some electric candles for a period of time. The more coins dropped into the slot, the more candles lit up. If you ask me, those nice people were committing a grave theological error in seeming to worship Mary above Jesus. I would conclude that it was idolatry, pure and simple. And yet, I believe that these people are saved and are going to Heaven when they die, because they are Christians who have accepted God's gift of His Son.

Okay. So you've so far admitted that Christians believe all sorts of different things, and that many of them believe differently than you do, save for a few central tenets. Good for you! Maybe you'll get this humility thing yet.

[Zebedeo]

132. No, varkam.

You are the one moving the goalposts. The OP’s assertion was:

Some religious people . . . think because someone believes Jesus was the son of God, that the Bible is literally true, etc., that makes that person “good,” and if someone DOESN’T believe these things, s/he is “bad” and is going to hell.

I took issue with this, calling it a strawman, and challenged the poster to provide evidence that Christians think this way.

You stepped up to defend that central thesis of the OP, and you have claimed throughout this thread that Christians do believe as stated in the OP. Yet when I have pointed out that none of your cited examples (or the unsubstantiated RL stories told by other posters) actually support the thesis of the OP, you have repeatedly moved the goalposts. You and your cohorts have offered evidence that sometimes Christians behave badly, and that Christians believe that the source of objective morality is God. But you have utterly failed to offer any evidence supporting the thesis of the OP. No one in this thread has provided any evidence or even any unsubstantiated assertions of RL stories that indicate that Christians believe that believing in Jesus makes the persons “good,” while disbelieving them makes the person “bad.” In all the vast tubing of the internets, you have not found a single Christian who actually has stated that view. Don’t you find that remarkable?

Now that you and all others in this thread have been unable to find anything that supports the thesis of the OP, you attempt to move the goalposts by saying The point wasn't that the article was supposed to prove was that Christians are saved by virtue of their own goodness. Yet, that was the thesis of the OP which you attempted to defend. The OP stated that Christians believe that their belief in Jesus makes them "good" and worthy of salvation, while non-Christians' lack of belief in Jesus makes them "bad" and worthy of damnation to Hell.

What I find outrageous about the central thesis of the OP is that it is not just untrue; it is the opposite of the truth. Of all major religions, Christianity is the one that does not claim that its adherents are “good” and therefore deserving of salvation rather than damnation. Christianity holds that salvation is by the grace of God through faith, and not of works, so that no man may boast. St. Paul called himself the worst of sinners. So to single out Christians for rebuke on the basis that they think they are “good” and therefore going to Heaven as opposed to non-Christians who are “bad” and therefore going to Hell is an outrageous falsification of the true state of affairs. It is like criticizing Barack Obama for being “too white” to be President. That would be an outrageous and stupid statement, because he’s the candidate for President who is not white, and all previous presidents have been whiter than him.

Now, on to another point. You said it is “BAD BAD BAD” that “bad” people go to heaven. Specifically, you said:

Good person believe. Good person go heaven.
Bad person believe. Bad person go heaven.
Bad person believe AND bad person go heaven? BAD BAD BAD!
Bad person no believe. Bad person go hell.
Good person no believe. Good person go hell.
Good person no believe AND good person go hell? BAD BAD BAD!

I told you that I disagree with your premise that people are classified as either "good" or "bad." I believe that all people are sinful. I then asked you where you draw the line between a "good" person and a "bad" person? If 51% of a person’s acts are "good" and 49% of his acts are "bad," does the person qualify as a "good" person? You have dismissed the question as “irrelevant,” but I think it is highly relevant to your objection. You apparently think that people are either “good” or “bad” and that “bad” people should not be admitted into Heaven, and “good” people should never go to Hell. Given that assertion by you, I think it is incumbent on you to state how you determine whether someone is a “good” person or a “bad” person. I personally don’t think you can do it, because you will be confronted with the realization that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23) and “there is no one righteous, not even one.” Romans 3:10. “There is not a righteous man on earth who does what is right and never sins.” Ecclesiastes 7:20

If you will step up to the plate and answer this question, then I will answer your questions:

'll turn that back around on you, though - how do you account for morality, or rather how do you account for it in the context of a good god?

And why aren't you stoning adulterers to death, Zeb? Get to work, baby!

[varkam]

133. Again, speaking of strawmen...

I took issue with this, calling it a strawman, and challenged the poster to provide evidence that Christians think this way.

You stepped up to defend that central thesis of the OP, and you have claimed throughout this thread that Christians do believe as stated in the OP. Yet when I have pointed out that none of your cited examples (or the unsubstantiated RL stories told by other posters) actually support the thesis of the OP, you have repeatedly moved the goalposts. You and your cohorts have offered evidence that sometimes Christians behave badly, and that Christians believe that the source of objective morality is God. But you have utterly failed to offer any evidence supporting the thesis of the OP. No one in this thread has provided any evidence or even any unsubstantiated assertions of RL stories that indicate that Christians believe that believing in Jesus makes the persons “good,” while disbelieving them makes the person “bad.” In all the vast tubing of the internets, you have not found a single Christian who actually has stated that view. Don’t you find that remarkable?

I never posted that Christians believed as stated in the OP. Rather, the point is that some Christians obviously do believe that way and that such thinking that religion and morality go hand in hand has become endemic in our society. You're free to continue to ignore the evidence offered by both myself and others in this thread in order to sate your own cognitive dissonance for advancing your own ridiculous claims. I mean, I know that rational discourse isn't likely to sway you.

I still find it funny, though, that you said that you believed the personal stories of Christians in this thread - yet you obviously do not. For instance, to refute your claim that the college web page details how the college operates in actuality, k4d ran over a laundry list of items that do not support that claim (including rape). You responded by, among other things, saying that such a rape did not happen since it wasn't reported to police. Oh, and bonus points! You tried to ridicule me by saying that since there was no mention of the rape in the news, then it also didn't happen, following that up with "What was it you said about Google being my friend, varkam?" Priceless.

I am interested to know, though, how you would know better about how the atmosphere of a particular college campus than someone who actually went to that college? Does the bible say so? Maybe it's that omniscient humility thing that you seem to have going on.

Now that you and all others in this thread have been unable to find anything that supports the thesis of the OP, you attempt to move the goalposts by saying The point wasn't that the article was supposed to prove was that Christians are saved by virtue of their own goodness. Yet, that was the thesis of the OP which you attempted to defend. The OP stated that Christians believe that their belief in Jesus makes them "good" and worthy of salvation, while non-Christians' lack of belief in Jesus makes them "bad" and worthy of damnation to Hell.

That was never the point of the thread, Zeb, nor was it the point of the OP. In fact, the OP said exactly nothing about salvation. The OP had nothing to do with whether or not one is going to heaven. Please, please, please point out in the OP where the claim that "Christians believe that they are saved by virtue of their own goodness". Please, please, please point that out. I'll be waiting with bated breath.

That was a side topic that I introduced a few posts ago - and has nothing to do with the OP.

Rather, the OP was making a claim on good versus bad independent of salvation and whether or not Christians go to heaven just because they are Christian - though as you have admitted yourself, Christians go to heaven whether or not they have raped and murdered dozens of people. Faith, not works, right?

Oh, and in order to disprove your "refutation" of the OP, I need only reference you to your very own posts in this thread. That is, unless, you're not a Christian. ;)



What I find outrageous about the central thesis of the OP is that it is not just untrue; it is the opposite of the truth. Of all major religions, Christianity is the one that does not claim that its adherents are “good” and therefore deserving of salvation rather than damnation. Christianity holds that salvation is by the grace of God through faith, and not of works, so that no man may boast. St. Paul called himself the worst of sinners. So to single out Christians for rebuke on the basis that they think they are “good” and therefore going to Heaven as opposed to non-Christians who are “bad” and therefore going to Hell is an outrageous falsification of the true state of affairs. It is like criticizing Barack Obama for being “too white” to be President. That would be an outrageous and stupid statement, because he’s the candidate for President who is not white, and all previous presidents have been whiter than him.

Such an attempt at refutation is lame, and I have explained to you why it is such. Firstly, why are you not stoning adulterers to death? It says that this should be done in the bible. I mean, if modern day Christians follow everything in the bible to the letter, then why aren't we constantly reading about adulterers being stoned to death? Secondly, the humility shown by many Christians is not humility at all, but is rather a prideful humility (which kind of defeats the purpose if you ask me).

I'll agree that the bible says that Christians should admit their own sinfulness and unworthiness (eg humility), but that's not how it works in the real world. I don't know if you get out much, but...

I told you that I disagree with your premise that people are classified as either "good" or "bad." I believe that all people are sinful. I then asked you where you draw the line between a "good" person and a "bad" person? If 51% of a person’s acts are "good" and 49% of his acts are "bad," does the person qualify as a "good" person? You have dismissed the question as “irrelevant,” but I think it is highly relevant to your objection.

It is not relevant at all to my question, seeing as how that is not what I was asking. The question I was asking was: Is it moral that a person whose acts are 100% "good" is sent to hell for merely not believing in god? Your attempt to muddy the waters, however, is duly noted.


You apparently think that people are either “good” or “bad” and that “bad” people should not be admitted into Heaven, and “good” people should never go to Hell. Given that assertion by you, I think it is incumbent on you to state how you determine whether someone is a “good” person or a “bad” person. I personally don’t think you can do it, because you will be confronted with the realization that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23) and “there is no one righteous, not even one.” Romans 3:10. “There is not a righteous man on earth who does what is right and never sins.” Ecclesiastes 7:20

Personally, I don't think that you can. Viewing morality as god-given is childish, and falls apart under it's own internal contradiction. Philosphers in ancient Greece documented the flaws in such a viewpoint, and Christians (or Jews or Muslims, for that matter) still do not have a cogent response other than sticking their fingers in their ears and saying "Na Na Na Na Na! I can't hear you!" It is fun to pretend that such problems do not exist, but that doesn't mean that they go away when you shut your eyes.

I will be confronted with that realization, will I? You do realize that I don't believe in god, correct? You do further realize that I don't think anyone can fall short of the glory of something that is a fiction, correct? You do realize that the bible is chock full of inaccuracies, misstatements, mistranslations, and lies, correct? So why would you bother quoting scripture to me to try to win an argument? Do you think that I place any stock in what the bible says? You're going to have to do a bit better than that, Zebby.

Oh, and I don't believe that people are either "good" or "bad", but rather I think that morality is much more complex than that. It was just a convenient way of spelling out a morally repugnant aspect of Christianity.

If you will step up to the plate and answer this question, then I will answer your questions:

Your question is inept, and broken, as was your analogy a few posts back.

Oh, and I don't really expect you to solve the problems with Christian ethical philosophy that have plagued theologians for so long - I was merely proving a point.

[Zebedeo]

135. You appear to be confused by your own contradictory remarks

I said:

"What prompted me to post in reply to this OP is that it contains a claim so outrageous that it is the exact opposite of the truth, and I knew that the poster would not be able to offer any actual evidence for it."

In your Post #26, you quoted this portion of my post, and then you said:

"Again, Zeb. Open your newspaper. Turn on your television. Remove your head from your nether-regions. Seek and ye shall find, Zeb. Seek and ye shall find. As I said, if you are genuinely interested then Google is your friend. Hell, I found the link that I gave you after just two clicks on google. So google away, my god-fearing friend - otherwise I might be tempted to think that you've got your fingers in your eyes."

So, you WERE claiming that Christians believe as stated in the OP. Yet, in your most recent post, you state:

"I never posted that Christians believed as stated in the OP."

Then, immediately after that whopper of a backpedal, you say:

"Rather, the point is that some Christians obviously do believe that way."

And yet, you have been unable to find any evidence of a Christian actually believing "that way." This is because the claim of the OP was a STRAWMAN, and your defense of the OP's thesis has failed due to lack of evidence that ANY Christian believes as stated in the OP.

That was never the point of the thread, Zeb, nor was it the point of the OP. In fact, the OP said exactly nothing about salvation. The OP had nothing to do with whether or not one is going to heaven. Please, please, please point out in the OP where the claim that "Christians believe that they are saved by virtue of their own goodness". Please, please, please point that out. I'll be waiting with bated breath.

Incorrect. The OP asserted:

"Some religious people . . . think because someone believes Jesus was the son of God, that the Bible is literally true, etc., that makes that person “good,” and if someone DOESN’T believe these things, s/he is “bad” and is going to hell."

That DOES say something about salvation. While it doesn't mention Heaven by name, it mentions Hell by name and asserts that Christians believe that lack of belief in Jesus makes someone "bad" and dooms the person to Hell, in contrast to those who do believe in Jesus, whose belief in Jesus "makes that person 'good'" (and by implication, deserving of salvation from Hell).

Next topic:

why are you not stoning adulterers to death? It says that this should be done in the bible.

Here's what my Bible says on the topic of stoning adulterers to death:

"If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." John 8:7

Next topic:

I am interested to know, though, how you would know better about how the atmosphere of a particular college campus than someone who actually went to that college?

I don't claim to know better than k4d about how the atmosphere of her college campus was. That is another strawman. I never claimed to know more about that college. Instead, I merely pointed out that her link to the website of the college provided no support for the OP's thesis regarding how Christians supposedly think.

Next topic:

You are understandably reluctant to answer my question about how you determine whether a person is "good" or "bad." You have sidestepped the question repeatedly, because you have no way to answer the question without admitting the existence of God. My citation to Scripture is not meant to convict you on the basis that it is in the Bible (which I know you disbelieve). Rather, I proposed that you would be confronted by the realization (on your own) that no one is without sin (i.e. no one is 100% good). The fact that this realization is written in the Bible is just gravy.

You assert that my concept of morality is "childish," and yet it is you who, in the same post, rely on the following gem of maturity: Na Na Na Na Na! I can't hear you!

On edit:

In the same post, you state:

1. Oh, and I don't believe that people are either "good" or "bad"

and

2. Is it moral that a person whose acts are 100% "good" is sent to hell for merely not believing in god?

[varkam]

137. No, I think I just left out a key word.

"I never posted that Christians believed as stated in the OP."

I should have placed "all" in that sentence - which was what I meant in reply to you. In the following sentence I say that some Christians obviously do believe that way.

And yet, you have been unable to find any evidence of a Christian actually believing "that way." This is because the claim of the OP was a STRAWMAN, and your defense of the OP's thesis has failed due to lack of evidence that ANY Christian believes as stated in the OP.

Myself and others have provided you with evidence, Zeb. Your continued refusal to acknowledge it, however, is something else entirely from us being unable to find any evidence. For my money, I don't really need to "find" it - I live in a society where I'm surrounded by it.

That DOES say something about salvation. While it doesn't mention Heaven by name, it mentions Hell by name and asserts that Christians believe that lack of belief in Jesus makes someone "bad" and dooms the person to Hell, in contrast to those who do believe in Jesus, whose belief in Jesus "makes that person 'good'" (and by implication, deserving of salvation from Hell).

I disagree. I think the reference to hell was tossed in as an afterthought, more like a reference to emotional reactions that humble Christians have to non-believers as opposed to any serious attempt at a theological commentary. The way I took the entire thing, it is completely removed from salvation - but rather applies to here and now.

"If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." John 8:7

Then how can you hold several different contradictory ideas as true simultaneously? How do you pick what is "true" and what is not when the bible contradicts itself time and again?

I don't claim to know better than k4d about how the atmosphere of her college campus was. That is another strawman. I never claimed to know more about that college. Instead, I merely pointed out that her link to the website of the college provided no support for the OP's thesis regarding how Christians supposedly think.

Is it now?

That's not what you pointed out, and that's not why she posted that link. Rather, you used the information contained within that link to try to refute what k4d said about her experiences. Lest you think I'm accusing you of something you did not do, please feel free to reference the discussion down-thread.

You are understandably reluctant to answer my question about how you determine whether a person is "good" or "bad." You have sidestepped the question repeatedly, because you have no way to answer the question without admitting the existence of God. My citation to Scripture is not meant to convict you on the basis that it is in the Bible (which I know you disbelieve). Rather, I proposed that you would be confronted by the realization (on your own) that no one is without sin (i.e. no one is 100% good). The fact that this realization is written in the Bible is just gravy.

As I said previously, I don't think that people are "good" or "bad". In other words, I'm denying the very assumption that people are one or the other. As for morality, I know that whatever I have to say will not convince you in the slightest, but a secular morality empowers human existence whereas a theistically-driven morality tends to cheapen it on the basis that life or the things in it are not valuable in and of themselves, but rather only for the value with which god (or allah or jehovah) places in it. You can assume that I can't account for morality without admitting the existence of god all you want to, but it doesn't make it so.

And I know that people make mistakes and do bad things, Zeb. I'm one of the first among them. I never contended that anyone was 100% good - but rather that was a hypothetical.

And it isn't exactly an earth-shattering observation, either - the notion that people do all sorts of things to one another that result in suffering and pain. I'm sure even ancient nomads could grasp that concept and write it down.

1. Oh, and I don't believe that people are either "good" or "bad"

and

2. Is it moral that a person whose acts are 100% "good" is sent to hell for merely not believing in god?

The two have nothing to do with one another. The first one has to do with my personal beliefs, whereas the second quip is a question that I'm asking you on the basis of Christian theology - not my personal beliefs. Feel free to answer the question, though, if you would like.

[MikeH]

115. Humility

Humility is the opposite of pride or arrogance.

I will certainly agree with that much.

It is the recognition that oneself is not worthy, either in comparison to others, or in comparison to a standard of worthiness.

Perhaps.

I would say that humility would include seriously considering the possibility that one might be wrong in one's beliefs, particularly any beliefs that one feels certain about. And it would especially include considering the possibility that even if one is on the right path for oneself, that does not necessarily mean that somebody who is following a different path is wrong, and is headed for deep trouble either in this life or especially in the next life (if there is one).

For instance a Christian might feel certain that for himself/herself the Bible is the "authoritative Word of God", and Jesus is "the Way" for that person to follow. However a truly humble Christian would respect that a different path might be right for someone else to follow, and would especially respect that another person might not be wrong, and maybe even just might be right, in not accepting the Bible as the "authoritative Word of God", and that it might be the right thing for a person to not "accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior", or it might be the right thing for a particular person who has been a Christian to part company with the Christian faith.

A truly humble person does not think that he/she has God's plan all "figured out" from what is said in the Bible or any other alleged revelation from God, and has not figured out what religious or spiritual path is right or wrong for another person.

I find it very arrogant, and not humble, for a Christian to feel certain that the Bible is the "authoritative Word of God" to the point that the person feels very certain in thinking that other people had better "accept Christ as their Lord and Savior" or else they are liable to be condemned to hell for all eternity.

[ironbark]

118. Oh yes……The arrogance of certainty

and the humility of doubt.

“I would say that humility would include seriously considering the possibility that one might be wrong in one's beliefs, particularly any beliefs that one feels certain about.” MikeH

As a humble agnostic I have difficulty comprehending the arrogance of certainty that there is a god as well as the arrogance of certainty there is not.

Especially when either pov will not entertain doubt or even consider and explore the hypothetical possibility of the other.

Enjoyed your post, thanks.

[varkam]

120. Being humble is a bit like being powerful.

If you have to say that you are, then you are most certainly not. I seriously almost through that you were being sarcastic when you wrote that - but then I realized that you were stone-faced serious.

However, please point out in this thread where you feel you have demonstrated yourself to be "humble".

[ironbark]

123. Then there is the humility

of the all seeing pseudo psychic insight eye that knows what the other is thinking even if there is nothing in the text/post to support the assertion-

“…you're saying that I'm lying”V
“...I realized that you were stone-faced serious.”V

The Jedi Atheist Master can see into the very soul and knows thoughts unspoken and motivations and intent unsated- “retribution, hatchet job, thread hijack…ect ect ect….”

I will leave it to the Master to announce (through psychic “realization” ;-) wether the passage above is “stone-faced serious” ;-)

“However, please point out in this thread where you feel you have demonstrated yourself to be "humble".”

Ok Varkam….but do keep in mind that my humility is a small and humble one (not grand and obvious like yours ;-)…we may need to search a little further than beyond this single thread ;-)

Here are three small hallmarks of my minor humility since arriving here Varkam.

1/ I have not obliged any respondent to incessantly declare- “I did not say that, I did not say suggest or infer that, that is fabrication of my pov”
(I suspect it comes of the humble suspicion that what the other person >actually said< is worthy of hearing, attempting to understand and respond to……..as opposed to the arrogant confidence of making shit up for them ;-)

2/ I remain humble enough not to believe (and/or project) that I have some kind of psychic insight into others thoughts, motivation, character or intent and therefore do not speculate about such matters.

3/ I seek to understand and responding to the others core points and issues raised, often point by point, rather than cutting, ignoring, squibing, misrepresenting or relying on smearing innuendo- .

“I'm sure that our friend will say that he wasn't calling me a bigot” Varkam

Reeks of honesty and humility doesn’t it.

[varkam]

127. You're missing something.

Namely, the fact that I have never asserted that I was humble.

[varkam]

130. Editing period has expired. See below, though. eom

[MikeH]

122. Thanks, ironbark

I would also consider myself to be an agnostic, just on the believing side of agnostic. Actually I would consider myself to be a Deist. I.e. I am not an atheist, but do not adhere to any of the "revealed" religions, such as Christianity, Islam, etc., and do not accept any alleged revelations from God, such as the Bible, the Koran, etc.

I used to be a Christian but came to feel that Christianity had not been of help to me personally. I particularly have problems with the fundamentalist Christianity as adhered to by people like Zeb.

In a number of posts, most of which are in my journal, I have described the process by which I have come to be unhappy with Christianity, and also why I am not an atheist.

And yes, one's spiritual or life journey is a process, and not something at which one can pretty much have everything figured out.

[ironbark]

126. I have a much more complex and confused

theology Mike….I’m an atheist when I can’t find a car park, an agnostic 9-5, and a believer when hiking, listening to music, gardening or making love.

Yea….I know it’s fickle and shallow but it’s all I’ve got ;-)

“…do not adhere to any of the "revealed" religions, such as Christianity, Islam, etc., and do not accept any alleged revelations from God, such as the Bible, the Koran, etc.”

Yup….me neither….but I live on a planet along with billions who do believe and I can’t see them giving it up any time soon. So, as a matter of pragmatic necessity, I remain interested/curious as to what they are and have been up to.

“I used to be a Christian but came to feel that Christianity had not been of help to me personally.”

Again agreed, in terms of personal spiritual growth it may not have much to offer…but if and when I see Christianity/West on collision with Islam/East I have a ‘personal’ investment in- ‘Please…not on my/my children’s planet’.

“… one's spiritual or life journey is a process, and not something at which one can pretty much have everything figured out.”

Mike…..All I’ve “figured out” this week is that I can’t afford the next stage of “the journey” and I’m sitting in agnostic bus stop till something picks me up ;-)

All the best.
(I'll check out the journal)

[Zebedeo]

131. I have a different view

In my view, you are conflating humility with uncertainty or equivocation. You may believe that there are "many paths" for a person to follow, all of which are "valid" or all of which "lead to God," but, respectfully, I don't believe that is true. My religious belief is that God became manifest on Earth in the form of Jesus Christ and He said very clearly "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." No amount of modern ecumenicalism can change that truth.

If you regard it as arrogant that I am firm in my belief in this doctrine, please consider the fact that you are also firm in your belief in the opposite doctrine (here I am referring to your belief that there are many spiritual paths, with some being "right" for some people and some being "right" for others). Since we are both firm in our beliefs, it would seem that the "arrogant" label would apply equally to you, if it applies to me.

Having conversed with you in this thread, I now have a vague recollection of our prior discussion. If I remember correctly, I think I just said something about how God loves his lost sheep and desires that they return to Him. Inexplicably, you apparently took that as some kind of personal attack, and are now commiserating with others in this thread about how mean old Zebedeo was quoting Scripture "at" you. I am terribly sorry for having subjected you to such unbearable victimization. Surely it must sting to be told that you are loved.

[MikeH]

134. FYI Here is the offending passage you had quoted at me that I was referring to

If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. 21It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them. 2 Peter 2:20-21

And here is your particular post.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=82109&mesg_id=82298

So what you had quoted at me was NOT about God loving his lost sheep.

[MikeH]

136. Humility also consists of being able to see ourselves as others see us

Zeb, you seem to be totally lacking in the ability to see yourself as others perceive you; otherwise you would realize how arrogant, smug, and insensitive you come across at some times, and how ridiculous you come across at other times.

In fact, C. S. Lewis, in his introduction to Screwtape Letters (which I am sure is one of your favorite books, you being the kind of Christian you are), talks about humor as involving a sense of proportion and the ability to see yourself from the outside. I think humility would also involve these attributes. You, in common with the devils (at least according to C. S. Lewis), seem to be completely lacking in these attributes.

I think it is ridiculous for you to think that I am arrogant for being firm in my belief that there are many spiritual paths.

By your unquestioningly accepting that Jesus is the only way for any person just because this one particular book, The BIBLE, says so, and the Bible is (supposedly) God's absolute truth which must not be questioned, you are no different from the good Germans in the 1930's who went along with Hitler, and accepted that the Germans were the master race, and other races were inferior, because Hitler said so.

In comparing you to the "good Germans", please keep in mind that it is with the benefit of hindsight and of history that nobody now denies how evil Hitler was. In the 1930's many people who went along with Hitler were outwardly "good" people, some of them "good" Christians. And here in America, a large portion of shrub's "base" has consisted of, and still consists of, YOUR TYPE of Christians, Zeb, i.e. fundamentalist Christians who unquestioningly and uncritically accept that this one particular book, the Bible, is God's absolute truth.

And even though you probably are not guilty of anti-Semitism, or other specific crimes and sins that the Nazis were guilty of, the psychology of unquestioning absolute adherence to any authority is the same, whether that authority be the Bible, Hitler, the Koran, the Pope, or anything or anybody else.

So you consider yourself "humble" because you unquestioningly accept the authority of the Bible, and consider me to be "arrogant" because I do not accept such authority, and reject the teaching that Jesus is "the only way" to God, and instead believe that there are many different spiritual paths, some being right for some, and others being right for others.

You might just as well consider a "good German" to be humble because he/she unquestioningly accepts the authority of Hitler, and firmly believes that Germans are the master race, and other races are inferior. And you would by the same logic then consider someone who firmly holds to the conviction, expressed in our Declaration of Independence, that all men (and women, too) are created equal, as being arrogant.

And yes, I am firm in my beliefs that there are many spiritual paths, some of which might be right for some, and some right for others. In particular, I absolutely and totally reject, with all my being, any obligation to concern myself with whether others are "saved" or "unsaved", and to tell others that they need to "accept Christ", motivated by the belief that Jesus is "the way and the truth", and "nobody comes to the father but through him". I do not see how one can get any joy or enjoyment out of life if one really believes that and has to have in the back of one's mind that others are either "saved" or "unsaved". If this makes me "arrogant", then so be it. However if you really think that this makes me arrogant, then you are absolutely crazy.

[raccoon]

28. Speaking of "actual evidence"

What actual evidence to you have that Jesus CHrist ever existed? That King David ever existed? and I could go on.

Because somebody wrote it and it's in the Bible, you may say? Did Beowulf and Grendel exist because somebody wrote a story about them?

Your posts imply that ALL Xians believe totally what they say they believe. I daresay that is not true of any religion.

This is my last response to you, because I think you're just trolling. I did a search on your posts and I notice you like to argue a lot with people in this forum. Your reference in one post to the "Good Book" is just too stereotypical.

Have a nice day.

[varkam]

29. Zeb is big on evidence...

...that is, when it comes to positions that contradict what he believes. When it comes to his beliefs, however...well...you know...there's that "faith" thingy.

[ironbark]

42. What's the point of "evidence"?

If the mere request for evidence/substantiation evokes the accusation that you are calling the other a "liar".

If a member of the atheist contingent makes a knowledge claim we must accept it at face value employing “that "faith" thingy”….ask to see the “evidence” and the immediate baseless retort is- “Your calling me a liar”.

Christians ask us to have faith in things unseen a couple thousand years ago…atheists ask us to have faith in things unseen a couple of weeks/months ago.

Go figure.

[cosmik debris]

43. Tell it to Zeb, he's the one who insisted on "actual evidence" n/t

[ironbark]

46. I appreciate your insistence that evidence is unnecessary Cosmic

A SOAP Production

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ironbark]

49. Cosmic “said that”

straight after I said Albert E was a believer, which was just before I said absence of faith equals paranoia, which was just after I started with God as proven fact and ended with my declaration of being a Moslem and just before I changed criticism into bigotry which was in the same thread that I called you a liar and a bigot......

SOAP= Standard Atheist Operating Procedure- Disingenuous misrepresentation, falsification, straw man and innuendo.



You religiously ignore the most blatant and incessant misrepresentation of stated pov and then have the audacity to ask "Where did cosmik say that"?

The SOAP answer is "Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it's not there"

The SOAP answer is "Whats it matter if the misrepresentation is made in anonimity"?

The SOAP answer is "It's against the rules for me to tell you"

The SOAP answer is "If you don't take my word for it your calling me a liar"

“Making shit up”?

You guys have made a celabratory religion out of it.

Want cite/link/substantiation/evidence of a dozen clear examples?.

Or do you just wanna keep calling me a liar, and a bigot, and a towlhead, and a coot....and playing by the SOAP of demonstrating complete contempt for what the other person actualy said?

[varkam]

57. ?

Or do you just wanna keep calling me a liar, and a bigot, and a towlhead, and a coot....and playing by the SOAP of demonstrating complete contempt for what the other person actualy said?

I have called you none of those things. :shrug:

[ironbark]

61. Snap

I never called you a liar or said/inferred anything about you being a bigot nor did I express any ire towards you...and yet you repeatedly lay your insight/guesswork at my feet as if it had something to do with what I said.

I have responded in kind "playing by the SOAP of demonstrating complete contempt for what the other person actualy said".

You wanna continue playing by the SOAP standards ya'll have consistantly set?....Or do you wanna try leaving out the assumed psychic insights, the innuendo and misrepresentation and just take a crack at the arguements/points/issues as presented?

Your call, your ball.

[varkam]

63. Uh-huh

I never called you a liar or said/inferred anything about you being a bigot nor did I express any ire towards you...and yet you repeatedly lay your insight/guesswork at my feet as if it had something to do with what I said.

Just because you say it, doesn't make it true. For instance, you just accused me of calling you, among other things, a "towlhead".

Sounds like perfectly respectful discourse to me.

[ironbark]

66. Hang on….That’s >my< pov!

“Just because you say it, doesn't make it true” Varkam

Not accepting your say so I ask for substantiation, get told I should take your word for the veracity of what you claim and that I’m calling you a liar if I don’t.
Now you have spun 180 to assert my original stance- “You could be right, you could be wrong, you could be mistaken…in the absence of evidence I have no way of knowing… Just because you say it, doesn't make it true”
You bitch slap me with accusations of having called you a liar for taking the very position you now turn around and offer it up as advice?

“….you just accused me of calling you, among other things, a "towlhead"….”

Repeat-
“I have responded in kind "playing by the SOAP of demonstrating complete contempt for what the other person actualy said".
You wanna continue playing by the SOAP standards ya'll have consistantly set?....Or do you wanna try leaving out the assumed psychic insights, the innuendo and misrepresentation and just take a crack at the arguements/points/issues as presented?
Your call, your ball.”

[varkam]

72. Here is what you wrote:

Or do you just wanna keep calling me a liar, and a bigot, and a towlhead, and a coot....and playing by the SOAP of demonstrating complete contempt for what the other person actualy said?

It's right there, two posts up, for everyone to see. I would like for you to pay very close attention to the first line of that passage - namely the part where you accuse me of having called you a "liar, and a bigot, and a towlhead (sic), and a coot..."

That is what you "actualy (sic) said". And frankly, I do have complete contempt for it.

[ironbark]

117. Do you have cognitive difficulty with the notion/principle

of ‘respond in kind’?.... or is it simply a case of you will
cut/ignore it each time it is put forward?

Here’s you playing the psychic and projecting your nasty thoughts onto me-

“I'm guessing you'll just think I'm a liar. .”Varkam

When I objected to that crap you played it again-

“Oh, right, you're saying that I'm lying.” Varkum

You set the (psychic) standard and I invite you to knock it off, you respond with pure fabrication- “Oh, right, you're saying that I'm lying.”
I clearly flag my preparedness to play by your standards/rules of making shit up or (preferably) return to dialogue not rendered useless by pseudo-psychic “guessing” and flagrant fabrication of the others pov.

It’s simple, cease fabricating crap like “you're saying that I'm lying” and I will not be prompted to respond in kind.

Still your ball/your call.

[varkam]

121. Obviously, yes, I am stupid.

How humble of you. No, rather it is that I have never accused you of doing anything like you have accused me of doing. To me, calling someone a towelhead is a lot like calling someone a nigger - it's something that turns my stomach.

No good at all is going to come of you and me discussing anything. Notice that no one mentioned "lying" or "liars" until you showed up to dig up a past discussion between you and me wherein you demanded links for something, and I refused on the basis that would break DU rules, and said that otherwise you are free to think that I am a liar - which you are obviously still furious over. Notice further, that I am not "fabricating crap like 'you're saying that I'm lying'". You speak of it as if it is something that I am doing on a regular basis. Note again that no one even mentioned lying, or liars, until you did. Please point to another post in this thread wherein I accused someone of saying that I am lying.

As I said, no good is going to come of you and me discussing anything. You are carrying around some pretty heavy resentment that gets in the way of any sort of productive discourse. I realize that you didn't come here to actually discuss anything, and that was pretty clear from your first post. Rather, it appears that you just have issues with me and want to make damn sure that I know about it. I'm honored, in a strange sort of way.

[ironbark]

124. Sorting fact from fiction

“Obviously, yes, I am stupid.” Varkam

The other option was- “…simply a case of you will cut/ignore it <“the notion/principle of ‘respond in kind’ > each time it is put forward”

Seems you have chosen to embrace both options.

“it's something that turns my stomach.” Varkam

Ahhhh….I see…so it’s not about respecting the integrity of what the other person said, it’s not about avoiding ongoing falsification, misrepresentation, innuendo and assumed psychic insight >or any other VERIFIABLE OBJECTIVE event< for you it’s all about the subjective depth and degree of “stomach turning” offense?

Varkam….If my clearly flagged example of SOAP style misrepresentation caused you offence you have my apologies….you also have my reminder that on each occasion I expressed offence at your misrepresentation/psychic insight I had your contemptuous repeat of the very same.

“No good at all is going to come of you and me discussing anything.”V

Not if you are steadfastly determined to ignore what I post and manufacture and/or intuit my pov for me.

“Notice that no one mentioned "lying" or "liars" until you showed up to dig up a past discussion….”

1/ You seem to have some repetitious objection to others raising “past discussion” and yet the catalyst for all this was you yourself claiming you had been called a bigot and founding a whole thread on these “past discussion” claims.
"lying" or "liars" arose there because >you< fabricated it as my pov.
I made substantiated reference to that “past discussion” just as you made unsubstantiated reference to (unseen) “past discussion”.
(Have some animals become more equal than others again?)


“…wherein you demanded links for something,” Varkam

Hmmm….Exaggeration or lie?

These “demands” supposedly transpired in Post 11, ‘Bashing Religion and teh Internets’

“Demand” 1/-

“They say that people should be quiet, respectful, meek….” Varkam

"I don’t see anyone saying that….just as I couldn’t see (and no one could show me) anybody saying “Shut up, go away, get out” to atheists or in any way trying to censor them." Ironbark



“Demand” 2/-

“I'm sure someone would swing by to call me a bigot, or a fundamentalist atheist, or some other such nonsense” Varkam

“Your “sure” of this? On >evidence< or >faith< ? Cos I would like to see an example of what your “sure” of actually taking place.” Ironbark




“and said that otherwise you are free to think that I am a liar” Varkam

You didn’t just say “free to think” you presented it >as< my thought even after I rejected any such notion-“Oh, right, you're saying that I'm lying”

How frequently over what period does that kind of behaviour have to go on before one is entitled to “stomach turning” offence Varkam?

“which you are obviously still furious over”. Varkam

How many examples of politely pointing out the ongoing fabrication, misrepresentation and psychic insight would you like >prior< to my “fury” manifesting in signalling (once) that I was prepared to ‘respond in kind’?

“Notice further, that I am not "fabricating crap like 'you're saying that I'm lying'" You speak of it as if it is something that I am doing on a regular basis.” Varkam

I speak of it as a repeated falsification of my pov-

“if you think that I am lying to you, then that is your prerogative”. Varkam
“You'll just have to take my word on it, or you could always accuse me of lying.” Varkam
“… but I'm guessing you'll just think I'm a liar”. Varkam
“Oh, right, you're saying that I'm lying” Varkam

And a clear device of false assertion and innuendo to project onto me things I had never said or suggested. You do it a lot…lots of atheists here do….it’s a common smear tool.

Wanna see yourself making a habbit of it?-

“The OP predicted that "someone would swing by to call me a bigot"CD

“Hey, I did predict that, didn't I? I'm sure that our friend will say that he wasn't calling me a bigot” Varkam

Slick discrete innuendo guys…your not at all trying to suggest that I did call you a bigot are you.
What’s the threshold for “stomach turning” fabrication Varkam?

“as if it is something that doing on a regular basis”? Dam straight….very regular. You wanna play on in like manner? Still your ball, still your call.

“Note again that no one even mentioned lying, or liars, until you did. Please point to another post in this thread wherein I accused someone of saying that I am lying.” Varkam

What excess of humility leads you to believe that you are entitled to raise “past discussion” but others are not?, that you are entitled to refer to ancient/unseen posts in which people say atheists “should be quiet, respectful, meek” but no one can say “I’d like to see” without it being a “demand” and an accusation of “lying”? How come you get to have legitimate concerns about events unsubstantiated but some one who can verify their concerns is driven by “hatchet job fury heavy resentment poison” ?
Who made you more equal than others?

“…appears that you just have issues with me and want to make damn sure that I know about it” Varkam

If I had ‘issues with you’ as a person, some kind of disregard or disrespect, I would be repeatedly falsifying your pov, employing smearing innuendo, cutting and ignoring the core points/issues you raise, pretending I could read your mind/character and intent and projecting all manner of emotional states (not evidenced in your posts) upon you.

But hey….that’s been your regular and ongoing SOAP and no matter how I raise it, politely or respond in kind bluntly, you dam sure don’t want to know about it.

[varkam]

128. See below. eom

[cosmik debris]

51. He's just got a hard on for me

because I won't play his silly games.

So he make up some shit, so what?

He doesn't want to address the subject in the thread, so he introduces his own grudges.

I think it is rather amusing myself. He's the one who has to carry the grudge, and that's not easy!

[ironbark]

54. I’m willing to measure my still erect argument

up against your ever flaccid evasion and misrepresentation Cosmic ;-)

“silly games”?

Wassamatter big boy? Alude but can’t specify?

I can ;-)

“make up some shit”

Like “lack of faith= paranoia”? Like God being “proven”? Like any of the other dozen+ “silly game” times I have been obliged to advise- “I did not say, suggest or infer that Cosmic” or “Disingenuous misrepresentation Cosmic”

“so what”?

So it’s boring, stupid and nasty….if your not reading and responding to what the other person is actually saying….why bother?

“He doesn't want to address the subject in the thread, so he introduces his own grudges.”

Premature assertion Cosmic.

What I introduced was the pertinent point that ‘evidance’ is here being requested/expected when elsewhere the same request is met with evasion. misrepresentation and lie.

But you can’t handle the irrefutable inconsistency….so you deem it a “grudge” and evade the issue.

Say “grudge” a few times, or try saying “hijacking the thread” again, or “hard on” or “silly games” or any other insubstantial innuendo that smears but cannot be substantiated.

Bottom line is- When I make an assertion or knowledge claim I stand prepared to cite, specify and provide concrete example….I don’t rely exclusively on incessant fabrication, vague reference, innuendo or pissy emoticon.

It’s the difference between hard argument and a wank Cosmic ;-)

[cosmik debris]

55. That kind of bitterness hurts you more than me.

So please continue!

:)

[varkam]

44. No one said anything about anyone being a "liar" except you.

Why would that...ohhh...I guess you're trying to bring up a weeks old discussion you and I had.

If you feel like we have some unfinished business, feel free to PM me. Otherwise, don't hijack other people's threads. :hi:

[ironbark]

45. Statute of Limitation on basic principles?

I ask you for ‘evidence/substantiation' and that’s calling you a “liar”.
You ask someone else for ‘evidence/substantiation’ and that’s a kosher expectation.

I subsequently point out the disparity (double standard) and it’s beyond the statute of limitations and attempted thread hijack?

The principle , provision of ‘evidence/substantiation’, appears to only apply to some and at the time of their choosing.

But then again…on this board….some progressives remain more equal than others ;-)

[varkam]

47. No. It's just that hijacking someone else's thread isn't...

the appropriate place to dig up hatchets.

And you're creating a strawman out of what I said. You asked me to post links that would've been construed in a way as breaking the rules (I should know, I was a mod). I refused to do so on those grounds. I said that you would have to take my word for it, or else think me a liar. I never said that you asking me for evidence was the equivalent of you calling me a liar, thankyouverymuch.

Oh, and I provided Zeb a link :hi:

I will say, though, that it is a little silly to provide evidence for something like this. The way I see it, it's like providing evidence that the sky is blue or that the grass is green. One only needs to remove one's head from one's ass to see it. Beyond that, I cannot provide links for actual real life experiences that I have had. Some still prefer links, however.

Oh, and I never said that it was "beyond the statute of limitations". What I believe I wrote was that you can hit me up in a PM if you want, otherwise I'll be tempted to believe you're just grandstanding ;)

But then again…on this board….some progressives remain more equal than others

"Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!" :rofl:

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[varkam]

58. Resentment is like you drinking the poison and waiting for the other person to die.

Some food for thought for you.

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[varkam]

64. Pardon me if I save my tears for another day.

I have been called worse. :hi:

[ironbark]

67. You haven't been "called" anything

Ahhhh.....right......your employing psychic insight.

The Force is strong within you young Varkam.

[varkam]

71. Apparently, the moderators don't see things your way.

Perhaps they, too, are employing psychic insight.

[ironbark]

116. Perhaps

Or perhaps they applied the same principle/rule as they did to post 48? ;-)

In the absence of any concrete evidence all that can be conducted is pointless pseudo psychic speculation…….feel free and right at home therein ;-)

[varkam]

119. You're toxic, friend.

I'm sure that the moderators removed such a message out of sheer whim, and not because there was anything contained within that might be constrained as rule-breaking (or, in this case, a personal attack). It doesn't take a psychic to figure that one out.

Oh, and ;)

[ironbark]

125. Well I’m glad ‘You’re toxic’ would not be considered

as a “personal attack”.

There are all manner of ways of demonstrating contempt for another and still flying under the house rules Varkam…..hell…..you have demonstrated most of them-

Blunt innuendo works well-
“I'm sure that our friend will say that he wasn't calling me a bigot” Varkam

Cute isn’t it….no overt personal attack, no breaking the rules….just the slimy baseless suggestion that the ‘friend’ being referred to did in some way call you a bigot.

Do it often enough and you generate enough smoke for folk to suspect fire.
Throw in a few references to lying, misrepresent stated pov, employ “guess” and psychic insight (all within the rules) and if the other objects then label the objection in highly emotive terms- “hatchet job, poison, resentment, fury, toxic” but never ever point to the words that reflect the ‘toxic fury’.

Keep it vague, suggest, infer, employ innuendo, cut and ignore core points/issues, utilise emotive language that is never linked to anything actually said.......fly beneath the radar/rules.

It's clever.
But lacks ethical and intellectual integrity.

And if the recipient should ever slip up and openly call the author of a blatant lie a liar….then that’s a “rule-breaking personal attack”.....even if the lie can be demonstrated.

I understand how the game is played Varkam.
I’m just asking if that’s the way you wish to continue playing…..
and flagging my preparedness to play by the same standards if necessary.

Still your ball. your call.

[varkam]

129. I am sorry.

Look - I had a nice big long snarky response all written out. Somewhere after writing it, and now, I realized that I should just apologize. I'm sorry about our previous discussions, and the fact that I did not handle them well. I'm also sorry about this discussion, as it doesn't seem that it has done either of us any favors. I definitely have an ego, and so sometimes it is easy for me to forget that I can be wrong.

[cosmik debris]

23. You want "actual evidence" ? that's priceless!

I guess you won't believe anything without "actual evidence".

And since there is no "actual evidence" to support most of the claims made by your religion, I suppose you are ready to renounce that too?

Seriously, if you are going to demand "actual evidence" to support points against you, you should be prepared to offer "actual evidence" to support your own beliefs.

Well, that's not going to happen. But remember you shouldn't hold others accountable to a higher standard of "actual evidence" than you hold yourself. If hearsay is good enough to support your beliefs, you shouldn't criticize others for using the same standard.

[knitter4democracy]

34. I can give you a college full of them.

Hubby and I went to a Nazarene college with required chapel. I can sit down and look up all the preachers who basically told us that and all of the students who believed it, or you could just visit your nearest evangelical or fundamentalist Christian college's chapel a few times and talk to the religion and Christian ed majors.

[varkam]

37. But do you have a link? If you don't have a link, Zeb won't believe you.

:D

[knitter4democracy]

39. Crap. I forgot.

http://mvnu.edu

I wouldn't click on it if I were you. It's really annoying.

[varkam]

41. Choose it. Feel it. Live it.

That's...something alright :D

[knitter4democracy]

53. College motto when I was there:

"To seek to learn is to seek to serve." It was on *everything* and constantly referred to. Ugh.

Even worse was the visiting pastor who told all of us the day before Clinton's first election that he wasn't going to tell us whom to vote for, but if we voted for Clinton, we were voting for a murderer (because he's pro-life). I happened to be sitting next to a gal whose grandfather was high-up in Ohio Dem politics and who'd hosted a huge Clinton fundraiser at his farm where she went and met both Gore and Clinton. We helped her display her Clinton stickers and such nice and prominently, and we were in the third row, so he had to see.

Sometimes, Hubby and I wonder how we survived that hellhole.

[Zebedeo]

69. Thank you for proving

my point, knitter.

Here are the values of your college:

AFFIRMATION # 1
WE LOVE GOD; THEREFORE, WE SEEK TO EXPRESS THESE FOUNDATIONAL VALUES:

A Worshipping Community
A Biblical Faith
A Christlike Lifestyle
A Holiness Ethic
A Global Mission
A Creation Vision
A Spirit-Empowered Devotion


AFFIRMATION # 2
WE RESPECT OTHERS; THEREFORE, WE STRIVE TO PRACTICE THESE BEHAVIORS:

A Magnanimous Spirit
A Servant Mentality
A Trustworthy Character
A Positive Influence
A Courteous Response
A Giving Motivation
An Appreciative Attitude


AFFIRMATION # 3
WE BELIEVE IN PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY; THEREFORE, WE SET THESE EXPECTATIONS FOR STUDENTS:

An Inquisitive Mind
A Disciplined Schedule
A Modest Appearance
A Balanced Diet
A Physical Fitness Commitment
A Reliable Word
A Lifelong Learning and Growth Perspective

With which of these values are you saying you have a beef?

Most importantly, the link you provided proves my point - far from providing evidence to the contrary, as you assert. It proves that Christians do NOT claim to be better than others. Instead, they acknowledge that they are undeserving, that they do not live up to God's standards and that they rely utterly on God's grace, and not on their own merit.

DO WE LIVE EVERY DAY BY THE VALUES WE AFFIRM?
We try. As Spirit-filled Christians, these values serve as a guide - they characterize us at our best, convict us at our worst. We acknowledge that the life of holiness is both crisis and process; a commitment to establish Jesus as Lord of our lives, and a desire to continually grow and mature in the Christian faith and in our walk with the Lord.

It is by God's grace alone - though undeserved - that we are enabled and empowered through faith in Jesus Christ to live the life to which we have been called. Not by our own efforts; it is a gift of God. As scripture records: "My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness" (2 Corinthians 12:9).

So, thanks for your inadvertent support on this point.

[varkam]

73. Oh, Zeb.

Didn't you get the point that just because someone says it is so (in the other example, the bible) doesn't mean that it is actually reflective of reality? Again, one of the admonitions in the bible is for believers to throw rocks at adulterers until they are dead. Why aren't Christians doing that on a daily basis? I thought that the bible was supposed to reflect what life is actually like.

[knitter4democracy]

75. Bwahahahahahaha! You actually believed that crap?!

I actually went there, but why would you believe me when you can just believe the boilerplate?

Why believe me, when I helped a friend who'd made the mistake of getting preggers as a teen and having the baby only to have that "Christian" college tell her that she couldn't have her daughter with her on campus at all but gave her a full ride including dorm--where her daughter was forbidden to visit. That's family values for ya, but go ahead and believe the lies on the website instead.

Or my gay friend who was raped repeatedly by "good Christian men" in the men's dorm because he was gay and so deserved/liked it. Oh, and the college disciplined him, since he was the gay guy.

Or my atheist friend who was spied on and had to submit to random searches all the time just because he was the atheist. Not to mention all the "loving and serving" Christians who spat on him on the sidewalk, refused to sit near him in class, and often came up to him to scream in his face that he was going to hell.

Or the RA who lost her job because she went camping with some friends from high school. There were two tents--one for guys, one for girls--but they said she went against the handbook and "stayed the night in the presence of the opposite sex" (actual wording) and fired her, making her lose the scholarship she needed to stay there.

Or Student Development (the campus KGB) that had a really good informant system of good little Christians doing their Christian duty and informing on anyone and everyone. Since no one knew who all the informants were (though we knew the guy who raped a girl at senior high camp the summer before college, you know, the rah-rah religion major, was one of them), it made for a lot of crazy and insane behavior.

Or the prof who almost lost his job because he made us all get subscriptions to the New Yorker magazine and didn't read the first one first to see if it was okay to hand out. Instead, a bunch of whiny-ass Christian ed and religion majors got upset at the short story, all of which resulted in the New Yorker getting banned from the campus as porn and the library's subscription ended and the loss of another English prof who couldn't stand teaching there anymore. The only reason the prof in question didn't lose his job was because he was the nephew of one of the most influential religion profs/church theologians.

Or the fact that the college's admission policy is to deliberately take in students who are not college material and then offer tutoring and take their money (I worked in Academic Support and saw horrifying crap there--it was all about the money, not actually helping those people). That's definitely a Christian policy right there.

The dress code, the many behavioral bans (no dancing, drinking, drugs, sex or anything that could be construed as sex, and several other pages I forget), the informant atmosphere--why would they put those on the website? They'd rather lie to you and keep you thinking they're just great Christian people until they've got your money and you can't transfer easily. Having a cleaned up website that promises more than they can deliver helps them get more money from people in the church who fall for the lies.

[Zebedeo]

78. That's a lot of allegations

of bad behavior (none supported by any citation to actual evidence, of course). But I believe you. I really do. still, one wonders why you didn't report any of the rampant criminal rape of which you were supposedly aware.

Anyway, one thing strikes me about your summary of life at this college - you fail to mention anyone at the college claiming to be "good" or "better" than anyone else - which was the claim made in the OP, which you purported to support by your link to the website of your college. The website link - which is the only actual evidence that you provided, tends to refute your claims, as it confirms that the school policy included the humble admission that the Christians there are undeserving by their own merits and rely fully on the grace of God. Nothing in your post about rapes, etc. controverts this point.

I'm truly sorry that you appear to have had a bad experience at college. College can be a difficult time, and many people have problems surface there. Here's hoping that you can overcome your bad memories and not hold it against Christians in general. (And yes, I know that you are yourself a Christian. Seems like you may have a little of the self-hating thingie going on. But who am I to say?)

[charlie]

79. "...a little of the self-hating thingie going on"

Now there's a chump thing to say. Especially on a board that's so often characterized as self-loathing because we've been at cross purposes with 8 years of chest-thumping American Exceptionalism and have the temerity to note the country's actions haven't aligned with its stated principles.

I'm looking forward to whatever response you get. If you get clobbered, you deserve it.

[beam me up scottie]

80. I'm wit' ya, charlie.

He'll probably need an ambulance.

[varkam]

90. The prosecution rests.

That's a lot of allegations of bad behavior (none supported by any citation to actual evidence, of course). But I believe you. I really do. still, one wonders why you didn't report any of the rampant criminal rape of which you were supposedly aware.


So...I'm guessing you want some sort of a URL to back up personal experiences had in real life? That's a bit much, don't you think? If you really do believe, then why even point out the fact that there was nothing substantiating it? To prove how good you are at taking things on faith?

Anyway, one thing strikes me about your summary of life at this college - you fail to mention anyone at the college claiming to be "good" or "better" than anyone else - which was the claim made in the OP, which you purported to support by your link to the website of your college. The website link - which is the only actual evidence that you provided, tends to refute your claims, as it confirms that the school policy included the humble admission that the Christians there are undeserving by their own merits and rely fully on the grace of God. Nothing in your post about rapes, etc. controverts this point.

Exactly. In place of the college claiming to be a decent school, you get a lot of pious nonsense. Do you see, now, Zeb? We live in a society where piety = good, where faith = values, where faith = morality.

And what do you think, that admissions are going to say that "We have a long tradition of singling out students who are different, of selective enforcement, and of exploiting the community."? Why, it looks like accusations of treason against GWB are generally refuted by some things written at freerepublic.com. Open and shut case, I'd say.

I'm truly sorry that you appear to have had a bad experience at college. College can be a difficult time, and many people have problems surface there. Here's hoping that you can overcome your bad memories and not hold it against Christians in general. (And yes, I know that you are yourself a Christian. Seems like you may have a little of the self-hating thingie going on. But who am I to say?) (Emphasis added)

A fucking paragon of humility, you are. Thank you for proving the OP's point.

[Zebedeo]

95. Rape is not

just a "personal experience," as you put it. It is a matter of public record, and if MVNU were overrun with rampant rape, there would be a record of it. Instead, the records indicate otherwise.

A story about a bunch of heterosexual Christian guys gangraping a gay male student might be considered newsworthy, don't you think? Particularly if the victim were then persecuted by the university administration, as was reported by knitter4democracy. And yet, there seems to be no mention of it on the intertubes. What was that you said about Google being my friend, varkam? So no, I don't think it is a "bit much" to expect some corroboration for such a story.

As for your comment about "pious nonsense," you may have that opinion, but it in no way supports the claim of the OP, which is that Christians (check that - "some religious people" who follow Christ) claim to be "better" than others and claim that their being "better" than others will get them into Heaven. To date, no one posting in this thread has offered any evidence to support that counterfactual thesis. Even if your characterization of their beliefs as "pious nonsense" were a fair assessment, rather than a denigrating attack, it would not support the OP's thesis. People can engage in what you deem to be "pious nonsense" without claiming that they are saved because they are "better" than others.

If I suggest the mere possibility that another poster who is vocally critical of her own religion and her own college may be just the slightest bit afflicted by a tendency toward self-loathing, you conclude that it means that I am prideful (I am assuming that is what you meant by the sarcastic appellation "fucking paragon of humility"). However, once again, your conclusion in no way follows from your premise. Nowhere in my post did I aggrandize myself or claim to be better than knitter4democracy. Indeed, I make no such claim. To the contrary, I freely acknowledge that I am no better than any other poster on DU. We are all sinners, and none is deserving - not one.

[knitter4democracy]

98. Why on earth do you think they'd allow it to get public?

First of all, the victim hadn't even come out to his parents yet, so why would he go to his parents and have them help him press charges for rape? Do you honestly think all rape victims go public with what happened to them and that every single crime is reported in college crime rates? The college has a vested interest in keeping the crime rate low. Just remember that they don't count date rape as rape, since the woman obviously asked for it (what happened to the girl raped by the religion major at senior high camp the year before--she was so horrified by what happened that she never told her parents, and I only heard through a friend when the rapist was elevated to a position of authority in Student Development).

Secondly, you are seriously off your rocker. You are so bent on proving your thesis that you are blind to what you're reading and aren't thinking critically. You are trusting a college's propaganda over the experiences of someone who went there. If I thought you could be at all loving, honest with yourself, kind, or truly Christ-like at all, and if I had their permission, I would name names. I don't think you could be, though, since you're falling for that dreck the college puts out (with pictures of people who aren't even students there--that came out when I was there) just because it says what you want it to say.

In order for your point in this point to be true, you would have to believe that 1) all rapes are reported, 2) all rapes reported to the college are turned over to the authorities and added to the crime stats, 3) that the college does not have a vested interest in manipulating rape victims or crime stats, and finally 4) you know more about that place from their freakin' website than I do as an alumna (class of 1997, thank you very much).

[varkam]

105. Say whaaaat?!

Rape is not just a "personal experience," as you put it. It is a matter of public record, and if MVNU were overrun with rampant rape, there would be a record of it. Instead, the records indicate otherwise.

Those are some pretty big assumptions that you're making.

Rape is called "the most underreported violent crime in America." In a large national survey of American women, only 16% of the rapes (approximately one out of every six) had ever been reported to the police.
Rape in America: A Report to the Nation, National Victim Center, 1992

source

As I have said previously, Zeb, Google is your friend. That quote took me no more than a minute to find. You might try surfing it for a few minutes the next time that you have an urge to speculate wildly.

I still find it hilarious that you are trying to refute knitter4democracy's personal experiences with your own brand of nonsense. You said that you believed k4d. You weren't lying, were you? Perhaps you forgot a sarcasm tag.

A story about a bunch of heterosexual Christian guys gangraping a gay male student might be considered newsworthy, don't you think? Particularly if the victim were then persecuted by the university administration, as was reported by knitter4democracy. And yet, there seems to be no mention of it on the intertubes. What was that you said about Google being my friend, varkam? So no, I don't think it is a "bit much" to expect some corroboration for such a story.

See above, oh humble one.

for your comment about "pious nonsense," you may have that opinion, but it in no way supports the claim of the OP, which is that Christians (check that - "some religious people" who follow Christ) claim to be "better" than others and claim that their being "better" than others will get them into Heaven. To date, no one posting in this thread has offered any evidence to support that counterfactual thesis. Even if your characterization of their beliefs as "pious nonsense" were a fair assessment, rather than a denigrating attack, it would not support the OP's thesis. People can engage in what you deem to be "pious nonsense" without claiming that they are saved because they are "better" than others.

How about that link I gave you? You know, the one that says atheists are teh evul.

If I suggest the mere possibility that another poster who is vocally critical of her own religion and her own college may be just the slightest bit afflicted by a tendency toward self-loathing, you conclude that it means that I am prideful (I am assuming that is what you meant by the sarcastic appellation "fucking paragon of humility"). However, once again, your conclusion in no way follows from your premise. Nowhere in my post did I aggrandize myself or claim to be better than knitter4democracy. Indeed, I make no such claim. To the contrary, I freely acknowledge that I am no better than any other poster on DU. We are all sinners, and none is deserving - not one.

Suggesting that you know the inner-workings of another individual's psyche on the basis of a few anonymous internet posts, and consequently using that suggestion in a lame attempt to discredit their argument (via poisoning the well) doesn't exactly scream "humility". I can think of a few other words that it screams, but none fit for broadcast.

In addition, the argument that you know more about how a college operates than someone who went there on the basis of having read their website doesn't scream humility either.

Oh, and the fact that you contentedly quote scripture to answer modern questions, as if it has any bearing, doesn't scream humility, either.

Take your pick, Zeb.

Or, maybe it does and you just have a very fucked up definition of what humility is supposed to be. It wouldn't surprise me, since there have been very few Christians that I have met or talked to that I would characterize as being "humble". The majority of Christians I have met talk a good game about humility, but like I posted, it is a boastful humility, much like the kind you appear to be swimming in. If you need links to support that assertion, I need only reference you to your own words in this thread.

[knitter4democracy]

94. No, I'm just still mad that I gave that place my money and was stuck there.

As for the rapes, the college knew about it, but when the guys would cry and say that they hadn't really been saved when they did it but really were now, Student Development would look the other way. Since everyone knew how I felt about rape, they'd never give me names or enough to go to the police with (mostly because I made it clear I would go to the police).

As for the people claiming to be good or better, why do you think I mentioned Christian ed and religion majors? Most of them were what we called Norman and Nancy Nazarenes--those who follow the church manual to the letter and love to catch others in sin so they can use it against them. They were the sort to cry during sermons and run to the altar to cry and sob and praise Jesus only to run to Student Development later with what they'd overheard at the altar from others--and trust me, they made sure we all knew they were better Christians than the rest of us.

At that place, relying on the grace of God means letting the college force you into going to therapy to "cure teh gay" or kick you out if you get pregnant or whatever they deemed bad enough against the handbook and Nazarene manual. Those in power lorded it over everyone else in private but cried about it in public.

You might want to talk to some other people who have gone to evangelical or fundamentalist colleges. I'd give you my friends' blog links, but you'd most likely just act like a troll and not believe them either. I had no idea our friends were all still angry and trying to heal until we all met up at JJ's funeral last year and went out to eat after the wake, trying to hold each other up. That's when we found out that one's still in therapy about it, all of us have left that church, and we were all still angry at what happened there, supposedly in the name of Christ.

Call that self-hating or just a lot of anger at hypocrites. Take your pick.

[MikeH]

97. Zeb, you seem to be totally lacking in any empathy

I have seen several other instances in which you have responded to somebody and in which you have shown a complete lack of empathy for that person's situation, feelings, or reasons for deciding to do something that that person feels he/she needs to do.

This includes one time when you quoted scripture at me when I indicated that I had been unhappy with Christianity, and had indicated my reasons for being unhappy, and had felt that I had needed to part company with the faith.

It seems like you just have to quote the Bible, or to say what you are so certain is right and true based on YOUR particular beliefs and perspective.

[Zebedeo]

99. I quote the Bible because I believe it is

the Word of God, and therefore is authoritative truth. Contrary to your assumption, I do not lack empathy for nonbelievers. To the contrary, I have been a nonbeliever for the great majority of my life, and I do understand and empathize with the experiences of others. I do not have a specific recollection of the occasion to which you refer in which I "quoted Scripture at" you. Please understand that what you apparently took as holier-than-thou preaching was not intended that way. Although I do not recall the occasion, I know for a fact that I did not intend my comments to be insulting or otherwise offensive to you, nor do I regard myself as holier than you or any other poster on DU.

Please forgive me for any offense I have caused. But please also understand that, if you are correct in your assumption that I say what I am "certain is right and true," (you are indeed correct on this point) then it is understandable that I would want to unreservedly defend those beliefs, which I regard as not only the truth, but also the very most important truth that can be known by a human being.

I respect the beliefs (and lack of belief) of others. I try to understand where others are coming from. I also try to explicate my own beliefs, in order to share them with others and to test them against the criticism of those who believe differently.

My personal view is that it is a tragedy when someone "parts company with the faith," as you put it. I believe that is God's view, as well. I could quote you Scripture to prove it, but I will respect your desire not to have Scripture quoted.

[MikeH]

114. Back at you, Zeb

I quote the Bible because I believe it is the Word of God, and therefore is authoritative truth.

I disagree with you that the Bible is the "Word of God", and a lot of other people do too. It is very insensitive to quote the Bible to prove a point to a person if that person does not accept the Bible as being "authoritative truth".

Please forgive me for any offense I have caused.

Zeb, I do not consider you to be important enough for me to "forgive" or to "not forgive" you, or to take personally anything you say. I find your attitude and approach to be, at the very best, very disagreeable, whether you say something offensive to me personally, or to somebody else, or just in general.

However your being here does provide me the opportunity to express some of my thoughts about religion and Christianity, particularly when you say something that I strongly disagree with. So I do want to thank you for that.:)

My personal view is that it is a tragedy when someone "parts company with the faith," as you put it.

And I totally disagree with that view. And your "personal view" imposes no obligation on me.

I believe that is God's view, as well.

Zeb, if you really had any humility at all (rather than just thinking and saying you did), you would be much less certain that you have God's view, particularly in matters regarding other people's personal decisions, all figured out, based on your assumption and belief, however you might have come to it, that the Bible is God's "authoritative truth".

I could quote you Scripture to prove it, but I will respect your desire not to have Scripture quoted.

And I am sure you like to flatter yourself that you are being very considerate and very gracious in respecting my desire.

[knitter4democracy]

100. I need a hug.

:hug: The last thing anyone unhappy with Christianity needs to hear is Scripture. I'm sorry that happened, and I really need a hug after reading that crap. :hug:

Oh, but apparently, I'm just a self-hating Christian-wannabe or something. *sigh*

[MikeH]

103. Hugs to you, knitter4democracy

:hug: :hug: :hug:

Yes, your are right; what he posted is insensitive crap that he feels so smug sure he is right about posting.

[knitter4democracy]

104. Thank you.

I talked with Hubby about it at dinner, and he got that sad look he always gets when we think of that place, especially now that JJ's gone. His death was so damn hard of all of us, as he was the guy who kept us all together and surviving.

[varkam]

106. Here's a hug from a dirty heathen:

:pals:

Oh, wait, I forgot, I'm supposed to hate Christians. Where's that throw-them-to-the-lions emoticon?

:rofl:

[knitter4democracy]

111. Well, at least you'd use lions.

From the stories, we had more success with those than anyone beheading us. ;)

I'll take that hug. :hug:

[trotsky]

8. BWAH HA HA HA HA

...Christianity is a very humble religion, whose adherents acknowledge their own sinfulness and unworthiness.

And in the case of yourself, never fail to miss an opportunity to remind everyone else of their "sinfulness and unworthiness."

[Warpy]

31. Uriah Heep Christianity?

Kinda says it all, doesn't it?

[Zebedeo]

65. If, as you claim, I "never fail to miss an opportunity"

to remind everyone else of my sinfulness, then WTF is your point? That I am secretive about my sinfulness? If that were true, what does that have to do with this thread. Are you OK?

As I see it, you "never fail to miss an opportunity" to post something worth reading.

[varkam]

74. The point is that it is not humility that you are pushing...

but rather a facsimile of humility, a pseudo humility, a boastful humility - which is not humility at all.

[Goblinmonger]

9. Irony alert

I will henceforth hold you to your standard the next time you talk about "atheists." Good luck.

[BurtWorm]

12. Christianity is a very humble religion, whose adherents acknowledge their own sinfulness and unworth

iness...

Would that it were true. And I mean *really* true.

[varkam]

14. Solipsism alert

Are you saying that you don't believe that the prevailing attitude from many religious corners in this country is that piousness equals morality? Surely you can't have your head stuffed so far up your posterior as to deny that such reasoning is endemic without requiring "links".

If you need evidence, I'll point you in the right direction though. Turn on your television. Open up your newspaper. Remove your head from your posterior.

You're welcome.

Quite to the contrary, Christianity is a very humble religion, whose adherents acknowledge their own sinfulness and unworthiness.

:rofl: Thanks for the chuckle.

[SidneyCarton]

16. Piousness does not equal morality, regardless of what is preached from the pulpit.

One need only look at the Epistle of James, as well as other scriptures I have noted in this thread, to realize that, like patriotism, piety is the last refuge of the scoundrel, particularly the hypocritical ones.

[varkam]

18. Biblical interpretations aside...

I think it would be hard to deny that a biblical foundation for something would translate to a societal endorsement of that same thing. In this case, even if there is a case to be made that the bible says that piety cannot be substituted for morality, that does not mean that many in this society do not think that way.

[SidneyCarton]

19. Indeed.

Many people act like being an ignorant, greedy, sadistic clod is the essence of being an American, despite numerous citations in the literature surrounding the founding of this nation that directly contradicts that notion. Does it then mean that to be an American is to be an ignorant, greedy, sadistic clod?

There are many professed Christians who are vicious, prejudiced, holier-than-thou hypocrites who wouldn't know Christ if they passed him on the street. That does not make them followers of Christ by the criteria set down in the book they declare as infallible, nor does necessarily make them the purest expression of a follower of the faith.

[varkam]

21. I think those are two different things, though.

The idea that Christians can be nasty sons-of-bitches and the idea that society has implicitly endorsed the idea that religious = moral are two different things. Also, I would tend to think that even the nasty Christians are still Christians, or else you start getting into No True Scotsman territory. That's because the bible doesn't come with a reader's guide and it is very open to interpretation. Those on the other side of the pew are just as adament that individuals such as yourself are not Christian and can likewise point to biblical support for their beliefs.

Regardless, though, there has been for quite some time a conflation of religion and morality with the understanding that one cannot be moral without God. I mean, for shit's sake, my newspaper as a "Faith & Values" section, which seems to imply that the two are tied together, that one cannot have values without faith. When questions of morality come up, who do people turn to - philosophers or priests? I could go on, but I'm pretty sure you get the point.

[SidneyCarton]

25. Ok, lots of points here, where to start?

I made my point poorly regarding hypocrisy in the last posts, so let me be clearer now. Yes those psychos are Christians, just as the Clods are Americans. Nevertheless, just as I don't think the 19% die-hard Bush Base should be considered the ultimate depiction of Americanism, I don't think Pastor Hagee, or the OP's loony relatives should be considered the ultimate example of Christianity. It is far too easy to demonize a group by taking an extreme example and stating that all ________ are like that.

As to morality, believe in God, or not, I frankly don't care. Can you be moral without God? Hell, you're the Atheist/Agnostic (apologies as I do not know your actual position beforehand and must make an assumption) you tell me. I see no reason why you can not follow a moral code without the framework of religion.

As to philosophers v. priests, the layman will go to whomever will explain things to him in a manner he can readily understand. If you can make Heidegger, Schopenhauer, Kant or Nietzsche accessible in a manner that Joe Six pack can understand without a B.A. in Philosophy, you may yet attract many from the men of the cloth.

[varkam]

27. It's just that...

...I don't see how the point in the OP relates the idea of stereotyping. In my mind, they are two different things. As I see it, it is pretty clear that society has endorsed the idea that morality is equivalent to belief in god. I understand and accept that not all Christians are assholes, just as not all Americans are, but I don't think that the point in the OP has to do with Christianity per se, but rather has to do with religion in general.

[SidneyCarton]

30. Religion in general is a loaded term.

Mormons are not like Catholics, who are not like Muslims, who are not like Wiccans, who are not like Buddhists, who in turn are not like Fundamentalist Evangelicals, who are not like Mormons. And yet all belong to Religions with different characteristics and have different cultures that surround them. The title of this OP deals with "religious people" not with fundies. While on reflection it is clear that their beef is with the fundies, and with a particular virulently obnoxious breed of fundie, I would appriciate they direct their ire toward the object of their oppression, and not lump us all in with their tormentors.

[ironbark]

52. Forlorn hope Sidney

“I would appriciate they direct their ire toward the object of their oppression, and not lump us all in with their tormentors.”

I’m afraid such balanced and reasonable sentiments will find little understanding let alone agreement or empathy on R&T.
Religion is the enemy and anyone expressing belief in or even interest in religion is deemed fair game (in the Scientology sense ;-)

The expressions “fuck religion” and “Nothing good ever came of religion” are stated explicitly and incessantly as the prevailing board attitude.

Islam cannot be cut any slack for it’s contribution to humanity because of the cultural (non scriptural) tradition of female genital mutilation. Christianity cannot be seen as a doctrine advocating The Golden Rule because the Bible is “full of” injunctions to go out and kill people.

You may find lip service paid to the proposition “not all Christians are assholes, just as not all Americans are” but the problem is the following proposition has been put a dozen times in recent months-

‘Fuck religion, nothing good ever came of religion” is a statement of narrow minded bigotry.
Fuck America, nothing good ever came of America” is a statement of narrow minded bigotry.
(add variations)

And not one single R&T atheist is prepared to confirm or deny the clear bigotry of both statements….rather there is equivocation and evasion about “letting off steam” and how it doesn’t matter if its anonymous.

The “ire” will continue, as it has been, to be directed at >any< appreciation of religion (even from a social, historical or arts perspective) and will manifest as contemptuous hostility and bigoted disregard……………even for what is actually said.

[varkam]

56. I'm sorry, were you and I having this conversation?

No, myself and Sidney were. I'd appreciate it if you would reserve your ire for me for conversations that you and I are having.

Thanks.

[ironbark]

62. Carry on being sorry

I wasn’t addressing you I was addressing the point Sidney made….and doing so in an open public forum…just as everybody else (including yourself) does.

Somebody die and leave you in charge of who gets to speak to who on what issue?

Reserve my ire for you? I never expressed any, said not one word about you.

I would appreciate it if there was some (even occasional) correlation between what I have actually said and the smear and spin you fling back….but clearly no appeal to ethics, manners or reason is going to change such deeply ingrained habits.

[varkam]

59. I agree, but I think that what is at issue is religion in general.

There was a poll recently that found atheists at the bottom of the barrel concerning who people would "trust". The hypothesis for that was that people could identify with other religious people, even if they were not of the same religion. IOW, I don't think that the issue of faith = morality boils down to one religion in particular, just as the concept of faith isn't the domain of any one religion either. Personally I don't think that this sort of conception of morality is specific only to fundies, as I have known some fairly moderate religious individuals who seemed to believe this way (though I'm sure that such thinking is rampant within fundamentalist culture).

Of course I recognize that religions are different, and that adherents of those religions are different in the way that they approach said religion. I think that this is an issue that is broader than any one religion, though. Perhaps Christianity is unfairly singled out when people talk about it, but I think that's because the majority in this country is Christian and the culture here is very heavily influenced by it.

[Evoman]

17. Lol...it doesn't count as humility if you believe everyone is

just as sinful and unworthy as you are, except moreso because they don't have a Jesus sponge.

On edit: This would be perfect for a motivational poster parody.

(picture of a waterfall)

Caption underneath:

HUMILITY: I may not be good, but at least I'm better than you.

[beam me up scottie]

33. Do members of other not-so-humble religions spend years harassing others in order to convert them?

If you're sinful and unworthy, why do you think other people should be like you?

[Goblinmonger]

35. You do realize

that YOU are the one broadbrushing. YOU are the one stating that all Christians are a certain thing. And the only think I need to do to "prove" you false is to provide ONE counterexample of a Christian that is not humble and does not focus on their sinfulness and unworthiness. For your pleasure, I double my duty and present you:

Fred Phelps
Pat Robertson

No True Scotsman fallacy in 3..2..1..

[beam me up scottie]

36. May I submit one more less-than-humble christian?

[varkam]

38. But they're not *really* Christian!

(Sorry, I just wanted to make sure the NTS fallacy got tossed in)

[Realityhack]

40. Wrong.

So what if you have never heard a Christian assert that. I have heard many assert exactly that.

Doesn't matter what the official Zebedeo definition of 'Christian' is any more than your definition of a 'true' Scotsman matters.

Plenty of Christians assert that you must believe to be saved, period end of story, and that those who believe will be saved regardless of behavior.

[SidneyCarton]

10. The standard for true belief is to practice what one preaches.

The teachings of Christ, which are often invoked, but rarely practiced state that those who profess to follow Jesus must love their neighbor, even if we consider them our enemy. We are to pray for those who despitefully use us, not return railing for railing and give our cloak when we are petitioned for our coat.

The Sermon on the Mount and Matthew 25 lay out the basic standards for Christianity, nowhere is it stated that profession is enough to ensure salvation. Acts are proof of belief, or conversely of hypocrisy.

[ZombieHorde]

13. The Sermon on the Mount

Conservatives hate it when you bring up The Sermon on the Mount.

[SidneyCarton]

15. Of course they do,

There are no beatitudes that go:

"Blessed are the taxcutters"

"Blessed are the selfish"

"Blessed are the greedy"

And nowhere in that entire piece is there any hint of

"If a man asks you for your cloak, punch him in the kidneys and then stomp him to a bloody pulp."

Hence, regardless of profession, Conservatives who do not espouse the values propagated in the Sermon on the Mount have a hard time justifying their Christianity. Much like the cursed Fig tree, they are all leaves and no fruit, and we know what happened to that tree...

[JerseygirlCT]

11. Unfortunately, they do

(give people a bad name).

I most certainly believe that it's how we treat one another that matters, not what creed we profess or don't. As a believer, I do not believe God cares what we claim to believe - it's the action that counts, to me.

Talking the talk makes little difference to other people, after all. Walking the walk - whatever the motivation - makes a world of difference. And I do believe that's what we're here to learn.

[Rob H.]

32. "What does it matter if somebody does believe all those things

—and is an asshole in their real life?"

I work with two people who fit that description and they're the most outwardly religious people I know IRL. Watching their interactions from the outside, it's hilarious to me that they can't stand one another--they get along exceedingly poorly not because they're polar opposites but because they're exactly the same!

[cosmik debris]

70. Didn't this thread turn out to be prophetic!

In the numerous posts here we see two radically different kinds of Christians. One stridently, even zealously defends his beliefs with courtesy and kindness. He earns some respect if not agreement.

The other kind strikes out with bitterness, anger, and vitriol at those with whom he disagrees. He not only embarrasses his religion, but he embarrasses himself as well.

So I think you were on to something when you said "It’s people like this that give religious people a bad name." But you couldn't have known that one of them would step up volunteer to be an example! :)

[varkam]

76. Satanist fist bump. eom

[SidneyCarton]

77. In honesty I have no real quarrel with atheists.

Much like the OP, I have recieved the "attention" of my Christian brethren, who have effectively let me know that I was, in no uncertain terms, doomed to Hell for my (in their opinion) heretical beliefs. I find it funny, in my life I have known and befriended Agnostics, Atheists, Hindus, Muslims, Catholics and Buddhists and have never taken flak from any of them regarding my beliefs. Most traditional Protestants also tend to let things lie. But the Fundies do have the obnoxious tendency to rub in the fact that they alone are saved. I sympathize with the OP, such arrogance is intolerable and asenine. As I have tried to argue through my posts, it is also most hypocritical and contrary to the doctrines of the very faith they espouse.

In honesty, I appriciate Varkam's open and honest discourse with me throughout this thread, he was civil to me, and allowed me to converse likewise.

[beam me up scottie]

81. varkam is one of the finest DUers you will ever meet.

And one of the most honest.
He earns respect by giving it and has from day one, although IIRC, he created quite a firestorm with his first post in this forum.

[charlie]

82. True dat

Which makes the way he's been stuffed into somebody's bag of resentments upthread amusing for anyone who knows him.

[beam me up scottie]

83. Shall we threaten a cracker to get even?

Or would they just take one of our rubber chickens and retaliate?

[charlie]

84. Hit 'em hard

Now, while we've got the muscle. Remember your drill sergeant? We'll make like her through a Pepperidge Farms and the casualties will shock and awe them.

Say AARRRR to our getaway driver:

[beam me up scottie]

85. To the Fishmobile!

[varkam]

92. SWARM!!! SWARM!!! SWARM!!!!

:rofl: You guys crack me up.

[varkam]

113. I do recall ruffling some feathers...

And it wasn't just my first post in this forum, but rather my first post on DU evah!!

I recall that it was about how the J-C ethical system was morally bankrupt, though I put it nicer than that.

[varkam]

89. I don't think cosmik was talking about you, Sidney.

I appreciate our conversation, as well. Look forward to more with you in the future :toast:

[Zebedeo]

86. Huh?

Which Christian in this thread "strikes out with bitterness, anger, and vitriol at those with whom he disagrees"? Please name the post or posts and cite to what part of the posts you believe reflects these qualities?

If you are referring to me, I think it is fair to say that you have missed the mark by a mile. Project much?

[cosmik debris]

87. Whoa! I apologize for even making you think that!

That is not the case at all. In fact I considered you to be the "One stridently, even zealously defends his beliefs with courtesy and kindness. He earns some respect if not agreement."

I have radical disagreements with you Zeb, but you've never pissed me off. I can't recall even once when you have expressed bitterness like that seen in this thread.

Even though I don't believe a damn word you say, I respect the fact that you stay out of the mud more than many of us. And that is hard to do when you have controversial views such as yours.

Please forgive me for giving you the wrong impression.

Edit: and to all my other critics, I composed my "prophetic" post before I read the exchange between varkam and SidneyCarton. They were never in the running for the descriptions I applied.

[Zebedeo]

88. No problem

I respect your post and your point of view, and consider you to be a valuable part of this forum and an all-around good guy. I'm not sure why I thought you might be referring to me with the "vitriol" comment. I don't mind at all being described as zealous or even strident in the defense of my beliefs.

[varkam]

93. Just admit it. You were talking about knitter4democracy.

:D

[beam me up scottie]

96. Yeah, you gotta watch that one...

I hear she hangs around with acryliliacs.

[knitter4democracy]

102. I love them as my sisters in yarn.

While I pet my cashmere and purr. :)

[knitter4democracy]

101. Dude, you know that's true.

:rofl:

[pegleg]

110. I have a tough time with anyone who tries to shove beliefs down

someone's throat, be thee christian, atheist , or anything else. There are extremists and bigots on all sides. I am a christian. I was an atheist for most of my life. And I have learned that people are people. I criticize avowed atheists here who validate obvious bigotry against religion, but any christian must remember that Jesus never forced himself on anyone and he had compassion on all except the phony religiosity observed by some in his day. They killed him.