Christianity is against individual rights

Genesis c22v12
Genesis c22v12's picture
Posts: 30
Joined: 2006-11-26
User is offlineOffline
Christianity is against individual rights

 

Fundamentalists Christians will not allow you to "sin" legally for God says in the Bible that He will punish not only the sinner, but those who tolerated his sinful behavior. It's perfectly moral for a Christian to try to legislate their behavior on you

This irrational belief is anti-american and goes against individual freedom. If libertarian christians acted differently is because they didn't understand their holy book.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Well spoken, and true,

Well spoken, and true, despite the protests of those who would say you're "interpreting it wrong."

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Christos
Theist
Christos's picture
Posts: 311
Joined: 2007-06-05
User is offlineOffline
Uh...yeah he is interpreting

Uh...yeah he is interpreting it wrong. For intelligent Christians, its very important to interpret the Bible Christ-centrically. I'd love it if you could show an authentic saying of Jesus that crushes individual rights.

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." (CS Lewis)

"A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading." (CS Lewis)


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Christos, I'll just tell

Christos, I'll just tell you up front that I don't argue biblical interpretation, or biblical errancy for that matter.  In my not so humble opinion, there's no point, because Christianity can be disproven without ever having to crack a bible.

So, I'm asking this more to learn about your beliefs.  I'm not going to try to debate your answers.  I'm just curious, ok?

Are you discounting the old testament?

If you discount the old testament, do you discount all of it?

If you only discount some of it, what criteria do you use to decide which to accept and which to throw out?

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Christos
Theist
Christos's picture
Posts: 311
Joined: 2007-06-05
User is offlineOffline
I don't know if you read my

I don't know if you read my signature, but I'm not a Christian. I am a religion major and I'm studying the work of the Jesus seminar. The authentic sayings of Jesus are an excellent moral tool and a great viewpoint of a historic figure (even if he didn't rise from the dead). He was really ahead of his time when you research the authentic sayings in the 5 gospels.

So yes, I am rejecting the OT. Btw Hamby- are you also on the Evilbible forum? 

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." (CS Lewis)

"A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading." (CS Lewis)


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Fair enough.  No, I didn't

Fair enough.  No, I didn't read your sig.  Sorry.  I admit I don't read all of them.

No, I am not on any other atheist forums.

Quote:
The authentic sayings of Jesus are an excellent moral tool and a great viewpoint of a historic figure (even if he didn't rise from the dead).

I'm curious what are considered the "authentic" sayings of Jesus.  The current bible?  If so, why would you consider that authentic, since there are other books that were thrown out, and I don't think the people who did it were qualified experts on historical authenticity.

(And if Jesus wasn't god, there was no particular divine inspiration...)

 

Quote:
He was really ahead of his time when you research the authentic sayings in the 5 gospels.

Considering a generous estimate of late first century authorship, what precisely do you think Jesus was ahead of?   Which moral teachings did he originate?   Could you give me specifics?

Again, i'm not trying to debate.  I'm just asking your opinions.

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Genesis c22v12
Genesis c22v12's picture
Posts: 30
Joined: 2006-11-26
User is offlineOffline
Jesus doesn't tell

Jesus doesn't tell Christians how to tolerate sin legally in society. But the OT, also inspired according Christians, is VERY specific: you should not tolerate sinners among you for your own sake. How is a Christian supposed to vote in a parliament according to this "perception" of reality?

Religious people trying to impose their moral code of behavior and even faith itself is nothing new.

And what is worse is that moderates do nothing to stop their friends. I suspect that deep inside they share the same prejudices, fear of god punishment for being tolerant and defenders of tolerance, or they would come up more objectively in defense of people's rights to be "sinful" (according to some majority's belief) and still be legally accepted and recognized in society.

 

 

Disrespectful of Religion


Christos
Theist
Christos's picture
Posts: 311
Joined: 2007-06-05
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:

Hambydammit wrote:


    I'm curious what are considered the "authentic" sayings of Jesus. The current bible? If so, why would you consider that authentic, since there are other books that were thrown out, and I don't think the people who did it were qualified experts on historical authenticity.

(And if Jesus wasn't god, there was no particular divine inspiration...)

You would have to research the Jesus Seminar. They designate standards for authenticating sayings within the 5 gospel texts (Thomas included). John is only included as a formality. The seminar only gives two sayings in the book as possibly authentic to an idea of Jesus. A link to their standards and characteristics of authentic sayings can be found here: 

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/rook_hawkins/the_jesus_mythicist_campaign/9202

 

In regards to other gospel texts, most texts not included in the Bible were written much later or forged. You can read Bart Ehrman's Lost Scriptures and Lost Christianities to learn more about other texts. Just a note, I know that lots of atheists are skeptical of Christian scholarly work (which I find odd in most cases). Ehrman is actually agnostic.

Btw- Why does it matter if there was no inspiration? You can still use scholarly means to find authentic sayings.  

 

Hambydammit wrote:

Considering a generous estimate of late first century authorship, what precisely do you think Jesus was ahead of? Which moral teachings did he originate? Could you give me specifics?

Well, authentic sayings show his willingness to break tribal, religious, gender and social boundaries to promote love, mercy, forgiveness and justice. I would have to write a long essay to prove this point. If you are interested, the Five Gospels by Robert Funk is a great look into authentic sayings. Furthermore, Jesus for the Non-Religious by John Spong is a good model for the historical Jesus. Note: Spong makes some great arguments about the historical Jesus. However, I do not endorse all of his work. He makes some very odd assumptions about Jesus as well (like using the wedding at Cana to prove that Jesus was married).

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." (CS Lewis)

"A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading." (CS Lewis)


Christos
Theist
Christos's picture
Posts: 311
Joined: 2007-06-05
User is offlineOffline
Genesis c22v12

Genesis c22v12 wrote:

Jesus doesn't tell Christians how to tolerate sin legally in society. But the OT, also inspired according Christians, is VERY specific: you should not tolerate abominations among you.


Stop making blanket claims about a diverse religion. To most intellectual Christians, the Bible is a human document with lots of error. It also is a tool for them to live in relationship to God. So to them, the OT is not inspired the way you are implying.

Again, the way they read the Bible is Christ-centrically. There is a reason why most Christians are agaisnt "an eye for an eye." Thats becasue Jesus specifically throws away that notion during the Sermon on the Mount in the Book of Matthew.

For example, my friend is going to be a pastor. Through his reading of the Gospels, he would never force opinions on others (that is why he is pro-choice).

Btw Genesis: I can tell you've been reading lots of Sam Harris. You're basically reciting his "moderates don't stop the fundies," arguement.

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." (CS Lewis)

"A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading." (CS Lewis)


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Genesis c22v12

Genesis c22v12 wrote:

 

Fundamentalists Christians will not allow you to "sin" legally for God says in the Bible that He will punish not only the sinner, but those who tolerated his sinful behavior. It's perfectly moral for a Christian to try to legislate their behavior on you This irrational belief is anti-american and goes against individual freedom.

 

There are many nations with high Christian population including in government that are excellent countries to live in. 

 

 

Quote:

If libertarian christians acted differently is because they didn't understand their holy book.

 

No True Scotsman fallacy. 'No true Christian would respect the rights of others.' See above.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Cool, Christos.  Thanks

Cool, Christos.  Thanks for the info.

(I was mainly pointing out that trusting the people at the Council of Nicea to be history experts, and unbiased, at that, is pretty silly.  If we're not assuming divinity, then they must be considered at least uninformed, and at most politically biased.)

I'll keep an eye out for those books, but as I said, I'm not real big on going much past the absurdity of the Christian God, and I'm just as content to rely on current philosophers and scientists to try to learn about human morality.

No offense intended.  Sincerely, thanks for the info.  If you ever do write an essay on Jesus sayings, I'd be interested in reading it, but I'd never expect you to do such a thing just to satisfy my curiosity.

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Genesis c22v12
Genesis c22v12's picture
Posts: 30
Joined: 2006-11-26
User is offlineOffline
Christos wrote: Stop

Christos wrote:

Stop making blanket claims about a diverse religion. To most intellectual Christians, the Bible is a human document with lots of error.

I am talking about Christians who understand their religion, not the intellectual ones who try to conciliate an iron age fable with modern age enlightment, going from rationalism to irrationalism as changing clothes. Real Christians are the fundies. Moderate christians are just innocent cover ups for the real stuff.

Christos wrote:
For example, my friend is going to be a pastor. Through his reading of the Gospels, he would never force opinions on others (that is why he is pro-choice)

He is in the minority. Even in moderate christian countries there is lot of legislation trying to "moralise" (according to some religious moral code) society. Moderate christians condone and sometimes participate in the "good intentioned" attacks on human right to act and be accepted publicly (legally). The best they do is keep silent.

And yes, I think Sam Harris is investigating an interesting point in this discussion. Moderates always felt "smart" and "superior", now they are being revealed as frauds. That's why they are so defensive and try to dismiss people like him or Hitchens as rapidly as possible.

But I hope this discussion is only beginning

Disrespectful of Religion


Christos
Theist
Christos's picture
Posts: 311
Joined: 2007-06-05
User is offlineOffline
Genesis c22v12 wrote:

Genesis c22v12 wrote:

I am talking about Christians who understand their religion

Wow, are you talking about James Kennedy and Pat Robertson? If you think they understand Christianity you're a total idiot. Try Dominic Crossan for a change.

Genesis c22v12 wrote:

Even in moderate christian countries there is lot of legislation trying to "moralise" (according to some religious moral code) society. Moderate christians condone and sometimes participate in the "good intentioned" attacks on human right to act and be accepted publicly (legally). The best they do is keep silent.

This is unacceptably stupid and you appear to be highly uninformed about world religions. Go read something other than Harris or Dawkins.

Genesis c22v12 wrote:

That's why they are so defensive and try to dismiss people like him or Hitchens as rapidly as possible.

Actually, I only dismiss Hitchens becasue he's stood in the presence of David Irving without spitting in Irving's face and calling him an anti-semitic fuckhead.

Seriously though, anyone who socially associates themselves with Irving and his modern anti-semitic pseudoscience can be totally written off.

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." (CS Lewis)

"A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading." (CS Lewis)


Genesis c22v12
Genesis c22v12's picture
Posts: 30
Joined: 2006-11-26
User is offlineOffline
Both of them represent an

Both of them represent an old Christian tradition of being judgmental and as owners of truth, pushing their religions on others.

And there must be a reason for legislation in the US being so moralist: fundies incite, moderates condone some attacks on secularism, as long as not too shocking, and give philosophical points for belief in ghosts, they just differ on how crazy and serious you should go about the strange stories you force your intellect to believe.

 

We don't need religion and this intellectuality doesn't make Christianity less laughable or dangerous. Catholics are considered moderate but do a lot of work in this attack on people's rights.

The message moderates send to fundies is: the problem is not that you're irrational, after all I also believe Jesus flew up into the sky like a rocket, or a donkey chatted with a man and God ordered Josueh to terminate somepeople because they happened to be born in a society with the wrong god or that God will take revenge on bad people, ...the problem is that times changed...God got older, his temper got better, he had a son, you know...and doesn't go out there anymore stoping the sun, drowining babies and stuff. Now he is the First Cause, The inimaginable intangleble before-big -bang holy ghost who is energy, "imaterial" and love and crap and bull and shit and so on...and LOVES everybody!

What intellectual authority do moderates have to question fundies' extreme beliefs, even if they don't buy part of the bull?

Disrespectful of Religion


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Genesis c22v12 wrote: Both

Genesis c22v12 wrote:

Both of them represent an old Christian tradition of being judgmental and as owners of truth, pushing their religions on others.

And there must be a reason for legislation in the US being so moralist: fundies incite, moderates condone some attacks on secularism, as long as not too shocking, and give philosophical points for belief in ghosts, they just differ on how crazy and serious you should go about the strange stories you force your intellect to believe.

 

We don't need religion and this intellectuality doesn't make Christianity less laughable or dangerous. Catholics are considered moderate but do a lot of work in this attack on people's rights.

The message moderates send to fundies is: the problem is not that you're irrational, after all I also believe Jesus flew up into the sky like a rocket, or a donkey chatted with a man and God ordered Josueh to terminate somepeople because they happened to be born in a society with the wrong god or that God will take revenge on bad people, ...the problem is that times changed...God got older, his temper got better, he had a son, you know...and doesn't go out there anymore stoping the sun, drowining babies and stuff. Now he is the First Cause, The inimaginable intangleble before-big -bang holy ghost who is energy, "imaterial" and love and crap and bull and shit and so on...and LOVES everybody!

What intellectual authority do moderates have to question fundies' extreme beliefs, even if they don't buy part of the bull?

 

You read WAY too much Harris/Dawkins.  


Iruka Naminori
atheist
Iruka Naminori's picture
Posts: 1955
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
Genesis c22v12 wrote:

Both of them represent an old Christian tradition of being judgmental and as owners of truth, pushing their religions on others.

And there must be a reason for legislation in the US being so moralist: fundies incite, moderates condone some attacks on secularism, as long as not too shocking, and give philosophical points for belief in ghosts, they just differ on how crazy and serious you should go about the strange stories you force your intellect to believe.

 

We don't need religion and this intellectuality doesn't make Christianity less laughable or dangerous. Catholics are considered moderate but do a lot of work in this attack on people's rights.

The message moderates send to fundies is: the problem is not that you're irrational, after all I also believe Jesus flew up into the sky like a rocket, or a donkey chatted with a man and God ordered Josueh to terminate somepeople because they happened to be born in a society with the wrong god or that God will take revenge on bad people, ...the problem is that times changed...God got older, his temper got better, he had a son, you know...and doesn't go out there anymore stoping the sun, drowining babies and stuff. Now he is the First Cause, The inimaginable intangleble before-big -bang holy ghost who is energy, "imaterial" and love and crap and bull and shit and so on...and LOVES everybody!

What intellectual authority do moderates have to question fundies' extreme beliefs, even if they don't buy part of the bull?

 

You read WAY too much Harris/Dawkins.

Cpt_Pineapple, would you care to expound on why you think Harris and Dawkins are wrong about moderate religionists?

Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


LosingStreak06
Theist
LosingStreak06's picture
Posts: 768
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
Genesis c22v12 wrote: What

Genesis c22v12 wrote:

What intellectual authority do moderates have to question fundies' extreme beliefs, even if they don't buy part of the bull?

It's not intellectual authority, it's pragmatic authority. You should read Strafio's topic about language games and how they apply to religious moderates and fundies here.


Christos
Theist
Christos's picture
Posts: 311
Joined: 2007-06-05
User is offlineOffline
Genesis c22v12 wrote: Both

Genesis c22v12 wrote:

Both of them represent an old Christian tradition of being judgmental and as owners of truth, pushing their religions on others.

And there must be a reason for legislation in the US being so moralist: fundies incite, moderates condone some attacks on secularism, as long as not too shocking, and give philosophical points for belief in ghosts, they just differ on how crazy and serious you should go about the strange stories you force your intellect to believe.

 

We don't need religion and this intellectuality doesn't make Christianity less laughable or dangerous. Catholics are considered moderate but do a lot of work in this attack on people's rights.

The message moderates send to fundies is: the problem is not that you're irrational, after all I also believe Jesus flew up into the sky like a rocket, or a donkey chatted with a man and God ordered Josueh to terminate somepeople because they happened to be born in a society with the wrong god or that God will take revenge on bad people, ...the problem is that times changed...God got older, his temper got better, he had a son, you know...and doesn't go out there anymore stoping the sun, drowining babies and stuff. Now he is the First Cause, The inimaginable intangleble before-big -bang holy ghost who is energy, "imaterial" and love and crap and bull and shit and so on...and LOVES everybody!

What intellectual authority do moderates have to question fundies' extreme beliefs, even if they don't buy part of the bull?

Congrats Genesis! This is one of the stupidest posts I've read in a while. Nice job citing any examples in your extreme polarization of a diverse religion.

You logic goes something like this:

Fundies are dumb

Moderates suck because they don't stop them

But moderates shouldn't stop them because they have no grounds to do so

Thus the universe implodes

Stop making claims about a religion that you literally have no knowledge about. Atheists would be better off if morons like you stopped talking.  

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." (CS Lewis)

"A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading." (CS Lewis)


vexed
vexed's picture
Posts: 104
Joined: 2007-06-03
User is offlineOffline
Christos wrote:Stop

Christos wrote:

Stop making claims about a religion that you literally have no knowledge about. Atheists would be better off if morons like you stopped talking.  

Let's not use ad hominems in an attempt to silence another.

"I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."--Stephen F. Roberts


Christos
Theist
Christos's picture
Posts: 311
Joined: 2007-06-05
User is offlineOffline
I apologize for the insults.

I apologize for the insults. I'm just a little frustrating with Genesis. 


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
LosingStreak06

LosingStreak06 wrote:
Genesis c22v12 wrote:

What intellectual authority do moderates have to question fundies' extreme beliefs, even if they don't buy part of the bull?

It's not intellectual authority, it's pragmatic authority. You should read Strafio's topic about language games and how they apply to religious moderates and fundies here.

Faith is antithetical to pragmatism. Anyone who argues based on faith has no 'pragmatic authority' in any sense. Pragmatism says 'use what works', faith says 'use what feels right'. I'll check out the link, but I doubt it addresses this point.

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
Christos wrote: I apologize

Christos wrote:
I apologize for the insults. I'm just a little frustrating with Genesis.

Perhaps because you couldn't refute his argument without making a straw man out of it. The problem with moderates is that they base their beliefs on faith. The exact same faith extremists base their beliefs on. A moderate has no convincing ground on which to stand which can convince the extremist he's wrong. They cannot demonstrate how their beliefs are better than the extremists'. Faith cannot disprove faith. But evidence can.

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


Christos
Theist
Christos's picture
Posts: 311
Joined: 2007-06-05
User is offlineOffline
Natural, the main problem

Natural, the main problem that I have with your point is that moderates pose no significant threat to the rest of us. Obviously, the Christian Right poses a serious problem to the future of the United States.

Attacking moderates is putting the cart before the horse. Get rid of dangerous fundamentalism before even trying to attack moderate belief.  

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." (CS Lewis)

"A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading." (CS Lewis)


LosingStreak06
Theist
LosingStreak06's picture
Posts: 768
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
natural

natural wrote:
LosingStreak06 wrote:
Genesis c22v12 wrote:

What intellectual authority do moderates have to question fundies' extreme beliefs, even if they don't buy part of the bull?

It's not intellectual authority, it's pragmatic authority. You should read Strafio's topic about language games and how they apply to religious moderates and fundies here.

Faith is antithetical to pragmatism. Anyone who argues based on faith has no 'pragmatic authority' in any sense. Pragmatism says 'use what works', faith says 'use what feels right'. I'll check out the link, but I doubt it addresses this point.

Moderate religiosity says "what works feels right." No moderate is going to feel that something is right if that something isn't useful.


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
The only thing moderates

The only thing moderates are good for is protecting fundamentalists from reasonable people. If it was only fundamentalists who believed outlandish shit with no evidence whatsoever then they could be attacked for it but because moderates exist there is a large group of people standing between the fundys and the critical people saying “no, it’s ok to believe outlandish things with no evidence, the real problem is that fundamentalists do xyz.” Well, the reason that they do xyz is because they have a supernatural mandate to do it and moderates validate it; whether you want to deny it or not fundamentalists would have a very hard time operating without a large group of moderates to lend some degree of credibility to their position.   

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


Christos
Theist
Christos's picture
Posts: 311
Joined: 2007-06-05
User is offlineOffline
If you think that moderates

If you think that moderates don't attack fundamentalism, you're wrong. Meet John Shelby Spong, Dominic Crossan, Chris Hedges, Anne LaMott, and Rob Bell......just to name a few off the top of my head.

If we really want to get rid of fundamentalism, it would be significantly more effective to partner with moderates to destroy the Christian Right's credibility.

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." (CS Lewis)

"A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading." (CS Lewis)


Roisin Dubh
Roisin Dubh's picture
Posts: 428
Joined: 2007-02-11
User is offlineOffline
I think part of the problem

I think part of the problem in this thread is perhaps conflicting definitions of what constitutes a "moderate" christian, and what is considered "fundamentalist."  I guess a fundamentalist is easier to pin down, but moderate is a pretty vague term, no?

"The powerful have always created false images of the weak."


LosingStreak06
Theist
LosingStreak06's picture
Posts: 768
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
Roisin Dubh wrote: I think

Roisin Dubh wrote:
I think part of the problem in this thread is perhaps conflicting definitions of what constitutes a "moderate" christian, and what is considered "fundamentalist." I guess a fundamentalist is easier to pin down, but moderate is a pretty vague term, no?

What exactly is your definition of a fundamentalist? 


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Christos wrote: If you

Christos wrote:

If you think that moderates don't attack fundamentalism, you're wrong. Meet John Shelby Spong, Dominic Crossan, Chris Hedges, Anne LaMott, and Rob Bell......just to name a few off the top of my head.

If we really want to get rid of fundamentalism, it would be significantly more effective to partner with moderates to destroy the Christian Right's credibility.

 

 

I’m sure they do attack fundamentalism but out of the other side of their mouths they’re validating the belief system. You can’t really argue with a person that is not relying on facts or evidence anyway, especially if you’re not relying on those things either.

If people would stop being such babies and just drink down the foul tasting reality then we could isolate the problem until it becomes necrotic and falls off. But no you have to have your god thing, and the price of your god thing is that fundamentalists can’t really be ostracized for their beliefs because their beliefs are no more or less valid than the average moderate’s.

 

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


Eight Foot Manchild
Eight Foot Manchild's picture
Posts: 144
Joined: 2007-05-12
User is offlineOffline
Roisin Dubh wrote:I think

Roisin Dubh wrote:
I think part of the problem in this thread is perhaps conflicting definitions of what constitutes a "moderate" christian, and what is considered "fundamentalist."  I guess a fundamentalist is easier to pin down, but moderate is a pretty vague term, no?

It is, yes. If you think of a fundamentalist Christian or Muslim, you pretty much know exactly what they believe, whereas no two moderates seem to have the same version of their faith. That's their "strength" in a sense. They can believe whatever they want. When I get in a debate with a moderate, I usually have to waste at least twenty minutes going through various arguments and areas of discussion before I get an idea of what they actually believe.
And ultimately, I don't think moderates do anything to combat fundamentalism. As long as the "holy" books say what they say, anyone has the ability to putz through them and find devine warrant for almost any atrocity they wish. Like Hitchens says, you can't end fundamentalism by replacing it with a quieter version of the same delusion.


Genesis c22v12
Genesis c22v12's picture
Posts: 30
Joined: 2006-11-26
User is offlineOffline
I don't mean to establish

I regret my attempt to establish what is real Christianity. You can make it mean whatever you want, as long as you have the intellectual ability to make implicit sense of your ideas.

But we can identify trends and traditions whithin a religion and try to understand how it began and the ideas behind it. There is an authoritarian and intollerant environment in the OT and this where Christianity stems. You can say it's all over now, God now orders christians to wait until he comes to do the dirty job, we have not to fear reasonable christians, but all the bullshit continue there, in the bottom of their minds and very active in the minds of the fundies. Maybe that's why they are so timid defending the infidels and pervert's rights.

If they stopped trying to conciliate sensible and wacko things, fundies delusions would became a lot more apparent. Because the real problem is not who has the smarter approach to their God and his morals, but the deficient worldview that both share.

Disrespectful of Religion


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Eight Foot Manchild

Eight Foot Manchild wrote:

And ultimately, I don't think moderates do anything to combat fundamentalism.

 

I have yet to see a good answer to fundamentalism. Rational arguments just don't work. There seems to be a certain percentage of people in the population that are attracted to extreme ideas. Religious fundamentalism is a good avenue of expression for these types of people, but it is not mutually exclusive. Cults of personality surronding dictators is a good example. This is almost like religious worship. In a country like North Korea or pre-ware Iraq, enough people are willing to abandon their rationality to allow leaders more like demi-gods than human. The real danger is not religion, but rather the capacity of people to abandon reason and delegate the duty of "truth" to a central leadership. I see this dymamic even among atheists. There are some many atheists that actuall THINK about their positions and can articulate their thoughts. But I also see atheist posers that learn a minimal amount about the central issues and simply parrot the words of those that are providing the intellectual underpinnings of atheism. They put on the pretext of rationality but are in truth just as irrational as any religious fundamentalist.

 

The quandry about combating extremism is that I am not willing to become an extremist to do so. I do not broadcast my beliefs and expect people to confom. But by not laying out my beliefs for all to see, I find that I am rarely asked what I believe. The extremists have the advantage as their beliefs often REQUIRE prosyletizing. My beliefs require that I DON'T prosyletize.


Genesis c22v12
Genesis c22v12's picture
Posts: 30
Joined: 2006-11-26
User is offlineOffline
Christianity inpires

Christianity inpires radicalism. It is rooted in radicalism, and grown with it. Is there a more radical idea than saying all nonbelievers will be slaughtered by their God? JESUS says so.

I can't see why an atheist would opress someone based on atheism itself. Yet religion has a deep foundation in opression. To avoid it, moderates have to do a lot of intellectual gimnastics. I just can't see someone having to reinterpret Russel or Paine in order to be in freedom's side.

We can't spare any religious people of criticism, moderate or radical, because we criticize religious thought, its mysticism and consequences, which include human opression.

Disrespectful of Religion


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Genesis c22v12

Genesis c22v12 wrote:

Christianity inpires radicalism. It is rooted in radicalism, and grown with it. Is there a more radical idea than saying all nonbelievers will be slaughtered by their God? JESUS says so.

I can't see why an atheist would opress someone based on atheism itself. Yet religion has a deep foundation in opression. To avoid it, moderates have to do a lot of intellectual gimnastics. I just can't see someone having to reinterpret Russel or Paine in order to be in freedom's side.

We can't spare any religious people of criticism, moderate or radical, because we criticize religious thought, its mysticism and consequences, which include human opression.

 

I oppress no one. If some perverse govenrment came about that persectued and executed atheists, I would fight against it. I would help you escape to safety. I would hide you in my attic regardless of personal risk. I would rather die then submit to such a travesty.  


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote:

Quote:
I can't see why an atheist would opress someone based on atheism itself. Yet religion has a deep foundation in opression. To avoid it, moderates have to do a lot of intellectual gimnastics. I just can't see someone having to reinterpret Russel or Paine in order to be in freedom's side.

Atheist is not the opposite of Christianity. Atheist is the opposite of a theist.

So it's easy to say "I don't believe an atheist would oppress someone based on atheism itself" even as it's easy for me to say "I don't believe a theist would oppress someone based on theism itself."

No.. it is the beliefs held within that larger construct which lead to the oppression.

Fine, you assert Christianity is oppressive (a large group, no doubt, of which I believe you will find both)... I assert that secular communism is oppressive.

What do I mean by this? Who knows.. but if I were to use the argument style going on in this thread (at points), anytime you give an example of a "non oppressive" communist state.. I will just say "that's not a true communist state" or "that's a moderate communist state and should be done away with just because they support the more extreme communist states."

Communism should be eliminated! both extreme and moderate alike! As well as Atheism.. because "atheist will oppress on atheism itself."

Ridiculous. Sticking out tongue

I would consider myself a moderate.. I consider the bible to hold truth.. I do not contend that I know what it is.. therefore, I realize it can be liberally interpreted.

If someone want's to believe that I will burn in hell forever for not thinking as they do.. fine.

If someone want's to believe that they should kill me if I don't believe like them.. fine.

If someone want's to believe that they should force others through a theocratic democracy.. fine.

If someone trys to kill me because I don't believe like them.. I'll punch them in the face. Sticking out tongue

As for the democracy.. whatever. It's what we live in. If enough people in the U.S. wish to institute a constitutional ammendant repealing the first.. so be it. Sticking out tongue Move if it bothers you that much.

Until such a time.. the battle is in the realm of ideas and only in the realm of ideas.. the issue being: Should one force another into acting as he feels is moral based on nothing more than that persons morality?

I believe most moderates would say no.

So I don't see what the problem is. Sticking out tongue


Genesis c22v12
Genesis c22v12's picture
Posts: 30
Joined: 2006-11-26
User is offlineOffline
I find it very dangereous a

I find it very dangereous a lot of people who believe in fairy tales liberally interpreting a book which says God orders his people to do genocide. Inevitable caos outweght any possible advantages.

 

Good people can be religious if they rationalize the evil in their religious books and ideologies and act more like a modern and enlightened human being. But they could be spared the work if they rejected absurd ideas right from the bat.

 

 

Disrespectful of Religion


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote:

Quote:
I find it very dangereous a lot of people who believe in fairy tales liberally interpreting a book which says God orders his people to do genocide.

So do I.

Quote:
Inevitable caos outweght any possible advantages.

I haven't committed any genocide. Nor have a number (hundreds of millions) of other christians committed genocide. So I would hardly say it's inevitable.

As for "any possible advantages." I suppose that's all based on what you consider an advantage. To the world? or to that one believer?

Quote:
Good people can be religious if they rationalize the evil in their religious books and ideologies and act more like a modern and enlightened human being.

Heh. How bout we just say "interpret the book" as opposed to "rationalize the evil."  The language is to saturated with bias. Smiling

I don't "rationalize the evil" of the Lord of the Rings series-- I interpret the book and it's individual instances in it's entirety. Smiling

Quote:
But they could be spared the work if they rejected absurd ideas right from the bat.

Um.. the absurd "evil" ideas? Or "ideas" in general? Your writing can be awfully equivocal at times... IMO. Smiling


Genesis c22v12
Genesis c22v12's picture
Posts: 30
Joined: 2006-11-26
User is offlineOffline
Quote:

Quote:
so I do

So you agree that Christianity is dangerous?

You didn't commit genocide but I would not be surprised if you did, as long as you had a bible from which to get the idea. The people who wrote it were religious opressors.

Apart from that, your idea that we should interpret a book to learn anything mysterious about reality is absurd.

Disrespectful of Religion


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote:

Quote:
I find it very dangereous a lot of people who believe in fairy tales liberally interpreting a book which says God orders his people to do genocide.

Quote:
so I do

Quote:
So you agree that Christianity is dangerous?

Only if I believe Christianity is a fairy tale (which I do not, since Christianity does exist, however, its book may be a "fairy tale&quotEye-wink and that the book which the "fairy tale" is based on is a book which unequivocally demands that one should commit genocide.

Sticking out tongue

Quote:
You didn't commit genocide but I would not be surprised if you did,

Good to know.

Quote:
as long as you had a bible from which to misintrerpret.

Any book could be misinterpreted.

Quote:
The people who wrote it were religious opressors.

Good stuff. Even if this is true.. nuclear energy came out of the military. Doesn't mean I don't think theres lots to be gained from nuclear energy. Smiling

Quote:
Apart from that, your idea that we should interpret a book to learn anything mysterious about reality is simply silly.

When did I say that? I do not contend that the bible illuminates "the mysterious."  Even if I did, I'm sure I didn't contend that one "should" read it in order to be illuminated on this particulary mystery.

I might contend that the bible suggests a certain understanding about reality.. in much the same way as a book describing the multiverse might be said as suggesting a certain understanding about reality.

Whether that constitutes a mystery.. or mysterious.. is up to anyones opinion.  Still doesn't mean that I have contended one should read something in order to be illuminated on either subject.


Christos
Theist
Christos's picture
Posts: 311
Joined: 2007-06-05
User is offlineOffline
Genesis c22v12

Genesis c22v12 wrote:

Christianity inpires radicalism. It is rooted in radicalism, and grown with it. Is there a more radical idea than saying all nonbelievers will be slaughtered by their God? JESUS says so.

I can't see why an atheist would opress someone based on atheism itself.

Why don't you quote a verse when you make a claim about Jesus. If you're refering to Luke 19:27, that is NOT an authentic saying. It was an addition by a later scribe. There are no authentic sayings of Jesus that advocate violence. Stop making stupid claims about a religion that you do not understand Genesis.

On to your other point. Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao, the Cult of Reason. They killed more people then any religion. You defense will obviously be that someone like Stalin was not truly rational. Thus, the same valid argument can be used by a Christian when refering to something like the Inquistion. People who kill in the name of Jesus aren't actually following the tenets of Christianity. Atheism can be misued for violence just like religion can.

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." (CS Lewis)

"A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading." (CS Lewis)


Genesis c22v12
Genesis c22v12's picture
Posts: 30
Joined: 2006-11-26
User is offlineOffline
Any book could be

Any book could be misinterpreted, but the if we had to make a list, religious books would come right on the top. The idea that an interpretation could yield asbolute thruth is preposterous in itself.

Quote:
The people who wrote it were religious opressors.

Good stuff. Even if this is true.. nuclear energy came out of the military. Doesn't mean I don't think theres lots to be gained from nuclear energy.

Think again. It is not the same since I was talking about ideologies.

Quote:
I might contend that the bible suggests a certain understanding about reality.. in much the same way as a book describing the multiverse might be said as suggesting a certain understanding about reality.

Could you be more specific. It would be nice to know how you feel about the bible.

Disrespectful of Religion


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote: The idea that an

Quote:
The idea that an interpretation could yield asbolute thruth is preposterous in itself.

The idea that anyone could now gain absolute truth is preposterous in itself.  IMO. 

Quote:
Think again. It is not the same since I was talking about ideologies.

Of course it's not the same.  It was an analogy.

 

Quote:
Could you be more specific. It would be nice to know how you feel about the bible.

 I feel as the bible can illuminate some truth.  I do not feel as if the bible is the exclusive means by which to come to that truth.

It is neither necessary nor sufficient.  Merely a tool, if you would like to think of it in such a sense. Smiling 


Genesis c22v12
Genesis c22v12's picture
Posts: 30
Joined: 2006-11-26
User is offlineOffline
Genesis c22v12 wrote: Why

Genesis c22v12 wrote:

Why don't you quote a verse when you make a claim about Jesus. If you're refering to Luke 19:27, that is NOT an authentic saying. It was an addition by a later scribe. There are no authentic sayings of Jesus that advocate violence.

I am talking about the Bible most Christians believe. Maybe it is you who came up with a new Christian sect and naturally think nobody else know about the "real" Jesus.

Quote:
On to your other point. Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao, the Cult of Reason. They killed more people then any religion. You defense will obviously be that someone like Stalin was not truly rational. Thus, the same valid argument can be used by a Christian when refering to something like the Inquistion.

Stalin and the likes killed in the name of communism, not atheism. There was no "misinterpretation" of athism being pushed on people, since atheism isn't even an ideology. But religion IS an ideology, and one born when man was very desregarding of human rights.

Quote:
People who kill in the name of Jesus aren't actually following the tenets of Christianity. Atheism can be misued for violence just like religion can.

Atheism is not an ideology, it is just disbelief in gods and in the supernatural. Comunism is an ideology, embraced by scores of christians in my country (Brazil) by the way.

 

Disrespectful of Religion


Genesis c22v12
Genesis c22v12's picture
Posts: 30
Joined: 2006-11-26
User is offlineOffline
Quote:

Quote:
Of course it's not the same. It was an analogy.

A bad one, misrepresenting the real situation.

Quote:
I feel as the bible can illuminate some truth. I do not feel as if the bible is the exclusive means by which to come to that truth.It is neither necessary nor sufficient. Merely a tool, if you would like to think of it in such a sense. Smiling

It is the funniest book ever compiled. But it sure can serve as a light for us to understand how those people were irrational, ignorant and depraved.

Disrespectful of Religion


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote: A bad one,

Quote:
A bad one, misrepresenting the real situation.

I'll let a third party judge.

Quote:
It is the funniest book ever compiled. But it sure can serve as a light for us to understand how those people were irrational, ignorant and depraved.

And you're perfectly free to opine as you opine.. as am I. Smiling 


Christos
Theist
Christos's picture
Posts: 311
Joined: 2007-06-05
User is offlineOffline
Genesis c22v12 wrote: I am

Genesis c22v12 wrote:

I am talking about the Bible most Christians believe. Maybe it is you who came up with a new Christian sect and naturally think nobody else know about the "real" Jesus.

Maybe its possible to think critically about the Bible, reject miracles, and see the powerful message put forward by Jesus. I don't have to be a Christian to appreciate that. When you say "most Christians," you are once again polarizing a complex religion. You really don't know anything about Christianity. 

 

Genesis c22v12 wrote:

Stalin and the likes killed in the name of communism, not atheism.

Uh yeah, have you ever heard of the Gulag. Stalin was an atheist who massacred hundreds of thousands of Christians during his reign.

Research the Cult of Reason in France. They killed in the name of Atheism.

Seriously Genesis, research your points before you spout off nonsense.  

 

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." (CS Lewis)

"A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading." (CS Lewis)


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Iruka Naminori

Iruka Naminori wrote:

Cpt_Pineapple, would you care to expound on why you think Harris and Dawkins are wrong about moderate religionists?

 

Gladly.

 

Russian seperatists hide behind the moderate patriots.  

 

The same logic can apply.  The moderate patriots hold the same beliefs as the seperatists, (the pull out of Soviet forces), but do not commit the same actions.

 

If you want more examples, I will gladly give them to you. 

 

This can be seen from secular sources too, and to tie it to strictly religious motives is bullshit.  


Genesis c22v12
Genesis c22v12's picture
Posts: 30
Joined: 2006-11-26
User is offlineOffline
Christos, you are in the

Christos, you are in the minority, sorry. Most christians believe the bible is inspired and the miracles happened. Evangelicals and Catholics at least.

Comunism is not an interpretation of atheism, since atheism is not a doctrine for morals, on how you should treat people or organise yourself politically. Atheism don't claim anything, except that God doesn't exist. Russian and most comunists happened to think the state should substitute religion. Comunists were not presenting their version of real atheism but of how society should organise itself politically. Atheism happend to be part of their vision, not an inspirer.

Now compare it with Christianity. There is no way to deny the inquisitors took their ideas from their interpretation of Christian doctrines. They were making their sense of Christianity.

See the difference?

 

 

Disrespectful of Religion


Genesis c22v12
Genesis c22v12's picture
Posts: 30
Joined: 2006-11-26
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Russian seperatists hide behind the moderate patriots.

The same logic can apply. The moderate patriots hold the same beliefs as the seperatists, (the pull out of Soviet forces), but do not commit the same actions.

Suppose there was a holy book for the issue, full of bullshit. Both groups thought it was true, but the second rationalized the violence in this book and acted pacifically.

I would feel safe to say they were encouraging maniacs to act since they would be validating the irracionality from which these beliefs come from. Fundies do evil first and foremost because they believe a spook exists in the sky and that the Bible is inspiered, and should be interpreted. 

Disrespectful of Religion


Christos
Theist
Christos's picture
Posts: 311
Joined: 2007-06-05
User is offlineOffline
Genesis c22v12

Genesis c22v12 wrote:

Christos, you are in the minority, sorry. Most christians believe the bible is inspired and the miracles happened. Evangelicals and Catholics at least.

Cite some study proving this. That is a huge generalization of 2.1 billion people. Again, you really are making claims about something you haven't studied. 

Funny how you ignored my claim about The Cult of Reason. They killed people in the name of atheism.

 

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." (CS Lewis)

"A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading." (CS Lewis)


Genesis c22v12
Genesis c22v12's picture
Posts: 30
Joined: 2006-11-26
User is offlineOffline
As for what they believe,

As for what they believe, ask their churches. Most of them will hold to most foundational beliefs. But forget the churches, let us see the common believer . Christians believers will at least say there is a God up there who must be understood by interpretations of literal material and fellings (what is even more dangerous). I don't need sources to say that.

I have never heard of the Cult of Reason, I was more interested questioning this popular idea that comunism is an interpretation of atheism the same way radical cristianisms are interpretations of christian doctrines. Comunism doesn't even need atheism.

 

Disrespectful of Religion