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.


Christos
Theist
Christos's picture
Posts: 311
Joined: 2007-06-05
User is offlineOffline
You do need sources for

You do need sources for your massive generalizations of a complex religion. 

You should do some research on the Cult of Reason. 

"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 I told you, atheism

 

As I told you, atheism doesn't inform you what to do. It is just lack of belief in god. It could never be "misinterpreted" to justify this or that because there is nothing there to interpret in the first place.

Most Christians believe God is an intelligent spirit which has a will and we should find in scripture what it is.

Disrespectful of Religion


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

Genesis c22v12 wrote:

 

As I told you, atheism doesn't inform you what to do.

Even so, atheists develop informed behaviors. Disallowing the formation of those behaviors based on god belief only changes the source not the consequence. You can't divorce the formation of your morality from the totality of your thought processes. An athiest cannot divorce their morality from their atheism without being intellectually dishonest.


Genesis c22v12
Genesis c22v12's picture
Posts: 30
Joined: 2006-11-26
User is offlineOffline
Atheism can only be part of

Atheism can only be part of your ideology, like theism.

Christianism is an ideology, based on a particular understanding of theism, who informs us not only that there is an absolute being in the sky but that he has a son, and wills, and a whole set of complicated moral and theological ideas from which to interpret. It is irrational, dangerous and unecessary.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Disrespectful of Religion


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

Genesis c22v12 wrote:

Atheism can only be part of your ideology, like theism.

Christianism is an ideology, based on a particular understanding of theism, who informs us not only that there is an absolute being in the sky but that he has a son, and wills, and a whole set of complicated moral and theological ideas from which to interpret. It is irrational, dangerous and unecessary.

 

You really need to read something other than Harris and Dawkins. 

"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)


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

Christos wrote:

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.

You're missing the point. Moderates provide cover for extremists by insisting on the validity of faith. If you don't get that, I'm not sure how to explain it to you. You can't 'get rid of fundamentalism' if the moderates are saying 'you can't criticize their faith!' 

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
LosingStreak06

LosingStreak06 wrote:
natural wrote:
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.

Bullshit. Moderates believe in prayer which doesn't work. They believe in the power of faith to know things, which doesn't work. They believe in lots of shit that doesn't work. Why do they believe these things? Because they feel like they are true.

The only way to know that something works is to test it. Testing is antithetical to faith. When something happens that goes against your faith-based beliefs, that's called 'testing your faith', and you're supposed to CONTINUE believing, not stop believing. This is the opposite of testing to see if faith works and then discarding faith that doesn't work. 

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!


Genesis c22v12
Genesis c22v12's picture
Posts: 30
Joined: 2006-11-26
User is offlineOffline
You really need to read

You really need to read something other than Harris and Dawkins.

 

The same  old talk about respecting other people's beliefs?

 

Disrespectful of Religion


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
I would say that if Russian

I would say that if Russian separatists want to secede because an ancient fairytale told them to then the moderates can be held responsible for the actions of their more fanatical counterparts.

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


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote: I would say

Gauche wrote:

I would say that if Russian separatists want to secede because an ancient fairytale told them to then the moderates can be held responsible for the actions of their more fanatical counterparts.

 

This smells like the "with us or against us" crap of George Bush. 


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
I don’t know what george

I don’t know what george bush has to do with this at all. Just being moderate doesn’t actually validate your beliefs. If the best you can do to justify your position is pointing to someone more fanatical than you and saying “at least I’m not them” then yeah I have no problem placing some of the blame at your doorstep.  

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


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote: I don’t

Gauche wrote:

I don’t know what george bush has to do with this at all. Just being moderate doesn’t actually validate your beliefs. If the best you can do to justify your position is pointing to someone more fanatical than you and saying “at least I’m not them” then yeah I have no problem placing some of the blame at your doorstep.

 

First, you should have realized by now that I am not anything like most theists. Either that or you haven't read most of my posts.

 Secondly, your logic is faulty. You are essentially saying that if Joe has faith that motivates him to do something and if John has faith, then John is responsible for how faith motivates Joe.  What a load of crap.


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

Christianity is an ancient cult, based of the sacrifice and resurrection of the Messiah. It is grotesque, pure bad taste make believe created by people even dummer than we are now.

Why this obstination in defending it? How can anyone  in the twenty-first century come in defende of such an funny piece of shit?

Disrespectful of Religion


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

Genesis c22v12 wrote:

Christianity is an ancient cult, based of the sacrifice and resurrection of the Messiah. It is grotesque, pure bad taste make believe created by people even dummer than we are now.

Why this obstination in defending it? How can anyone in the twenty-first century come in defende of such an funny piece of shit?

 

Where have I defended Christianity? I'm pointing out a flaw in logic. Considering that the strongest arguments against theism rely on logic then it seems fair to expect logically vaild arguments in this thread. And you are associating all theists with Christians - another fault in your reasoning. I do not support contemporary Christian fundamentalism. I will be glad when it finally fades into obscurity.


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote:  First,

wavefreak wrote:

 First, you should have realized by now that I am not anything like most theists. Either that or you haven't read most of my posts.

Secondly, your logic is faulty. You are essentially saying that if Joe has faith that motivates him to do something and if John has faith, then John is responsible for how faith motivates Joe. What a load of crap.

 

I don’t remember saying anything about you and your person habits don’t interest me. The guy’s whole point was that radicals always operate under an umbrella of protection created by moderates and religious people don’t deserve to be treated differently.  If you disagree with that then maybe you should argue with him instead of leveling stupid charges about george bush at me.

So if I understand you here joe is the walking time bomb and john is the pathetic enabler of joe who should have any responsibility deflected away from him because you said the word “faith”?    

 

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


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

Gauche wrote:
wavefreak wrote:

First, you should have realized by now that I am not anything like most theists. Either that or you haven't read most of my posts.

Secondly, your logic is faulty. You are essentially saying that if Joe has faith that motivates him to do something and if John has faith, then John is responsible for how faith motivates Joe. What a load of crap.

 

I don’t remember saying anything about you and your person habits don’t interest me. The guy’s whole point was that radicals always operate under an umbrella of protection created by moderates and religious people don’t deserve to be treated differently. If you disagree with that then maybe you should argue with him instead of leveling stupid charges about george bush at me.

So if I understand you here joe is the walking time bomb and john is the pathetic enabler of joe who should have any responsibility deflected away from him because you said the word “faith”?

 

 

Radicals don't need an umbrella from moderates. They are driven by a singular obsession with what they believe and don't give a damn about what other beliefs exist. In fact, extremists revile moderates. Moderates are condemned by fundamentalists as "luke warm". Jesus will "spit them out of his mouth". The whole premise that moderates give cover to extremists is flawed from the outset.  Some moderates are repulsed by extremists. By the reasoning offered here, the way to get rid of extremists is to first get rid of moderates. What a crock. This reasoning is extreme in and of itself. So let's get rid of reasonable atheists. Then when that's done, we can focus on the extreme ones.


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
I think you are wrong about

I think you are wrong about that. Radical movements draw their ranks from the moderate movements and without the moderates everyone who held the position would be labeled radical and be pressed to the fringe of society where the movement could slowly fade away.

The guy’s whole point was that if you believe moderated theists are responsible for the actions of fundamentalists then you must also believe that moderate russian separatists are responsible for the actions of radical ones.

But unlike you moderate russian separatists can offer a better defense for their position than just “hey I’m a moderate, don’t blame me for what radical people do.” Shouldn’t someone be able to defend their actual position? Being a moderate doesn’t really validate your beliefs.

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


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote: Being a

Gauche wrote:

Being a moderate doesn’t really validate your beliefs.

 

Until you know my beliefs can you even say I'm a moderate? 


Raki
Superfan
Raki's picture
Posts: 259
Joined: 2007-08-05
User is offlineOffline
Christos wrote: Genesis

Christos wrote:
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.

Are Christians supposed to believe that the whole Bible is error-proof? 

Nero(in response to a Youth pastor) wrote:

You are afraid and should be thus.  We look to eradicate your god from everything but history books.  We bring rationality and clear thought to those who choose lives of ignorance.  We are the blazing, incandescent brand that will leave an "A" so livid, so scarlet on your mind that you will not go an hour without reflecting on reality.


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
I'm not writing here in

I'm not writing here in defense of Protestant style fundamentalism.  While I agree with fundamentalist definitions of those activites deemed as sin, I take exception to some of the practical and political programs they would enact to "correct" these deficiencies in the human condition.

While it is often quite satisfying to engage in mental masturbation and verbal gymnastics to justify wrong beliefs and actions, one should be careful when considering making a blanket statement which is not supported by the historical record.  A brief examination of the historical record will help to illuminate the incorrectness of Genesis' sweeping statement to the effect that Christianity is at odds or opposed to the concept of individual rights.

If the reader will concede that very little occurred in life during the Dark and Middle Ages without, if not the instigation of, atleast witht eh consent of the Church, then:

The basic Christian tenet that all men stand in equality before God has been a driving force in the development of the political quality of all men in the realm of government.  It is the recognition of this doctrine which leads to the slow evolution in the European countryside away from the old Roman system of chattlery, that is the outright ownership of labor by the lords of lands, to serfdom to a landowning peasantry.  In the towns, where a much lower percentage of the population lived following the collapse of the Empire, this slow move is effected by the labor guilds which regulate  not only commerce and trade, but the working conditions of the artisans and craftsmen.

The first crude instances of representative government appear in the Swiis cantons and the Hanseatic League and spreading outward, albeit slowly throughout the rest of Europe.

Courts are established, in which ideally, but imperfectly the equal rights of men before secular government is seen in its most nascent form.

Great documents are promulgated, such as the Magna Carta, limiting the powers of kings and their governments over at least major portions of their subjects.

The Church assumes resonsibility for the care of the sick and the indigent.  Primitive, but locally effective systems of public welfare and assistance based on the incomes of abbeys and monasteries are established to care for the needs of the indigent widows and orphans.  Hospitals are established where the sick and dying are entrusted to the care of monks and nuns.

The Church, either independently, or in conjunction with local kings and rulers founds the first of those schools detined to become the great European universities for the collection, excahnge and dissemenation of knowledge.

That there were abuses within all of these systems, that they were imperfect, is undeniable.  Such corruption and abuse continues to this day.  That these systems were some of the first steps in the overall improvement in the lot of the average European is likewise undeniable as well, though.

The contention that Christianity is opposed to individual rights just doesn't hold water. 

 

 

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II


Tankalish
Theist
Posts: 47
Joined: 2007-07-06
User is offlineOffline
First of all, I'm very

First of all, I'm very impressed that your knowledge of our holy book is so expansive, but luckily I don't fall under your "libertarian" or "fundamentalist" sects, so I escape your net of sweeping generalizations. I am interested in your claim, however, that Christians shouldn't tolerate sinners, especially in light of Christ's (the guy we try to imitate) forgiveness of everybody. Specific examples are present in the Gospels, with the universality of Grace and the potentiality of salvation for all showing up more in Paul's letters.

However, I'm more interested in some of the assumptions you make. Why, for example, is this "individual freedom" good? For you, an atheist I assume as you are markedly throwing away various religious symbols, perhaps signifying the caricatures of the religions that you argue against, I guess it makes sense. All you have to base your morals on are your individual perceptions of the world, re-affirmed by persons who's existence you take to be properly basic and thus accept as reality. All of your ethical forays are made over against the void, and you get caught in this constantly redefining post-structuralist post-modern void. From this perspective individual freedoms do sort of make sense, although they still rest on some assumptions that are fundamentally transcendental. Life has value, for instance. Happiness and love have value, for two more. These things require reference to something higher in order to escape the nihilistic confines into which they would otherwise be entered.

So on these grounds, I guess I don't find the repression of individual freedoms particularly worrying, perhaps because my hope is in Christ, perhaps because it doesn't inhibit my ability to worship God. Either way, while I think fundys are wrong, and such legislation should not be passed, I disagree with your reasons for thinking so.