Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It is common, when referring to something, to refer to the most prototypical and most noted example of it. That's why there is all the attention on Westboro. But they're not the only offensive church in Kansas, much less the nation.
Christians aren't supposed to judge. They are to seek Christ. Hence a church that took time that would be devoted to searching for Christ to instead stop and evaluate which of its members are wackos is essentially not doing what they are supposed to be doing.
The problem with that logic is that Westboro isn't singular - it is merely extreme. If Westboro held beliefs and values that were utterly different from that which a significant portion of the other Christian churches held, then dismissing them as you did would make sense. That's not the case, though - they're holding to common Christian beliefs and values just driven to extreme measures. If it was not for the pervasive institutionalized Dominionism in the nation then Westboro would be different from how it is. There would still be extremists, but if the mainstream wasn't still tending so heavily toward Dominionist transgression, itself, then the extremists may not engage in the transgression in a manner as extreme as Westboro's.
I don't ignore atheists I disagree with. I like the idea of being more critical of groups I am a part of than groups I am not a part of. I'm actually too careless about how I'm critical of atheists sometimes.
So where are your threads about things you disagree with other atheists on? I'm assuming you're not a Christian based on what you said here, but you are clearly being critical of a Christian here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clintone
The most ideal possible translation I can think of would be a combination of grotesque and carelessly worded. That ideal translation would be that he was providing an example of how sociopaths might be more dangerous as atheists than theists. One problem with that possible translation is that he didn't mention hell. Maybe he forgot to. Another possible translation is that, rather than just fear of hell curbing violent crimes simple belief in a god curbs violent crimes. It didn't sound like belief in god, in his mind, would curb violent crimes just a little though.
So...it was a stupid rant that is understandably offensive, just like his first rant about homosexuals. Maybe there was some tidbit of non-destructiveness within it, but I don't see how anyone can find it. It's buried beneath too much poop.
I still have some hope for him, because I do remember him talking about how he doesn't know what color Jesus' skin was...but my optimism is decreasing every time I see him make a new statement. Very soon he may slip over the edge.
I disagree with your position and I think you don't quite understand Christianity. I think it's not really so much about hell, as much as it's about loving Jesus unconditionally and you show that love by how you keep his commandments (John 14:15). If I truly have the love of Christ in my heart, why should I fear hell? Fearing hell is a false religion of sorts because it's not really the message he promoted and it leads people to doing things for the wrong reasons. Of course it will come as a result of not following him, but the point is, you don't follow him out of fear, you follow him out of love because you understand the sacrifice he made for you.
What possibly could be taken out of context? It was a hateful, disgusting rant made in front of other Christians. The man is a disgusting example of all that is wrong with religion.
ok. Well I'm not going to change your mind. You're entitled to your opinion.
I think some individuals don't by principle; they do not want to perpetuate the idea that religious groups speak for all members of a religion. They don't want to have to perpetuate a pattern of defending themselves.
Linda Sarsour, executive director of the Arab American Association of New York, seems to adopt this stance. Just do a search for her on youtube. Here are clips:
I think she is very brave, and I can understand the very human emotion response of avoiding the perpetuation of grouping all groups together.
How do Muslims and Christians toe the line of condemning acts, but avoid being seen as one big group, and being forced to take responsibility of other individuals' acts? I think that is the challenge of today's era to these two groups, but especially Muslims.
You're correct, I will not change my perspective on Phil Robertson.
What concerns me is that there are people apparently like yourself, who see nothing wrong with the presentation he made. That's seriously misguided.
If I had heard an atheist make such an over-the-top rant, I would be as disgusted as I am with Phil Robertson.
The example he gave was a bit extreme, but I understand what he was trying to say, which is what I believe the issue is. People don't understand the context of what he was saying. He is not advocating certain behavior, he is questioning what convicts someone to do right when they have no standard to be held to. I think to be honest, a lot of the people who missed his point haven't really spent enough time around other cultures.
If you go to the inner city of Chicago, for example, you will see this. The laws don't matter to certain individuals, and their morals are largely corrupted by the type of environment that they have grown up in. If you take those same individuals, put them in a place that has less violence, more civil, in a stable two parent home, and give them adequate examples of productive, law abiding people around them, their perspective changes. What is my point? If you do not have a source of morality, then it will be largely shaped by your environment. If you don't point to a singular source of right or wrong, then people who grew up much differently than you will have a completely different understanding of right or wrong than you. But if you are certain that their idea of right or wrong is not correct, then you are essentially saying that there has to be a singular source of right or wrong.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
