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.
Just want to say, I appreciate the dialogue with you.
Likewise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaptistFundie
OK....I've been clear that I do not believe that gay people, transgender, smokers, etc...are icky, horrible people. God does declare that some things are wrong, though--and that includes things that heteros and everyone in the world does.
So if I'm hearing you correctly ... you see the humanity in people that you disagree with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaptistFundie
I think many on this forum lump all people who claim belief into the one category described here.
The only reason I don't "lump" everyone together is my personal experience within Christianity and with Christians. Although at times I suspect you think I still do some "lumping" that's not justified.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaptistFundie
Yes--I do subscribe to the Total Depravity doctrine. I believe that all people are sinners. But no--I don't believe that simply correcting behavior will result in us pleasing God, nor am I suggesting that only certain people need to correct their particular sin while others get a pass. Nor do I believe that we should simply try to enforce some kind of theocracy to force people to live in ways pleasing to God.
Are you saying that "all are sinners" does not imply that those sinners should, outside the walls of your church, be prevented from sinning? Or are there scenarios where they should?
It seems to me that if you take the theological term "sin" out of it, society at large, and Christians within society, have a common interest in preventing harms, and agree on what a great many of those harms are. IF you are truly WRONGED by some other person doing a particular thing, then to the extent you are actually HARMED, the person should be prevented from doing that -- whether beating you up, stealing your property, propositioning your daughter, or whatever.
I'd go so far as to say that where society does not effectively enforce laws that protect you from such harms, that would be a failure of society, and something you'd have every right to agitate for change concerning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaptistFundie
It does indeed make it more difficult to discuss. The mere topic of this thread is doing just that -- attempting to put a certain group on the defensive, and condemning them for assumed behavior. We spend pages and pages defending ourselves and we never get around to the actual issue.
I don't see a problem with having the temerity to suggest that some part of Christianity is morally bankrupt. It's an assertion, and it has to be substantiated. It's worthy of debate. But I have a malfunction with your implication (and correct me if I'm wrong) that it's somehow taboo to say that. After all, it doesn't necessarily apply to you personally, only to your group. When I was a Christian, I heard all sorts of critiques of Christianity, for example, concerning televangelists (back in the good old days when that was the major malfunction). I NEVER took that personally or felt that it shouldn't be brought up. In fact, I mostly agreed with it. While it was uncomfortable to the (large) extent it was true, resulting in embarrassment ... I never suggested that the every member of the group was being condemned for some sort of trumped up or assumed reason. I was able to grant the critics had at least a basic level of sincerity in the charge, even in those instances I think they were off-base.
What would have been an acceptable topic head? "In my view, evangelical Christianity is morally bankrupt"? I feel that's implied that it's the OP's personal view. It's a proposition they're arguing for.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaptistFundie
In my opinion, I think the point where this discussion breaks down is this naive idea that those that have religious belief simply want to bend others to their will. Or that they simply want to control others. I really don't know any Christians that express the belief that we should mold others to our beliefs, or that we should control them. I think that most evangelicals/fundamentalists simply want to live a happy life in a society that they like.
I don't doubt that most fundamentalists don't SEE themselves as wanting to bend others to their will. Who wants to see themselves that way? The question is whether it's happening or not. It's entirely possible to have an impact that you don't mean to, or to be insensitive or impertinent without meaning or wanting to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaptistFundie
Coincidentally, I think most non-religious, atheist, agnostic, whatever, also want to live their lives in a way that they wish, and they want a society that is friendly to their wants, needs, desires.
Thank you.
I would say society should not be friendly, but rather, tolerant. I really don't want society endorsing me, because that implies they could disenfranchise me. I simply want to be left alone. The right to be left alone is a very fundamental human right, and one most often overlooked -- along with the related right of freedom of association.
I would submit that Western society is quite tolerant of conservative Christians. They have tax free status without a requirement that they do actual charitable work; they are never imprisoned for their views; and it's no conflict at all that they don't get to impose their rulesets outside their own four walls -- although in some ways, they actually historically have been allowed to do that at times, too. Meanwhile, here in the US, the government doesn't merely tolerate Christians, it's "friendly" to them. National Prayer Breakfasts, Christian pastors giving advice to Presidents (and currently conducting Bible studies with the cabinet), and it's very hard to find openly areligious politicians at any level; you have to subscribe at least nominally to Christian shibboleths, or face the consequences.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaptistFundie
The issue is when we have these 2 groups meet. We all have equal right to vote, to participate in our society, etc. When you advocate a secular society, you collide with what we value. When we advocate for religious freedom, we collide with your values. It doesn't mean that either side hates or seeks to control...it just means we disagree on what kind of society we wish to live in.
Again it comes down to tolerance or if you will "live and let live".
Let me use a somewhat tiresome but evocative example of something that "clashes".
Suppose the guy that lives next door to you puts his zotz in a different hole than you do. You might tell me that this a matter of indifference to you, even in the unfortunate circumstance where you find out about it. You'd actually prefer not to know. Am I not right?
It's a matter of indifference to you ... UNTIL the guy wants to marry and be faithful to his partner, and legitimize it in the same way that you do. Or be recognized / normalized / tolerated by society generally, in the same ways your marital relationship is.
Tolerance in this case would be to say, you know, I disagree rather ... forcefully about this, but you two getting married doesn't prevent me from marrying as I see fit or regarding marriage the way I do. I already have a free pass not to "condone" your relationship by, say, being required to perform a marriage ceremony in my church. I am allowed to disparage it as sinful, in the privacy of my own mind / home / church, and in more limited ways, in public.
Control in this case would be to say, you shouldn't be allowed by society to do that.
Hatred in this case would be to go over there with a baseball bat and knock him senseless.
I don't believe you're personally hateful or would go the baseball bat route. I don't believe you'd deny that some believers HAVE, but I think we'd agree they're in the minority.
I DO believe you're controlling and would go the "I won't allow you to do that" route.
Granted ... you certainly have the right to argue that there are tangible harms to society, provided you could substantiate them in a reasonably objective manner. You'd have to substantiate them without quoting scripture, citing tradition, custom or your personal fears, or even "common sense"; you'd have to cite studies, facts, figures and so forth. But I don't think that's what we're talking about here.
It is not possible to be a functioning scientist and believe that the earth is only 6,000 years old. If the earth is only 6,000 years old than the entire structural basis of science as the sum of quantum mechanics at work is wrong and science falls completely apart.
Except for the messy inconvenient truth that humans are often irrational and self-inconsistent.
Sure, in a philosophical sense you're right. But in a practical sense, there are for example fundamentalist MDs with advanced research degrees who do excellent science. When they're doing science, they ignore the implications of a young earth. They don't have to follow it logically back that far. When they are at church, they ignore the cognitive dissonance between religious dogma and some aspects of science.
Might they tend to do even BETTER science if they shucked their unjustifiable religious misbeliefs? Arguably, maybe, yes. In practice, I'm not entirely sure. Depends on the field and the level at which they operate in it.
There are YECs who are happy to use cell phones, automobiles, computers, toasters and wide screen TVs. Nothing prevents them from using applied science or from thinking that a settled scientific explanatory framework they don't like has far more impact on that technology than they'd like to think ... or that the same exact methodology that brought them that hated scientific theory also provides them with the quantum mechanics that their cell phone relies on.
THere's nothing rational about YEC beliefs, and nothing consistent about nevertheless accepting science and the scientific method where it doesn't directly conflict with their dogma. That's my only point.
Nothing I said is conceding one millimeter of ground to any young earth creationist.
Philosophically and logically you can demand that they either reject science or reject religious faith ... but practically I'm here to tell you that millions of people can and do have their cake and eat it too. Because humans are nothing if not illogical.
Do you not comprehend how offensive that is? You speak about how we simply cannot get along, then you use such polarizing language directly insulting our beliefs by using silly strawman arguments.
Do you honestly expect to have a legitimate dialogue when you do that?
How can you have a legitimate dialogue with an adult that believes in fairy tales about a zombie Jewish carpenter born to a virgin mother, people living inside fishes and other assorted nonsense?
Do you see any validity to the backstory of Scientology worth discussing?
I wish some theist, somewhere, would explain to me why their personal rulesets have to extend beyond their own private clubs? Given that they already have the right to discriminate to their hearts content within those confines, why, oh why, do they have to extend that to society generally, if not because they feel threatened and need to control for that threat?
Google “Onward Christian Soldiers.”
They really believe that they are under God’s orders to bring the entire world under Christian rule. Fundamentalist Christianity is much like Islam in that regard.
They really believe that they are under God’s orders to bring the entire world under Christian rule. Fundamentalist Christianity is much like Islam in that regard.
Complete nonsense.
Prove it. Can you find me ANYTHING that the original author of that song wrote to conclude that? My guess would be "No".....but it hasn't stopped you from making the nonsensical statement.
They really believe that they are under God’s orders to bring the entire world under Christian rule. Fundamentalist Christianity is much like Islam.
To be fair, militant songs like that, and militant denominations like The Salvation Army, do not represent 100% of all Christian's thinking in this regard, or even all fundamentalists.
On the other hand, this whole thread makes me wonder something.
What if .... WHAT IF ... fundamentalism were to give up just ONE of its treasured concepts -- and a rather peripheral one at that? I'm not talking about sola scriptura or the divinity of Christ or the inerrancy of scripture.
How about the concept that god judges humans corporately, according to, e.g., nation, tribe or family, rather than individually, on a case-by-case basis?
To take the matter I'm currently engaging with BF on as an example ... if BF were not afraid god would judge the US (and therefore him) as a nation or possibly his state or city or denomination or church for failing to "take a stand" against homosexuality ... would he not be far more sanguine about letting society permit homosexuals full participation in civic life, such as civil marriage?
How nuts (and how primitive) IS the notion that god judges people collectively? How do you even begin to justify it? Visiting the sins of the father on his children up to seven generations ... what's up with that?
I realize I'm probably asking too much, given that they still think the earth was created in six days and is 6,000 years old. But still.
Cue "god gets to do whatever he wants, because god", I suppose. But I thought I'd throw it out there.
To be fair, militant songs like that, and militant denominations like The Salvation Army, do not represent 100% of all Christian's thinking in this regard, or even all fundamentalists.
On the other hand, this whole thread makes me wonder something.
What if .... WHAT IF ... fundamentalism were to give up just ONE of its treasured concepts -- and a rather peripheral one at that? I'm not talking about sola scriptura or the divinity of Christ or the inerrancy of scripture.
How about the concept that god judges humans corporately, according to, e.g., nation, tribe or family, rather than individually, on a case-by-case basis?
To take the matter I'm currently engaging with BF on as an example ... if BF were not afraid god would judge the US (and therefore him) as a nation or possibly his state or city or denomination or church for failing to "take a stand" against homosexuality ... would he not be far more sanguine about letting society permit homosexuals full participation in civic life, such as civil marriage?
How nuts (and how primitive) IS the notion that god judges people collectively? How do you even begin to justify it? Visiting the sins of the father on his children up to seven generations ... what's up with that?
I realize I'm probably asking too much, given that they still think the earth was created in six days and is 6,000 years old. But still.
Cue "god gets to do whatever he wants, because god", I suppose. But I thought I'd throw it out there.
That song is not "militant". To suggest it is lunacy. Read the lyrics. It talks about praising God and defeating Satan. NOTHING about killing human beings or taking land.
That kind of stuff just makes atheists look dumb. Seriously. To suggest that song is militant is complete idiocy.
How can you have a legitimate dialogue with an adult that believes in fairy tales about a zombie Jewish carpenter born to a virgin mother, people living inside fishes and other assorted nonsense?
Do you see any validity to the backstory of Scientology worth discussing?
Unfamiliar absurdities can be spotted a mile away. Familiar absurdities are held sacred.
Humans are pack animals. I believe that irrational beliefs are how humans determine who is in their clan / pack. Other animals mainly rely on smell, but humans rely on irrational beliefs.
Humans are pack animals. I believe that irrational beliefs are how humans determine who is in their clan / pack. Other animals mainly rely on smell, but humans rely on irrational beliefs.
If you've never attempted to reach beyond, see beyond what we can't see, you'll of course never see it. You've shut off a part of existence and the universe. You're going to be as clueless as a dog when it comes to spiritual matters. But then again, that's how you see life; humans as simple animalistic creatures, devoid of scope and awareness. You'll never get it, with your tiny little view of reality. You've got your blinders on, and aren't impressing anyone. Go and talk with animals and amoebas and lower forms of life that match your world.
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.
