Wake Up Liberal Christians!
I'm not terribly preachy, never in anyone's face about their lack of belief, and have been known to make an off-color joke now and then. When I hear the words, "If only more Christians were like you..." I feel like I'm living a life that Christ would approve of. He doesn't expect me to be perfect. He certainly doesn't want me to feel like I am better than anyone else. And He absolutely doesn't want me to claim to be a follower of His, then turn around and live a greedy, self-centered, hypocritical life that would make anyone think, "Jeez, if that's what Christians are like, forget it."
There are others who suspend any attempt to be "politically correct" and are either outright hostile towards Christians, or are extremely condescending/rude. I find it interesting coming from people who are supposed to be more tolerant than the "righties" they detest. Rarely is this behavior directed at me, personally, but it does happen from time to time. Mostly I don't take it personally. Every once in awhile I get my feelings hurt, but, that's my problem...thickens the skin a little...builds character. Anyway, my point is, hypocrisy abounds on both parts of the equation. I often wonder as I'm evaluating myself, and my thoughts and behavior, do those who lump all Christians together ever think about what THEY are doing and saying? Are they aware that by shoving us all together into the same box, they are engaging in discriminatory behavior?
Not all Christians are the same. There was some discussion here recently (my apologies to whoever's post it was...I didn't bookmark it and can't find it) about liberal Christians. I think many didn't even think there WAS such a thing. The Christian movement has been hijacked by the vocal right-wing extremists to the point that when you say "Christian" many, if not most, think of Hannity and Rush and Sarah and their ilk, and don't even realize that they are only part of the story.
Whose fault is that? I would say it was the fault of liberal Christians. We have not stood up and demanded to be counted. We have not stood up and said "Enough already!" We have allowed our religion to be co-opted by the fringe. We have not held our religious "leader's" feet to the fire by DEMANDING that they practice the teachings of Jesus. We have stood by pretty much silently, thus giving tacit approval to their
When did the Ten Commandments become the Ten Suggestions, or worse yet, multiple choice...pick which ones you want to follow?
In a recent comment I said that if I were searching for a religion to follow now, I don't know that Christianity would get a second look from me. The face of Christianity today is one of hate. Of dishonesty. Of greed. Of hypocrisy. Of exclusion. This is NOT the religion that I signed onto. I despise that we have let this happen.
As far as I'm concerned, you know a Christian by his/her actions.
But, there is a divide in the Christian Church concerning the matter of being saved. Some say once saved, always saved, others say you can lose your salvation by the way you live your life. We are never going to know for sure until we meet our maker face to face.
Perhaps those who believe once saved, always saved, think that just because they have asked Jesus into their hearts, they can now do whatever they want...they have their ticket to Heaven, so whatever they do now, they are covered.
But I contend that you can, indeed, lose your salvation through your
actions, and these right-wing whackos that go around spreading lies,
tearing people down, murdering abortion providers, denying people the
most basic of human rights (i.e. health care) and generally behave in a
manner that I am SURE makes our Lord cringe had better start doing some
serious soul searching. And if they are smart, they'll err in favor of
believing they CAN lose their salvation, because it may help them to
think twice before acting the way they act. We are told by our Lord that we are to do NOTHING that will cause another to stumble in their faith. If we, as a group, behave in ways that bring disdain on our Lord, are we not causing them to stumble? Do we not have an OBLIGATION to behave in a way that brings glory, not ridicule to our Lord?
Well said, Stilli.
June 6, 2009 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Quinn, since I consider you to be a genius, for you to say "well said" may have just caused me to require a size larger hat...Thank you.
June 6, 2009 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
enjoyed your posting very much; thanks.
yes, liberal Christians need to take the lead in extracting the faith-based mumbo jumbo from the federal government.
Obama is even allowing each cabinet department to have its own separate faith-based group to help determine how it implements policy. that is so far over the bright line of separation of church and state that is is egregious.
liberal Christians need to take the lead in demanding that faith-based activities need to stay in faith-based organizations such as churches, and NOT IN THE GOVERNMENT. PERIOD.
by the way, stillidealistic, when you say we atheists, agnostics, pantheists, nature-lovers, noncommitted, and otherwise non-Christians - when you say that we have a "lack of faith", you couldn't be more wrong or more unintentionally offensive.
we have plenty of faith in good and eternal truths, just not the particular brand of faith that you have. if you'll enlarge your compartmentalized thinking a little more to realize that the 'religious' have NO MONOPOLY ON GOD, then you will be even more welcome here - and in Heaven! (hee)
June 6, 2009 10:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I went back over my post twice to see where I said atheists lack faith and couldn't find it...I said "religion (or lack thereof.)" If you show me where I said you lack faith, I'll gladly apologize. If I didn't say it, perhaps you owe me one?
June 6, 2009 11:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
thanks for replying. technically you are correct. however you wrote: "I'm not terribly preachy, never in anyone's face about their lack of belief".
so, "lack of belief" to me is the same as my mistakenly remembered "lack of faith". what I wrote still holds true. Christians and other believers of doctrinally based religion have no monopoly on God.
non-Christians have plenty of deeply held beliefs, and it requires faith to hold those beliefs, even in the face of those who don't agree - just like Christians have to hold their faith.
so thanks for your open line of inquiry. no apology needed. sorry I misquoted you. just wanted to enlarge the conversation beyond the narrow ways of thinking imposed by religious doctrine.
June 6, 2009 11:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gotcha... Thank you for taking the time to recheck...I missed it after reading back through twice. I should have said "lack of belief in God" rather than lack of belief...I guess I thought it was implied. I find that I can reread my pots a hundred times and find ways to tighten them up and be more exact.
My whole premise is that I don't consider myself better than anyone else regardless of whatever beliefs they have. Well, except maybe for meat-eaters...I think I'm better than them...JUST KIDDING!!!!
June 7, 2009 12:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh Still,
What an absolutely terrific post and (I believe) so needed on so many levels.
I consider those who are screaming all the invectives and engaging in negative actions under the guise of Christianity to be pretenders and yes, hijackers.
I shudder for those who do it and cringe at those who seemingly attribute these negative traits and actions as being truth for all who declare they are Christians.
But, the message you send to us to stand up and speak out to and about these (to use your applicable term) Whackos! and their actions needs to be acknowledged and widely published.
I am taking your whole post to heart and mind! And prayer! I needed to hear all the messages you delivered and I thank you.
June 6, 2009 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, Sammie...just hoping to get people thinking a little differently...
June 6, 2009 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Having met beautiful christian leaders like Father Thomas Keating and Brother David Steindl-Rast... among others, I do thing that it is shame for the voices of the less evolved to drown out the more beautiful expressions of faith.
I really liked what the president did in his speech in Egypt in identifying a principle, idea, not sure how he referred to it, but the notion that 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you' is a value shared amongst humanity irrespective of religion
June 6, 2009 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep, I think concentrating on what unites us, rather than what divides us is far more important than whose belief is the correct one, as if there was such a thing!
June 6, 2009 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes,
Another simple thought is that in all of religion, science, philosophical thought, etc. is the basic desire to understand life and our existence. This is a natural and healthy drive and it expresses in many different ways and there are many different paths to unfolding this great mystery. However we approach it, it is a beautiful thing that we share this drive to know and understand.
June 6, 2009 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Forgot to push the reply button, and my comment is way down there! Sorry :-)
June 6, 2009 7:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hereby render unto you the Dayly Line of the Day Award for this here TPMCafe site, given to all of you from all of me:
"When did the Ten Commandments become the Ten Suggestions, or worse yet, multiple choice...pick which ones you want to follow?"
I mean the entire piece is filled with wisdom. But this line...geeeeez
June 6, 2009 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, Arthur! My first Dayly award! It's a red letter day, for sure! Thank you! From all of me to all of you!
June 6, 2009 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh and Stilli, I respect your religious values. Too many fine, fine people in this country who are Christian. They just do not have tv shows like Pat Robertson.
June 6, 2009 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
My background: I regularly attended a Protestant Sunday School, which didn't take, followed by exposure to Quaker ideas which informed but didn't take either. If I have religion it's pretty idiosyncratic and philosophical. I can be a theist or an athiest more or less at will, but it takes more effort to believe so my slacker nature leaves me agnostic most of the time.
"The face of Christianity today is one of hate. Of dishonesty. Of greed. Of hypocrisy. Of exclusion. "
Is it?? Maybe the face you're talking about is something derived from rough talk about Christianity and Christians (and about and from pseudo-Christians).
"We have not held our religious "leader's" feet to the fire by DEMANDING that they practice the teachings of Jesus. "
Who are these leaders, or is that a snarky reference to "Hannity and Rush and Sarah and their ilk" [and former leader GWB] who might represent your idea of the face of Christianity? To me they are at best theatrical actors on a largely political stage, and at worst ... unmentionable.
June 6, 2009 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
She is talking (c)hristians, not (C)hristians, eds.
There is a rather large difference. The Church herself has split a few times...I do see another building--along historical lines. I am thinking the Great Schism, and more "recently," Martin Luther.
What gets lost in all this are basic christian principles, I think, which is why the Church split in the first place.
I am likely a Deist at this point, but I do have faith. You have always fascinated me because I recognize that you process information much differently than I do, yet I tend to arrive at the same conclusions sometimes. I think you are misunderstood a lot, but then, so are we all.
June 6, 2009 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Considering as how she used C not c so much, I have to challenge your version. What then are "basic christian principles" which are not basic Christian principles?
Thanks for the feedback, as indefinite as it was. I do sometimes post as if I were playing devil's advocate, but I don't aim to troll or deceive. I suppose my words might be misunderstood despite my efforts at clarity in expression, but I would hope that would not make ME misunderstood, even if what "'is' is" is the point of issue! I believe that natural language is necessarily ambiguous, but I don't always make the effort to remove ambivalence from my writing. I'm seldom ambivalent about offering explanation where misunderstanding and sincerity of interest are evident.
Words, caint live with 'em, caint live without 'em! Good thing it's not "either or" around here...
June 6, 2009 6:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Heh.
Thanks eds, I do enjot your point of view and civility, even when I am not.
Non-Christian principles which are christian principles? Anything that should be rendered onto Caesar...?
I suppose that the 'Good Samaritan' would be the 'lesson' that most affected me. I believe that the Bible is imprecise for many reasons, the largest of which is 'free will.'
It is hard for me to explain.
June 6, 2009 7:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let me rephrase in case you or anyone is going to review the thread...
I get 'catholic' and 'Catholic' and 'Roman Catholic' etc., but I don't get small-c 'christian', it's just not in my vocabulary at all and I didn't find it in the dictionary today.
Since it seems to be a neologism on your part, I'm asking you to define it both inclusively and exclusively! What you said about Good Samaritan etc. didn't help.
June 7, 2009 6:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
The LEADERS I refer to are people like Dr. James Dobson. He who was not voting for John McCain until he picked Sarah Palin for his running mate. He who wrote in his book about adolescents that teen-aged pregnancy was caused by neglectful parents, but who thought Sarah Palin was the bees knees, even though she must have been a neglectful parent because her daughter was an un-wed mother...
Another, of course, would be Jeremiah Wright...
And then there is Pastor Rick Warren, with his anti gay stance (which seems to be SLIGHTLY softening.)
But, to me, the face of Christianity is formed by those who hold themselves up as Christians, loudly, and in public, then do terribly un-Christian things... Hannity, Rush, Palin, Bush,
Bachmann. How can they POSSIBLY be unmentionable?
They, along with people like Joe the not-really-a-plumber, are the ones who take center stage, who non-Christians see as "Christians" that are painting the face of Christianity.
June 6, 2009 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Warren is not anti-gay, he's not in favor of gay marriage. Maybe such subtle differences aren't important to some people.
Is Wright a "good" Christian face or a bad one, in your view?
I'm not up on Dobson, but I do recognize the name. But who considers him the face of Christianity, really?
Palin and those others are political actors playing roles in theatrical dramas. While some people might confuse them with leaders of Christianity itself, I wonder how many truly do so. If you'd mentioned The Pope or some leading archbishop, then maybe I'd grant that you'd pointed out a face of Catholicism, a deviant branch of Christianity (imho).
June 6, 2009 6:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dobson's 'focus on the family' has tens of millions of followers. He is hugely influencial. I would consider him one of the leading faces of American Christianity. His army of home schooled fanatics scare the crap out of me.
June 6, 2009 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
non-link... but thanks for the summary.
June 6, 2009 7:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Warren is not anti-gay, he's not in favor of gay marriage. Maybe such subtle differences aren't important to some people."
Splitting hairs, but nonetheless, not proud of his position.
"Is Wright a "good" Christian face or a bad one, in your view?"
Anyone who preaches hate in any form is not a good face to me.
"I'm not up on Dobson, but I do recognize the name. But who considers him the face of Christianity, really?"
Millions...as you will see if you follow the link
Sal left.
BUT, I did not list these people as the FACE of Christianity...just as the LEADERS. There is a difference. When I think about what non-Christians see when they think about Christians, I see the high-profile idiots that are front and center...not the LEADERS...How sad is that?
June 6, 2009 7:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wright preaches hate... of what, sin??
"God Damn America" is not hate of anything except hate of sin, tho' perhaps your point is that some political actors pretended it was and took excerpts out of context to support their demonic lies.
June 6, 2009 7:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow! Talk about splitting hairs!!
June 6, 2009 9:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
CT, that's all you do is split hairs. You split so many hairs and talk around in so many circlejerks it's a wonder you still have any hair. Then again, you're a youngster, and it shows, so...
Just remember, when you're done splitting and teasing that nice thick head o' hair you have, to let what's under it grow too.
June 6, 2009 9:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, LisB... the "splitting hairs" comment was in reference to Stilli's own comment. Please read.
As far as your condescending view about my age... at least I was smart enough not fall prey to the GOP.
June 6, 2009 10:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
At least I was smart enough to grow up, grow wiser, and change my ways.
You still have a chance too. I do hope you'll take it.
June 6, 2009 11:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
circlejerks it's a wonder you still have any hair
check his palms...
June 6, 2009 11:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am with Jolly on this. hahahhaah
I think you are serious here LisB.
But you got me laughing and you got Jolly going nuts.
Cannot be all bad, do you not think?
June 6, 2009 11:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
LisB. with all due respect:
what do you have against what clearthinker actually said?
clearthinker's comment was accurate and this is supposed to be a free speech zone. what bug is up your bonnet? and what does someone's age have to do with it? after all, you're older but still engaged in questionable suppressive tactics.
are you trying to police this site, or defend stillidealistic for some reason? I don't get it. who appointed you TPM nanny?
clearthinker was doing nothing wrong or extreme, yet you self-righteously jumped all over him. it certainly will make me reevaluate anything else you write in these spaces.
was disappointed to see your attempt at abridgment of free speech.
June 6, 2009 11:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Newsnag...as you have not yet begun your blog, I can't tell if you have been around for awhile or are new, but if you have been around awahile, and pay attention you would understand the dynamics at work on a thread like this. LisB was not defending me, she knows I can do that myself. She was pointing out an undisputed truth, which is that CT does things regularly that he calls others out on. Splitting hairs is one of them. Even though he was inaccurate on his portayal this time.
June 6, 2009 11:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice to meet you. I don't think I've seen too much of you before. No, I'm not policing the site, Clearthinker is free to speak his mind. Doesn't mean I need to agree with his tactics, that's all.
June 6, 2009 11:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
To Newsmag:
"I haven't seen too much of your before" is code for you must be clearthinker.
That's how it is at TPM.
There is a strong groupthink by a sizable section of it and it believes that everyone outside it is (a) childish, (b) clearthinker, (c) both.
June 7, 2009 12:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, double barf...
June 7, 2009 1:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not splitting hairs at all...many outside of Christianity have no ide who James Dobson is, even though he has a following of multiple millions of Christians. He is not the FACE people see in their minds when they think of Christians...Hannity, Palin, Rush, et al...those people are the FACE, the vision they get in their minds when they think of which Christians do I know of?
When you run out of ammo, CT you resort to maligning basec on past admitted mistakes of the other person...cheap shots, little one.
June 6, 2009 10:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
why do you feel so attacked by clearthinker's comment? it wasn't personal, so why do you personalize it? same with LisB. how juvenile and reactionary of you both. and actually I think clearthinker was right.
I think most people know about Dobson. Certainly most people do NOT think about Limbaugh when they think of Christians.
You and some of these other folks really need to quit defending your imaginary turf here. Methinks you dost protest too much and are really just trying to limit debate so you never have to question your own thoughts or beliefs.
Pretty weird personality flaw for a "Christian" to have.
June 6, 2009 11:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, so Clearthinker adopted a puppy. He's raised himself in my esteem by a notch.
June 6, 2009 11:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is the ultimate STooPid to go away in a huff and have your stinky sock come back and do your dirty work.
Although, it amuses me.
June 6, 2009 11:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Methinks you dost protest too much and are really just trying to limit debate so you never have to question your own thoughts or beliefs."
Which goes to show that you are either very new here, or don't pay any attention at all. I am quite literally the LAST person on this site you could EVER accuse of not questioning my thoughts and beliefs. I mean seriously...to the point where it is laughable.
June 7, 2009 12:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, we're dealing with a commenter who doesn't post, and hasn't been around long, and doesn't follow anyone.
Need I say more?
June 7, 2009 12:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
AND...me and CT? We know each other well. I have not felt attacked by one thing he has said, nor have I accused him of attacking me, nor has he felt that I have attacked him...
June 7, 2009 12:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, now that's changed, but, hey, it was good for awhile!
June 7, 2009 1:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Stilli, I thought you were smarter than LisB and Bwakfat... I don't need to double post. Bwakfat was another story as you can see below.
Who gives a fig? Apparently you just did.
June 7, 2009 1:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are mixing apples and oranges...The fig remark was about bwak...the attacking was in regards to THE attack against me, personally, down below...so no, I don't give a fig, and neither does anyone else.
June 7, 2009 4:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Beautifully powerfully said Stilli. I find myself standing right beside you in every thought and belief. Those rough fishermen who followed Jesus with all their flaws, their callused work hands, their plain but unique personalities, kind of resembled us in an earthy sort of way. Yeah, they probably smelled fishy at times, but they adored Him and tried to do whatever He asked them to do.
The priggish Pharisees had hijacked the Jewish religion at the time and were the staunchest resisters of Jesus work. The modern day version of the Pharisees have hijacked the name Christian and hardly resemble Him whose name they claim. Many have become money changers, turning the house of prayer into a den of thieves. They would most likely resist Him in person if he walked up to them and say, "Look mister Ive got my heavenly insurance policy and thats enough,so dont tell me whats right!"
Stilli,I may stink at it but like those fisherman I intend to keep trying, keep walking, and to sincerely keep adoring Him.
June 6, 2009 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Glad to hear it, DonDi...Imperfect as we are, we can make a difference.
June 6, 2009 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well put DonDi!
I'm with ya too Stilli!
Being a Christian is less a matter of belief than it is of action. It's written in our hearts right? If we listen to what is written there, then our actions will follow. Salvation is unimportant to me personally, it will take care of itslef of not as the case may be. As a living being I am concerned with listening to and following what is written in the heart.
June 7, 2009 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well said, oleeb. Thank you. We are all learning a bit more about each other.
June 7, 2009 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
A fisherman's love of God. I like that perspective a lot. I agree, there are so few who emulate that. There sure are a lot of Pharasees though.
June 10, 2009 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Stilli,
You used to be a Republican. I'm sure you were able to, at one time, defend the GOP, until you finally had your eyes REALLY opened.
Do you see the analogy?
Until you are ready to view your belief system as no better nor worse than the "gods" of the Greek or Roman systems or sun-worshipers or any of the other ways humans create mythology, you will not be able to reconcile the irrationality of people who happen to hold a similar belief system as yourself.
Indeed, while I believe you truly believe in your religion, I doubt that you have put a lot of thought into how it became your religion. The fact is unless you decided to believe that Jesus was some manifestation of God after having been born into a Jewish, Muslim, Hindi, Buddist, etc. family, you were merely playing "follow the leader".
If you want people to act better, let's start off by killing off god.
There, I said it.
In fact, god isn't dead. He never existed.
There is no heaven nor hell.
When you die, your body is worm meat. You "live on" in the memories of people and that is that.
Now let's figure out if there is a way of building a morality without an outside authority figure or post-death reward/punishment.
That is the starting point.
June 6, 2009 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
While I agree with you views, CT, I wish you didn't feel the need to attack Stilli first before agreeing with the very stance she took in her post to begin with.
Seems to me you need to grow up some as regards your approach to people. I'd be happy to be of some help -- just ask.
June 6, 2009 5:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry for the typo in my first sentence.
And I'm sorry, Stilli, for commenting like that on your very fine post.
June 6, 2009 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, prob, Lis...I was hoping for a discussion, and I got one!
June 6, 2009 6:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not attacking Stilli, I'm attacking the belief system.
Christianity has survived for 2000 years for a reason... it brutally defends itself. It can handle the voice of one lone Clearthinker (unfortunately).
The bottom line is that people like Stilli enable superstition to flourish. Religion is an easy way of people feeling a belonging without having to think for themselves. Once upon a time, slavery was thought as a natural order for things as well. It's time to free our minds of the hobgoblins of our ancestors.
Or, as Christianity points out, I'm merely attacking the sin, even if I love the sinner.
June 6, 2009 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Then why it make it sound so personal? Just sayin'.
June 6, 2009 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Only you can tell me why you made it personal.
Moreover, she wrote
Absolutely false. If it were true, you wouldn't be able to identify Christians as a group. But to make it clear:
Christians are group of people that believe that a supernatural being manifested itself on earth in the guise of a human named Jesus. Moreover, this was necessarily because humans are inherently flawed at birth and needed to be cleansed of their basic nature.
(Never mind that their basic nature was given by their creator from the start.)
So, from the get-go, you have involved concepts that have caused grief the world over.
June 6, 2009 6:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Absolutely false."
um, no, it was generally true. Christians as a class may all have something in common, but that doesn't begin to make them all the same. You mistaking the simple wording for some other statement is practically criminal.
Really, your need to be abusive calls out for correction.
June 6, 2009 7:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually you are the one incorrect.
The point is:
a) you either follow the religious dogma
b) you do not
That's the biggest reason why Christians don't act like Christ.
I wish that all Christians who are disgusted by the acts of other Christians would do the real Christian thing and leave that "so called" church.
June 6, 2009 8:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Still said - Not all Christians are the same.
You said - Absolutely false.
You, Clearthinker, are not only wrong, but embarrassingly so. If you want to have any credibility at all in discussions, surely you can just admit you stated it incorrectly, and move on to your main point.
June 6, 2009 8:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
CT, the only prerequisite for being a Christian is that you believe in Christ. Beyond that there are similarities, but there are as many different beliefs within Christianity as there are denominations, and even some differences within denominations... You are out of your element here.
June 6, 2009 8:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Stilli,
You just said
ALL CHRISTIANS BELIEVE IN CHRIST
That's a mouthful:
It assumes:
a) there is a god
b) the Hebrews worshipped this god
c) Jesus communed with this god
d) that the Jews are wrong (e.g. that the Messiah has already come down to Earth)
e) the concept of original sin
Etc, etc.
That's a LOT going on.
Now while I'm sure some specifics like whether divorce is allowable is of interest to some of the splinter groups, for those outside the Christian religion, you all look the same. Because you derive your "moral authority" from the New Testament.
Without the New Testament, there is no morla authority to speak from.
This is the point.
This is the problem:
All Christians claim some sort of moral authority by virtue of the New Testament. That is what defines them as Christian at the most fundamental level.
June 6, 2009 9:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's as offensive as saying all blacks look alike...again shows how little you know, and the more you try to show how much you know, the more foolish you look...Give it up CT...not all Christians are alike, no matter how much it seems like we are to you.
June 6, 2009 10:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think this asserion of yours is not correct. It's just too broad a claim to be true given the group in question.
One needn't follow the religious dogma of an institution to be Christian at all. I think Gandhi was one of the greatest Christians who ever lived, but he was Hindu.
There are so many varieties and beliefs about what being a Christian is, there's simply no way to lump them all together. In my opinion, from my reading of the Bible, Jesus would advise anyone following in his path not to adhere to any dogma. Noncompliance with petrified dogmatic belief is one of the main reasons Jesus got in lots of trouble and was so controversial.
June 7, 2009 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jesus's religion was Jewish. So naturally he wouldn't be making comments about Christianity!
I know people love to call Gandhi a Christian but that's to allow the Christians to have another icon. In fact, someone pointed out that Gandhi admired Christ (as a person) but not Christians.
Words really do have meaning.
At it's most basic Christians do believe what I laid out. Otherwise, they'd be Jews, Muslims, etc. You wouldn't, for example, find a Jew talking about Jehovah in the same way that Stilli talked about Christ.
The differences beyond that, to some extent, only matter to Christians. Just as we tend to talk of the Muslim world as one lump. Some may protest that there are difference, and there *are*. But the Muslim world isn't happy with Israel -- because of a simple religious difference. And in contexts like that, the differences between various sects only matter to the Muslims.
My point was to remind the people here how their religion looks to those outside it.
June 7, 2009 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
When Christians preach and attempt to convert they believe that they are trying to save the convert's eternal soul.
What motivates atheists to preach?
I'm not particularly religious but I strongly support Stilli's wake up call to Liberal Christians.
Frankly from a practical point of view I would much prefer her message to spread throughout our nations churches then for her to become a militant atheist like you or that 'enjoy' prick fuller. Then the christian majority in our country could be a force for moral good. Supporting a progressive agenda and prolytising anti-war and 'help your neighbor' messages rather then the weekly networking meetings for people who don't like to pay taxes that churches are today.
I don't see what good encouraging atheism does. frankly its kinda of a killjoy. And for those of us who get stuck explaining how the big bang came about and then resulted in the ordered world we inhabit today, agnosticism makes a lot more sense then athesim. Its impossible to prove a negative, so why waste the energy?
If Stilli wants to promote the good messages that Jesus preached. Good for her. I wish more would too.
June 6, 2009 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL!
If you are unable to think of a person as moral without having to worship a deity, then the human race is doomed indeed.
I find it ironic that people associate Stilli's "goodness" with the fact that she is Christian rather than some other innate issue of her personality.
Perhaps you don't think of her as highly as I do?
June 6, 2009 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey look at that, I am made of straw!
At no point did I claim Stilli's goodness stems from her Christian identity, nor did I ever say that human morality requires a deity. but 'LOL'... whatever.
I simply don't understand your need to take over a thread and evangelize atheism. But it seems to give you great joy so who am i to argue.
Great post Silli. I hope you succeed.
June 6, 2009 6:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Stilli didn't want discussion, then she should have disabled comments.
She brings up a topic that is toxic and controversial.
It's about religious people wanting their cake and eating it to.
It's about their own cognitive dissonance.
I am pointing that out.
June 6, 2009 6:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I very much want discussion...never have been one to throw out a position, then run off and let it take it's course.
As much as I disagree with your position, I defend your right to believe as you believe. It's that "certainty" that has me concerned...
June 6, 2009 6:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you read my comment, it wasn't about your intolerance, it was about your obvious desire to allow a discussion.
June 6, 2009 8:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, Sal. I apereciate your comments very much. I often wonder the same thing...
June 6, 2009 6:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wish I could rec this comment.
Thanks.
June 6, 2009 6:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm glad you can't. It makes an ignorant statement about science.
June 6, 2009 6:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Codswallop.
Science and Faith are not mutually exclusive. Only some sort of totalitarian would think so.
June 6, 2009 6:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Codswallup...Oh how I love that word!
June 6, 2009 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know nothing of science, chicken. But that doesn't stop you from bwacking about it.
That your base human instincts worry about things and you are a fearful individual, please don't conflate your irrationality with a rational set of constructs.
Present dogmatic religion is no different than sun worshiping.
And that's the reason it has cause so much harm in the world.
I suggest you stop complaining about getting health care. Pray a lot. See if that works.
You aren't entitled to the miracles of science since you don't understand from whence they came.
June 6, 2009 7:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Alays the personal with you.
You haven't addressed my objection.
Faith and science are not mutually exclusive.
June 6, 2009 7:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Instead of sloganeering, which you are want to do, care to write a least a single paragraph to make your point?
Of course, you are arguing the creationist view trying to conflate issues of science and faith.
June 6, 2009 8:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, I am pointing out the obvious. What is scientific theory if not "faith?"
One needs imagination and creativity to think up the theory, and some belief in it, in order to test it thoroughly.
This is WHY I said your grasp of science is tenuous. You are great at bleating the opinions of others, but not so good at seeing why they come by those opinions. You demonstrate a "blind" faith in things that it is evident you have no understanding of.
That is why your comments here are not only offensive, but ignorant at best.
June 6, 2009 8:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, you are pointing out nothing.
Science is not a belief system. It offers no interpretation of anything. It's simply a way of codifying true observables into a form where predictions can be made.
It requires no faith at all to use. It requires no faith to add to.
Instead of merely arguing by assuming your conclusion, how about you explain to me how faith and science are related?
June 6, 2009 8:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just did.
You haven't the wit or the intelligence to absorb it. I am hardly surprised as your dogma and fervor tends to put the strictest religions to shame in it's narrowness.
Go on with your parroting. It is trite and shallow. I do enjoy watching you make an utter ass out of yourself.
=D
Carry on.
June 6, 2009 9:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
What motivates atheists to preach?
This is delightful Saladin. I mean, I have to cut, paste and cherish this for awhile. heheheheheheeee
June 6, 2009 8:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
CT, I am surprised that in all the time you have known me, you would think for one minute that I do not reflect on EVERYTHING I think, or believe. Yes, I was exposed to Christianity in my childhood, but not in a good way. I WAS an atheist as a young adult, agnostic as I grew older. I came to Christianity at the age of 49 if my math is correct. Granted, I didn't "study" different religions before taking the leap, but I did leap with my eyes wide open. I understand the ramifications of believing in something so illogical. The belief that something as amazing and intricately woven as this earth was some random cosmic event is equally illogical.
I allow for the possibility that you are right and I am wrong. You do not allow for the possibility that I am right and you are wrong.
There is a song written and sung by a young Christian woman named Nicole Nordaman, for a friend who was not a believer. I tried, with no luck to find the exact lyrics, so I'll paraphrase:
It starts with many of the reasons for not believing, then asks,
"But what if you're wrong? What if there's more? What if there's hope you never dreamed of hoping for? What if you don't just close your eyes? What if the arms that catch you, catch you by surprise?"
If I'm wrong, what have I lost? But what if YOU are the one who is wrong?
June 6, 2009 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let it go Stilli. Pick up a grandkid and kiss him. ha!!
I do not think of you as rigid or biased or dogmatic. Neither do our friends.
Kiss a kid and forget this guy and these attacks.
June 6, 2009 6:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you kidding? We're just getting started!
I'm going over to watch the babies later this evening so the kids can can have date night...until then I'm enjoying the discussion. I don't feel attacked! But thanks for looking out for me! I appreciate it!
June 6, 2009 6:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
June 6, 2009 6:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yikes!!
June 6, 2009 6:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Apologies for the http error.
June 6, 2009 6:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
CT, I'm not TELLING you anything. I'm asking a heartfelt question. I'm trying to get you to examine your "certainty." There is no clarification needed.
June 6, 2009 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
What if you are right about what, Stilli?
You have to clarify:
What if you are right about god existing?
What if you are right that if god exists he is Jesus?
What?
June 6, 2009 7:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Both...otherwise I wouldn't be a Christian. So? What if you're wrong?
June 6, 2009 7:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, since you asked:
a) your idea of god is one of benevolence. I don't buy that if I am moral I would be punished in the afterlife (should one exist) just because I didn't worship the deity.
Unless you are telling me that worship of the deity is significant.
b) You just admitted that all Christians are the same: they all worship Jesus. But no matter... ;-)
Are you seriously telling me that you have decided that if god exists, it's *your* god???? Are you therefore trying to convert your other religious, but non-Christian, friends to Christianity?
How can you be so selfish as to not want to fight when their eternal soul is in the balance? Isn't your trying to convert them an expression of your love and affection for them?
If you were really worried about what happens after you die from a religious standpoint, you should be attending ALL churches... and even then, there is no guarantee that the "correct" religion has already been invented on Earth!
June 6, 2009 8:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
First of all, I make no judgments on who will return to the Father...That's His call, and I don't even pretend to understand the rules. I do believe we are in for some surprises...
"a) your idea of god is one of benevolence. I don't buy that if I am moral I would be punished in the afterlife (should one exist) just because I didn't worship the deity.
Unless you are telling me that worship of the deity is significant."
My understanding is that we were created to worship Him. If we don't believe in Him we can't worship Him...I don't know what He'd think of that.
"b) You just admitted that all Christians are the same: they all worship Jesus. But no matter... ;-)"
I did NOT say all Christians are alike. I said that in order to be a Christian, you have to believe in Christ. Having one thing in common does not make things the same...Surely you learned that in science classes.
"Are you seriously telling me that you have decided that if god exists, it's *your* god???? Are you therefore trying to convert your other religious, but non-Christian, friends to Christianity?"
It is entirely possible that there is only one God and He manifests himself differently to different people...hence the different religions.
I don't know that, one way or the other. I believe in God. Period. He belongs to all of us. He is not just mine.
"How can you be so selfish as to not want to fight when their eternal soul is in the balance? Isn't your trying to convert them an expression of your love and affection for them?"
Some churches believe strongly that it is a believer's obligation to spread the good news and to convert souls. That is not my style. I have led more than one person to Christ, but through the example of my life, not through intentionally trying to convert.
"If you were really worried about what happens after you die from a religious standpoint, you should be attending ALL churches... and even then, there is no guarantee that the "correct" religion has already been invented on Earth!"
I would not need to ever enter the doors of an established religion to have the relationship I have with God...therefore no need to go to a bunch of churches. My relationship with Him is a personal one. I am secure that we understand each other. He knows my heart. I believe that He usually likes what He sees in it...but not always.
June 6, 2009 9:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
You do realize that the tone for your post is similar to the starting "assumptions" of the Muslim terrorists who also believe they have "the call" and "are doing "his" work".
This is the fundamental problem.
Am I calling you a terrorist? No. But I am saying that you express a sincere belief in something magical which is no different than worshiping the sun, or Allah, or anything else.
Why is the notion of worship so important?
June 6, 2009 9:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because He said so. His ball, His rules.
I am unlike Muslim terrorists because I haven't taken a peaceful religion and turned it into a hate-filled excuse to murder people I disagree with...
You should be ashamed of yourself.
June 6, 2009 10:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because He said so
Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven...
June 6, 2009 10:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope that was supposed to make me laugh, because it did! :-)
June 7, 2009 12:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are kidding, aren't you?
"He" said so?????
Who's "He"?
Do you see how you assume some sort of authority by claiming to "know" god?
Do you know what? The terrorists thought they "knew" god also. As did the guy who killed "Tiller".
Thank you for making my point, so clearly, Stilli.
Do I think you are a terrorist? No. But I do think that your way of thinking is what justifies all the killing in "his" name.
Ashamed of myself???? Let me point out to you the long history of sanctioned Christian killings, going back to the Jews, Muslims, hell, even the American Indians. All because they turned their "peace religion into a hate-filled excuse to murder people [they] disagree[d] with..."
If you want to get down and dirty about it (and I'm glad you were brave enough to post this blog), then let's. The fact is you don't get to define the church. Your post is about how you are ashamed of your church and who belongs to it. Indeed, I think you deeply recognize the connection between the Muslim terrorists and those unsavory elements in your church.
The leaders do represent you. You have a choice, revolutionize your church, or leave. The difference between you and I is that you think that organized religion can be held in check as a peaceful thing -- and I will show thousands upon thousands of years of human history indicating it can't.
May I suggest you find your inner peace without the religious dogma handed to you merely by accident of birth?
Indeed, I'd easily believe you are a good and decent person well before your "enlightenment."
June 7, 2009 12:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Are you even listening to yourself?
June 7, 2009 4:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
If I'm wrong, what have I lost? But what if YOU are the one who is wrong?
OMFSM--you did not just use Pascal's Wager, did you? Did you?
Oh dear, oh dear.
Pascal's Wager was debunked about five minutes after Blaise Pascal first made the argument in the 1600s. It is full of invalid assumptions and one gaping logical fallacy (false dichotomy) that it's absolutely worthless as an argument. But theists still drag it out like it's brand new and shiny--and as if it works.
Those of us who have seen it 100,000 times pity anyone who trots it out. And some people laugh at it, outright.
The reason people pity and laugh at it is that Pascal didn't acknowledge all possible conditions, like all the other religions out there, and no, pulling the "other gods = one god (specifically mine!)" card out of your backside does not help your cause. You have ZERO evidence for it. Not only that, a plethora of your fellow Christians would consider it sacrilege (and with good reason, considering what their sacred book says on the matter). Meanwhile, it's insulting to those who sincerely believe their deity is the one, true big kahuna, and yours is a false god, or at least subordinate to their favorite celestial buddy.
If anything, there's a case to be made that believing in the wrong god will be worse than not believing in any of them. Bad enough you don't believe, but you compound it by believing in something false, or maybe even something that the deity considers evil? And here's a mindbender: What if the deity that is out there is none of the ones worshipped now or in the past, and he shows up tomorrow?
If anybody can win in that scenario, it's those who rejected all the gods posited. Yep, the atheists.
Pascal also didn't take into account that no one can really know what a deity thinks, feels, wishes--nothing. So what if you're going about getting your eternal reward brownie points the wrong way (and there are enough sects of just about any religion to indicate there is no agreement about what that way is)? What if there is no way? What if the deity doesn't care a fig about us, and hasn't since he finished creating us? What if there is no eternal life, even if the deity is real and cares, if you worship the right one, and in the proper way? What if the deity has completely arbitrary criteria, like only accepting people with freckles, or those who had pet iguanas? How do you know what was put in the book was really what he wanted? What if he was in a playful mood the day he said don't cook meat in its mother's milk, and wanted to see if his pets would take the bait? Would you really presume to say you can be certain of what's in the mind of a being so complex that he could blow some air on dirt and make people?
But back to why the wager isn't as good as theists think. The worst aspect is how Pascal seems to think that there's a valid argument in thinking people can make themselves believe, in the interest of...well, self-interest. I have a feeling most deities wouldn't like a mortal believing to get a goodie, and their powers are supposed to be such that they would see through it, anyway. So the person who "believes" for this reason could well be in worse shape than the non-believer in the deity's esteem.
The argument falls apart under the mildest of scrutiny; ergo, I would advise not using Pascal's Wager, even in the guise of "what if you're wrong?" Even such a brief look at it makes it apparent that the consequences of being a theist could be as bad as those for atheists, or worse, if a deity turns out to be real.
June 7, 2009 8:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you read the whole thread, you would see that I was asking a question raised in a song...not co-opting Pascal's argument. It was not meant in a negative, you're-gunna-go-to-hell-if-you-don't-pretend-real-well-to-believe sorta way, but in a don't-you-wanna-see-if-you-might-be-missing-something-great sorta way...
June 7, 2009 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
And yet that's how it came off, Stilli.
Interestingly you never really acknowledged my response to you, preferring instead to engage in pyschobabble on my mental state...
...the last refuge of someone with little to say.
June 7, 2009 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was born into a Catholic family (8 kids, no less!) and attended parochial schools paid for at great sacrifice by my parents. It was the time of Vatican II and a very exciting time to be a Christian. Among my heroes growing up were the Berrigan Brothers (Catonsville 9) and Father James Groppi in Milwaukee. The Dominican nuns who taught us were intense in their sense of - and promotion of - the Golden Rule. These were all vibrant Christians, hard at work in pursuit of social justice. I could easily recognize Jesus in all of them.
I don't even recognize the Catholic Church these days. Pharisees in the Temple is the best I can say of them. The Church has actually become politically dangerous, and does not serve the interests of the less advantaged peoples but rather preserves the advantages of the wealthy and powerful.
And yet I am aware that there remain good Christians among us. And I always count you as one of the best! Keep the faith, stilli! We need you, and other Christians like you, now more than ever!
June 6, 2009 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just as I'm sure early Americans recognized that some slaver owners were kind to their help.
The problem with all of these arguments is that few can say that religious belief in a diety always has to rest on anti-intellectualism. Which is why "faith" must be invoked.
Why do we need gods so? This is the central question.
Except for a few brave souls, most try to have their cake and eat it as well.
That Stilli identifies herself as a "Christian" is telling in and of itself.
In fact, I dare claim that "Liberal Christian" is an oxymoron invented salve the discomfort of examining a belief system in the context of the 21st century.
Religion is, by definition, conservative. It seeks the status quo and resolutely refuses to change on anything substantive... because that would be the death of it's authority.
The nation-state is a relatively recent invention of tribalism. Religion goes back centuries.
June 6, 2009 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're showing that you know nothing, Clearthinker. Nothing. I don't know why you insist on arguing about religion when your knowledge level about it is just... abysmal.
Your comments about "liberal Christianity" are actually so ignorant you're destroying any credibility you may have had with people.
June 6, 2009 8:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Er, Amen?
I think we've had this conversation before Bejeebus. This ain't your Daddy's Catholic Church.
Or maybe it is, but just with a bit more transparency. The majority of "good" christian Catholics do not wear the faith on their sleeves and quietly and humbly profess their faith in good deeds, and that is exactly how this recovering Catholic was taught to do so.
I'm kinda unteachable, but I do so admire those who walk the walk.
June 6, 2009 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, SJ! I was just telling your wife you are one of my favorite people around here, and I mean it. Sometimes we agree, sometimes we don't, but we are always kind and respectful to each other. And that you consider me to be a "good" Christian? ...well it makes my heart swell. Thank you.
June 6, 2009 7:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great post SI! (And great Lines - a Dayly prize well deserved.
Yes, we should all try to think hard about how to become better people rather than think we are better people because of whatever beliefs we happen to have. I'll count myself as an atheist, but there's a real difference people often miss between atheism and anti-theism like that of CT commenting above. I'd prefer not to be associated with the latter...
June 6, 2009 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, the waffler!
As John Lennon said "Imagine no religion..."
So was he an atheist or an anti-theist?
The bottom line is there is no such thing as a "personal" belief system once you are in an a heterogeneous society. Just as a small for instance:
a) people think same sex marriage is wrong because of their belief system
b) people think birth control is wrong because of their belief system
These two items are manifested outside in society and therefore must be dealt with in a different way than based on someone's "belief" system.
June 6, 2009 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
CT, that second part is just gibberish to me. Care to clarify its relevance/interest?
As for John Lennon - if he agreed with your principle
"If you want people to act better, let's start off by killing off god"
then I'd disagree. I don't personally place or frame the foundations of my morality on a belief in and personal relationship to a higher agency, hence the A-theism, but I have no problem with people who do, hence the lack of anti-theism. Was that waffle really to hard to swallow?
June 6, 2009 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Really? Do you have a problem with people who are against same sex marriage because they believe in a god that tells them so?
Do you have a problem with people who are against birth control because they believe in a god who tells them so?
June 6, 2009 6:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
there are enough repugnant atheist moral ideologies to go around as well. 'Killing God' wouldn't be on my list of priorities to make the world a better place.
June 6, 2009 6:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Name some?
Killing god goes a long way to killing superstition which, in turn, kills ignorance.
Most humans would prefer not to do the intellectual work required to understand the world around them... this is where religion and political parties are born. It provides handy things just given to you.
Killing religion would be a first step for humans to really "Wake Up!" as Stilli mentions in her title.
June 6, 2009 6:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Killing god goes a long way to killing superstition which, in turn, kills ignorance."
An alternative:
Kill off excessively extreme rhetoric, that could go a long way to [sic] killing violence and hatred which, in turn, kill empathy and intelligence.
The real alternative: Revive God and stop feeding false gods; that could go a long way towards reducing the negative effects of superstition and the like.
June 6, 2009 7:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am not against gays marrying, I am not against birth control, heck I'm even pro-choice...thus the "not all Christians are the same" comment. I happen to believe that there is enough vagueness in the Bible, and problems with translations in both language and culture, that we need to be careful about how much we take the Bible "literally."
June 6, 2009 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting, your conflation of birth control to "pro-choice".
You need to read, not react.
There are "Christians" who would claim that you aren't "Christian" because of your view.
So who is the "right" Christian?
The problem with religion is that you can't cherry pick which parts you like and which you don't.
Otherwise you get into the old breakdown of the religious dogma.
http://damienkatz.net/2005/02/emo-philips-on-religion.html
And sadly, a layman as yourself, doesn't get to choose.
So... perhaps you really aren't Christian after all?
June 6, 2009 7:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problem with religion is that you can't cherry pick which parts you like and which you don't.
WTF??? This is the problem with religion? Do you have any clue what you are talking about?
The answer is no, you don't. People and religions cherry pick all the time the parts they like, but that's not the problem. As Stilli already said, many of the problems come from the sources' vagueness and translations of vagueness down through the centuries into different cultures. And that's without getting into issues in terms of believability, contradictions and fairy tales.
June 6, 2009 7:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
See above...
AND, by adding my pro choice I was pointing out an additional area over and above the 1st two, where my views are different.
The fact that you think all Christians believe the same things shows how little you actually know about Christians. I'm surprised, CT. You usually have your facts right, just odd interpretations on occasion. This time you are ALL messed up...
June 6, 2009 7:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, Stilli, all Christians are supposed to believe the same thing.
That you don't means you are trying to cherry pick your own religion.
The general, important conclusions define the religion.
Religion isn't exactly the same as a political party. There is an outside authority dictating your belief structure.
No, whether you decide to go with some and not others, is your choice: but that doesn't mean you are a real "Christian"... unless, of course, you can find enough like minded individuals to set up your own church. Just like Henry VIII.
Or you can simply decide that you don't need religion to be a functioning and good person.
June 6, 2009 8:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
According to whom? The Catholics? The Lutherans, The Baptists, or Episcopalians? The Greek Orthodox? The Mormons?? Do Americans "believe" the same things? Do Jews? Do Moslems? Do Buddhists? Which of these believe all the "same" things, and according to who?
You? This is one of the stupider things you have said and that is really saying something.
Your grasp on science is tenuous at best. I think you are maybe 14 or something. That, or poorly educated.
June 6, 2009 8:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is the most idiotic argument of all.
Christians all believe in Christ (e.g. that Jesus was the human manifestation of god on Earth)
Non christians don't.
Or did you miss the etymology lessons at school?
And now you are conflating the nation-state (America) as a religious entity?
I know understand you missed the subtlety of the discussion. Religion is tribal dogma. The more a person specifies their stated religion, the more I would understand the belief structure they self-identify with. And that means the person *doesn't* believe in the other structures. Else they'd be with that structure.
As with the personal insults, I'd hold them back. At least I didn't get kicked off of TPM and have to come back as a new avatar as you did as Workerbee.
June 6, 2009 8:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Am I "Melissa" or "workerbee?" What if I were one, or both? What would it matter? Poor way to respond to an argument. Bad form. I am hardly the first or only poster you accuse of being someone else. It's tiresome and yet another non sequitur.
Your blanket statement, which is what I am attacking, as well as your sneering ignorance, (which I am hardly alone in attacking,) is a direct result of that utterly nonsensical blanket statement: "All christians believe the same thing."
They do not.
Try again.
June 6, 2009 8:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are both as you know.
June 6, 2009 9:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who gives a fig?
June 6, 2009 9:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, I do not know it, because it isn't true. That you believe it, and insist on it, and announce it constantly, amuses me. It tends to reflect on your mentality. That would be a shallow one.
=D
If I was questioning that before you have now removed all reasonable doubt.
Believing in lies and extreme hyperbole with a religious fervor puts you at a disadvantage when you are trying to convince others that you are somehow calm, cool, and collected in matters of religion. You are perhaps the most uninformed person I have ever seen espouse on the subject.
That pricks at my sense of pity.
Go in peace.
June 6, 2009 9:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are truly talking about something you know little of. You may outlast me on this discussion, CT but you won't get the better of me. I live it, breath it, have a passion for it. I know what I'm talking about. You are here for the sport, and it shows.
June 6, 2009 9:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's 9:10 eastern...gotta put babies to bed, back in a couple of hours (or less!)