Page 16 of 17 [ 259 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 13, 14, 15, 16, 17  Next

hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

08 Feb 2012, 3:58 pm

AngelRho, i am not sure what you are talking about in regards to puddingmouse and homosexuality, but homophobia is not permitted on the site. so (as you decided) you are probably best off not expressing any views that could be seen as homophobic - good call on that one. thank you.


_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt237032.html


HerrGrimm
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Mar 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 987
Location: United States

08 Feb 2012, 4:01 pm

EDIT: Of course someone posts here before me while I'm typing that ends the discussion. Obviously.

Retracted.

It's a complete insult to me that AngelRho accused me of baiting him, that's all I'll say. I'm all about trying to get people banned, let me tell you :?



AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,002
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

08 Feb 2012, 4:10 pm

hyperlexian wrote:
you've tried to slip out sideways, but it won't work.

I'm not going anywhere...at least I hope not. ;)

hyperlexian wrote:
teachers don't become non-teachers just because they break policy,

What makes a teacher a teacher? If a teacher breaks policy to the point her contract gets revoked--or even worse, she loses her license, she's not a teacher anymore!

hyperlexian wrote:
just like christians didn't become non-christians just because they forced conversion on pagans.

Agreed. They were never Christians to begin with.

hyperlexian wrote:
really, if that were the case then every time someone violated the bible's teachings they would not be considered christian anymore.... and clearly that is not the case.

IF someone really is a Christian, though. The Bible teaches that no one is perfect even if they do follow Christ. I would say that if someone really is a believer and yet commits an error, that doesn't somehow make him non-Christian. It just makes him human. Mistakes happen all the time. So either the believer didn't know any better or was tricked into doing something because he didn't know scripture very well or failed to pray about it. Most of the time it's really a matter of maturity, I think. I frequently had sex before I got married--and I haven't had sex with anyone else but my wife since then. I periodically got drunk and used foul language until children came along--and now I don't drink at all and rarely say ugly words. There were people we used to enjoy hanging out with but now can't stand hanging out with them because of self-destructive habits and a desire to prevent them from having a negative influence on our own children. A lot of it is just growing up and trying your best to keep the faith and actually TRY to act like Christ. But that doesn't mean it's easy and that you'll get it right every time.

And it doesn't excuse the behavior, either. I'd say if those people who did all those horrible things really were Christians, then they had a LOT of spiritual growing up to do and they failed to understand Christ's teachings. But they also suffered heavy consequences for their actions. The Roman Catholic Church succeeded in uniting Europe during one of the most horrendous periods of human history after the fall of the Roman empire. As things improved, the Roman church failed to maintain its integrity in the face of opposition and overreacted. Not only did they lose the power they had in Europe, but they alienated a huge number of potential converts by their reactionary tactics. Losing the corruptive influence of world power was probably the best thing that happened to the Roman church, but unfortunately it still has to live with the cost.

Protestants aren't guiltless, either, but I'd say it probably took less time for us to learn our lessons than it did the Catholics. And every new church movement that springs up has reached for a better relationship not just with God, but with fellow human beings. We may not be the image of the 1st century, but we're always moving a little closer.

And I think it is a mistake to label all Christians and the Christian religion as an inherently evil institution. I think it's gone through it's moody, rebellious teenage years, and it still has a lot of growing up left to do. We are a work in progress. Cannot the same be said of all people?

hyperlexian wrote:
further, if an action is sanctioned and supported by a christian church, it cannot really be argued to be non-christian.

I don't follow. The action, or the church? If an action is Christlike, it is Christian. If an action is not Christlike, it is unChristian. If an institution chronically sanctions and supports unChristian actions and values, it's unChristian. If same calls itself Christian, it's pseudo-Christian. It is false. Even Charles Manson attempted in a convoluted way to justify his actions and teachings by referencing the Bible, but his ideas are so far out of touch with Christian teaching it would take the average person a lot of mental wrangling to justify calling it that. There are sometimes examples of "Name" groups who style themselves in such a way as to attracted Christians, often disgruntled ones, and they hardly follow Christ's teachings at all. A rose by any other name is still a rose, and a pseudo-Christian group is still only pseudo-Christian.

What troubles me about your ideas here is that it seems to me the whole of Christianity is being blamed for the ills of the past. It is unjust to hold a group of people living today responsible for the evils of the past. Those of us alive NOW had no part in what happened THEN. And since many of us do not belong to a 1,000+ year old church tradition, it's unfair to blame us for the evils of a church we fought (and often died) to break free from. I blame the church of the Spanish Inquisition for what it did. Rather I hold the contemporary RC responsible for what it does NOW, and I find doctrinal/dogmatic issues to be just serious enough that I do not wish to worship there. Rather, I'm comfortable where I am, and I'm even aware of what I feel are suitable alternatives should I decide to leave this denomination.



Oodain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,

08 Feb 2012, 4:13 pm

so where is this limit between "we all make mistakes" and he made a mistake so ow hes not chriustian anymore??

seems like an issue where even christians among themselves would have a hard time.


_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//

the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.


CrazyCatLord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Oct 2011
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,177

08 Feb 2012, 4:21 pm

TM wrote:
CrazyCatLord wrote:
You called it :D


I have an evangelical relative, it's not the first time I've seen this line of argumentation. It's kind of how the EDL (English Defence League) is not really racist, they just hate people who aren't white because they aren't white.

I think the reason for this is that those of us who hold and defend the "anti-Christianity" position often focus on the Old Testament in our arguments. Holding a "Pauline-position" neutralizes many of our examples and possibly our arguments. The manner in which one refutes the Pauline-position is not as well known amongst debaters, nor is the immorality of Jesus Christ. Jesus was after all the first to threaten with eternal torture in hell, he preached a moral code where threats are fine to keep people in line, that stealing someone's donkey is fine as long as your reason is "the lord needs it", "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters--yes, even his own life--he cannot be my disciple. And anyone who does not carry his cross and follow me cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14 25-27).


I've also seen these arguments before. And I agree that according to Matt. 5:18, Jesus affirmed the Mosaic law ("until heaven and Earth pass away") rather than abandoning it. But I'm kind of glad that there are Christians who don't see it that way, otherwise there would be no such thing as moderate Christianity. I also understand and share your position on indoctrinating children with threats of eternal punishment, but I think that moderate Christians who place no importance on the OT are much less of a problem for secular society than fundamentalists.

And yes, there are many shocking and offensive things in the gospels. Such as the part about throwing unbelievers and sinners into a blazing furnace. I mean, that would also apply to Jews since they didn't accept Jesus. So according to Matt. 13, holocaust victims who were burned in an oven will be thrown into another oven by Jesus' angels. That is a truly repulsive thought, and I really don't understand how people can reconcile this with their faith and their image of Jesus.

Thankfully, moderate Christians tend to ignore these bits and focus on the parts about love, tolerance and forgiveness. If only all Christians would practice that. Or if they would practice secular humanism instead, which would be even better. But I have given up all hopes in that regard. I'd be content if Christians would just focus on the gospels and ignore the rest, and if they took a clear stance against fundamentalists who are trying to legislate OT law and turn Western societies into theocracies.



Last edited by CrazyCatLord on 08 Feb 2012, 4:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.

abacacus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Apr 2007
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,380

08 Feb 2012, 4:25 pm

Oodain wrote:
so where is this limit between "we all make mistakes" and he made a mistake so ow hes not chriustian anymore??

seems like an issue where even christians among themselves would have a hard time.


Theism is a process of mental hoops and double think that people have to wrap their mind around in order to believe in their fallacy, in order to reject logic and reality.

I'm not surprised at contradictions in Angels post.


_________________
A shot gun blast into the face of deceit
You'll gain your just reward.
We'll not rest until the purge is complete
You will reap what you've sown.


AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,002
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

08 Feb 2012, 4:48 pm

Oodain wrote:
so where is this limit between "we all make mistakes" and he made a mistake so ow hes not chriustian anymore??

seems like an issue where even christians among themselves would have a hard time.

No. It's just human nature, IMO. I would say a Christian is more likely to make a mistake either not understanding or knowing, realize eventually that he's screwed up, and try to avoid making the mistake.

If you ever really believed and you have a personal relationship with God, you can't really go back. Someone who purposefully does something horrible MIGHT be a Christian, but doing something you KNOW is wrong would make you suspect as to whether are not you really are a Christian. If you SAY you're a Christian but don't really believe, then anything you do for good or for evil really has no motivations other than your own. For someone claiming to be a Christian just to get his way, nothing is a mistake. He's being intentionally evil.

What makes a Christian a Christian is where he puts his faith. Behavior follows. If you really belong to Christ, you want to ACT like Christ.



hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

08 Feb 2012, 4:52 pm

AngelRho wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
you've tried to slip out sideways, but it won't work.

I'm not going anywhere...at least I hope not. ;)

hyperlexian wrote:
teachers don't become non-teachers just because they break policy,

What makes a teacher a teacher? If a teacher breaks policy to the point her contract gets revoked--or even worse, she loses her license, she's not a teacher anymore!

hyperlexian wrote:
just like christians didn't become non-christians just because they forced conversion on pagans.

Agreed. They were never Christians to begin with.

hyperlexian wrote:
really, if that were the case then every time someone violated the bible's teachings they would not be considered christian anymore.... and clearly that is not the case.

IF someone really is a Christian, though. The Bible teaches that no one is perfect even if they do follow Christ. I would say that if someone really is a believer and yet commits an error, that doesn't somehow make him non-Christian. It just makes him human. Mistakes happen all the time. So either the believer didn't know any better or was tricked into doing something because he didn't know scripture very well or failed to pray about it. Most of the time it's really a matter of maturity, I think. I frequently had sex before I got married--and I haven't had sex with anyone else but my wife since then. I periodically got drunk and used foul language until children came along--and now I don't drink at all and rarely say ugly words. There were people we used to enjoy hanging out with but now can't stand hanging out with them because of self-destructive habits and a desire to prevent them from having a negative influence on our own children. A lot of it is just growing up and trying your best to keep the faith and actually TRY to act like Christ. But that doesn't mean it's easy and that you'll get it right every time.

And it doesn't excuse the behavior, either. I'd say if those people who did all those horrible things really were Christians, then they had a LOT of spiritual growing up to do and they failed to understand Christ's teachings. But they also suffered heavy consequences for their actions. The Roman Catholic Church succeeded in uniting Europe during one of the most horrendous periods of human history after the fall of the Roman empire. As things improved, the Roman church failed to maintain its integrity in the face of opposition and overreacted. Not only did they lose the power they had in Europe, but they alienated a huge number of potential converts by their reactionary tactics. Losing the corruptive influence of world power was probably the best thing that happened to the Roman church, but unfortunately it still has to live with the cost.

Protestants aren't guiltless, either, but I'd say it probably took less time for us to learn our lessons than it did the Catholics. And every new church movement that springs up has reached for a better relationship not just with God, but with fellow human beings. We may not be the image of the 1st century, but we're always moving a little closer.

And I think it is a mistake to label all Christians and the Christian religion as an inherently evil institution. I think it's gone through it's moody, rebellious teenage years, and it still has a lot of growing up left to do. We are a work in progress. Cannot the same be said of all people?

hyperlexian wrote:
further, if an action is sanctioned and supported by a christian church, it cannot really be argued to be non-christian.

I don't follow. The action, or the church? If an action is Christlike, it is Christian. If an action is not Christlike, it is unChristian. If an institution chronically sanctions and supports unChristian actions and values, it's unChristian. If same calls itself Christian, it's pseudo-Christian. It is false. Even Charles Manson attempted in a convoluted way to justify his actions and teachings by referencing the Bible, but his ideas are so far out of touch with Christian teaching it would take the average person a lot of mental wrangling to justify calling it that. There are sometimes examples of "Name" groups who style themselves in such a way as to attracted Christians, often disgruntled ones, and they hardly follow Christ's teachings at all. A rose by any other name is still a rose, and a pseudo-Christian group is still only pseudo-Christian.

What troubles me about your ideas here is that it seems to me the whole of Christianity is being blamed for the ills of the past. It is unjust to hold a group of people living today responsible for the evils of the past. Those of us alive NOW had no part in what happened THEN. And since many of us do not belong to a 1,000+ year old church tradition, it's unfair to blame us for the evils of a church we fought (and often died) to break free from. I blame the church of the Spanish Inquisition for what it did. Rather I hold the contemporary RC responsible for what it does NOW, and I find doctrinal/dogmatic issues to be just serious enough that I do not wish to worship there. Rather, I'm comfortable where I am, and I'm even aware of what I feel are suitable alternatives should I decide to leave this denomination.

all i can say from all this is that.... nobody would qualify as a christian then, and no institution could qualify as christian either.... because every single person and every single institution will break some of the rules of the bible sooner or later. it isn't possible to be perfect, and who decides which criteria makes a person or institution non-christian?


_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt237032.html


CrazyCatLord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Oct 2011
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,177

08 Feb 2012, 5:06 pm

AngelRho wrote:
What troubles me about your ideas here is that it seems to me the whole of Christianity is being blamed for the ills of the past. It is unjust to hold a group of people living today responsible for the evils of the past. Those of us alive NOW had no part in what happened THEN. And since many of us do not belong to a 1,000+ year old church tradition, it's unfair to blame us for the evils of a church we fought (and often died) to break free from. I blame the church of the Spanish Inquisition for what it did. Rather I hold the contemporary RC responsible for what it does NOW, and I find doctrinal/dogmatic issues to be just serious enough that I do not wish to worship there. Rather, I'm comfortable where I am, and I'm even aware of what I feel are suitable alternatives should I decide to leave this denomination.


I would see your point if you weren't a Catholic. But as a Catholic Christian, you have not only affiliated yourself with a religion that has a long history of crimes against humanity, you also support the very church organisation that was responsible for a the majority of those crimes. A church organisation that continues to commit atrocities such as covering up and aiding sexual child abuse on a massive scale.

We hold all other organisations and ideologies accountable for their past crimes. The following comparison is not entirely fair, but I will nonetheless make it to get my point across: There are many neo-Nazi organisations nowadays. The majority of them don't commit any horrible acts. That would likely change if they rose to power, but I also think that the Catholic Church would quickly be back to their old shenanigans if they gained more political influence. Anyway, these neo-Nazi organisations obey the law and don't kill or actively persecute people.

We nonetheless strongly condemn them based on the crimes against humanity committed by the original Nazi party. We look at their somewhat cleaned-up and varnished ideology and say "that has been tried and the result was atrocious, so let's not do that again". There is no reason why we shouldn't say the exact same thing about Catholicism, especially in the light of the rampant child abuse in Catholic institutions.



hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

08 Feb 2012, 5:11 pm

AngelRho wrote:
Oodain wrote:
so where is this limit between "we all make mistakes" and he made a mistake so ow hes not chriustian anymore??

seems like an issue where even christians among themselves would have a hard time.

No. It's just human nature, IMO. I would say a Christian is more likely to make a mistake either not understanding or knowing, realize eventually that he's screwed up, and try to avoid making the mistake.

If you ever really believed and you have a personal relationship with God, you can't really go back. Someone who purposefully does something horrible MIGHT be a Christian, but doing something you KNOW is wrong would make you suspect as to whether are not you really are a Christian. If you SAY you're a Christian but don't really believe, then anything you do for good or for evil really has no motivations other than your own. For someone claiming to be a Christian just to get his way, nothing is a mistake. He's being intentionally evil.

What makes a Christian a Christian is where he puts his faith. Behavior follows. If you really belong to Christ, you want to ACT like Christ.

since none of us can tell from the outside if a misbehaving christian is acting purposefully or not, as outsiders we must either assume that they are all unchriustian or all christian when they break the rules of the bible. so the people who forcibly converted pagans on threat of violence must have been acting as christians. or, we could alternately say they were acting as non-christians, but then we would have to say the same about everyone else who ever behaves wrongly (since we cannot "see" their motivations - only their behaviours).

by the way, teachers do not necessarily lose their jobs or licenses for performing corporal punishment, so they could still be considered teachers.


_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt237032.html


AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,002
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

08 Feb 2012, 5:11 pm

CrazyCatLord wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
What troubles me about your ideas here is that it seems to me the whole of Christianity is being blamed for the ills of the past. It is unjust to hold a group of people living today responsible for the evils of the past. Those of us alive NOW had no part in what happened THEN. And since many of us do not belong to a 1,000+ year old church tradition, it's unfair to blame us for the evils of a church we fought (and often died) to break free from. I blame the church of the Spanish Inquisition for what it did. Rather I hold the contemporary RC responsible for what it does NOW, and I find doctrinal/dogmatic issues to be just serious enough that I do not wish to worship there. Rather, I'm comfortable where I am, and I'm even aware of what I feel are suitable alternatives should I decide to leave this denomination.


I would see your point if you weren't a Catholic. But as a Catholic Christian, you have not only affiliated yourself with a religion that has a long history of crimes against humanity, you also support the very church organisation that was responsible for a the majority of those crimes. A church organisation that continues to commit atrocities such as covering up and aiding sexual child abuse on a massive scale.

We hold all other organisations and ideologies accountable for their past crimes. The following comparison is not entirely fair, but I will nonetheless make it to get my point across: There are many neo-Nazi organisations nowadays. The majority of them don't commit any horrible acts. That would likely change if they rose to power, but I also think that the Catholic Church would quickly be back to their old shenanigans if they gained more political influence. Anyway, these neo-Nazi organisations obey the law and don't kill or actively persecute people.

We nonetheless strongly condemn them based on the crimes against humanity committed by the original Nazi party. We look at their somewhat cleaned-up and varnished ideology and say "that has been tried and the result was atrocious, so let's not do that again". There is no reason why we shouldn't say the exact same thing about Catholicism, especially in the light of the rampant child abuse in Catholic institutions.

You misunderstood. I'm NOT Catholic.



AceOfSpades
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,754
Location: Sean Penn, Cambodia

08 Feb 2012, 5:16 pm

hyperlexian wrote:
AngelRho, i am not sure what you are talking about in regards to puddingmouse and homosexuality, but homophobia is not permitted on the site. so (as you decided) you are probably best off not expressing any views that could be seen as homophobic - good call on that one. thank you.
I think this is overboard. As long as he's not like "Ewww f**k faggots they should all get burned!" he should be free to express his views.



hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

08 Feb 2012, 5:22 pm

AceOfSpades wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
AngelRho, i am not sure what you are talking about in regards to puddingmouse and homosexuality, but homophobia is not permitted on the site. so (as you decided) you are probably best off not expressing any views that could be seen as homophobic - good call on that one. thank you.
I think this is overboard. As long as he's not like "Ewww f**k faggots they should all get burned!" he should be free to express his views.

what is overboard? can you point me to the transgression involved? i made it clear that i am not aware of the original post that puddingmouse dealt with, but i thought that a general reminder is a good idea.


_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt237032.html


CrazyCatLord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Oct 2011
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,177

08 Feb 2012, 5:25 pm

AngelRho wrote:
You misunderstood. I'm NOT Catholic.


Sorry, my bad. You wrote in defense the Roman Catholic Church though, so other than the part about your church affiliation, my post still stands. You cannot seperate the RCC from the atrocities committed by the Inquisition, both the Roman and the Spanish Inquisition (which was also a Catholic initiative), and of course there is no excuse for the crimes that are still being committed and covered up by the RCC in this day and age.



AceOfSpades
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,754
Location: Sean Penn, Cambodia

08 Feb 2012, 5:28 pm

hyperlexian wrote:
AceOfSpades wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
AngelRho, i am not sure what you are talking about in regards to puddingmouse and homosexuality, but homophobia is not permitted on the site. so (as you decided) you are probably best off not expressing any views that could be seen as homophobic - good call on that one. thank you.
I think this is overboard. As long as he's not like "Ewww f**k faggots they should all get burned!" he should be free to express his views.

what is overboard? can you point me to the transgression involved? i made it clear that i am not aware of the original post that puddingmouse dealt with, but i thought that a general reminder is a good idea.
I thought it was overboard that he was told not to express views that could be seen as homophobic, but since it was just a reminder rather than a warning, I'm fine with that.



hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

08 Feb 2012, 6:31 pm

AceOfSpades wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
AceOfSpades wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
AngelRho, i am not sure what you are talking about in regards to puddingmouse and homosexuality, but homophobia is not permitted on the site. so (as you decided) you are probably best off not expressing any views that could be seen as homophobic - good call on that one. thank you.
I think this is overboard. As long as he's not like "Ewww f**k faggots they should all get burned!" he should be free to express his views.

what is overboard? can you point me to the transgression involved? i made it clear that i am not aware of the original post that puddingmouse dealt with, but i thought that a general reminder is a good idea.
I thought it was overboard that he was told not to express views that could be seen as homophobic, but since it was just a reminder rather than a warning, I'm fine with that.

if you read what i actually wrote, all your questions would be answered. you reacted to something that was not there.


_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt237032.html