How can Christians support both?

[bac]

How can a group that supports placing the 10 Commandments in government buildings also support the killing in Iraq? Does this not seem like just a bit of a contradiction to anyone?

[Greyhound]

Not a contradiction to me......thanks for your concern, though.

[$tinkle]

How can a group that supports placing the 10 Commandments in government buildings also support the killing in Iraq? Does this not seem like just a bit of a contradiction to anyone?if i put on my extra 23rd chromosome it does.

speaking of contradictions in iraq, how can a party claim bush & co are a bunch of war profiteers all the while perpetuating the war for profit?

exhibit A: As a member of the Military Construction Appropriations subcommittee, Sen. Feinstein voted for appropriations worth billions to her husband's firms (http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/19923)

exhibit B: george soros buys halliburton stock (http://www.thepolitic.com/archives/2007/04/05/soros-buys-halliburton-stock-more-hypocrisy/)

what do you make of all this, brad?

[Silver]

exhibit A: As a member of the Military Construction Appropriations subcommittee, Sen. Feinstein voted for appropriations worth billions to her husband's firms (http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/19923)



Let me mention something about this. Take a quick gander at this:

http://www.ridemonkey.com/forums/showthread.php?t=146136&

Now, I assume you can find something you posted a while ago that gets on Cheney's case about Halliburton? Because if you can't, I'd feel the need to point out that your imaginary hippie friend didn't like hypocrites that much...

[Silver]

How can a group that supports placing the 10 Commandments in government buildings also support the killing in Iraq? Does this not seem like just a bit of a contradiction to anyone?

Not at all. Have you ever read the Bible? God gets pissed off at his people when they don't commit a genocide thoroughly enough...

[$tinkle]

Let me mention something about this. Take a quick gander at this:

http://www.ridemonkey.com/forums/showthread.php?t=146136&

Now, I assume you can find something you posted a while ago that gets on Cheney's case about Halliburton? Because if you can't, I'd feel the need to point out that your imaginary hippie friend didn't like hypocrites that much...yeah but cheney's hypocrisy was a natural reaction to having a gay daughter, and moreover is a business decision & has our economy in mind.

can't you see the difference?

[Transcend]

Not a contradiction to me......thanks for your concern, though.

That's because you are a hyppocrite.

[Westy]

Any good christian can tell you they revised the commandments to say thou shall not murder. War is not murder especially when darkies are the ones getting killed.

[jimmydean]

Is Iraq different than the crusades?

Spreading Freedom seems to have a similar result to spreading Christianity.

[dante]

Not at all. Have you ever read the Bible? God gets pissed off at his people when they don't commit a genocide thoroughly enough...

completely true. that's all Old Testament stuff, along with the 10 commandments. the hippie Jesus didn't show up until the New Testament. :)

[Greyhound]

Is Iraq different than the crusades?

Spreading Freedom seems to have a similar result to spreading Christianity.

Crusades were a result of resistence to Persian domination.

[Greyhound]

That's because you are a hyppocrite.


Meh.....I've been called worse.

[moff_quigley]

Are we somehow assuming that Republicans = Christians?

[$tinkle]

Are we somehow assuming that Republicans = Christians?when going for a lazy two-fer, yes.

[ohio]

Are we somehow assuming that Republicans = Christians?

Well it's not Atheists, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and most Jews. Who does that leave? Christians, with a light sprinkling of Hebes for good luck (and money).

[Westy]

Are we somehow assuming that Republicans = Christians?

I think saying just Christians is too broad of a stroke. Christian Right is probably right on target. Christian Right = Republican.

[moff_quigley]

My check list:

Christian...check
Republican...mostly
"Support the killing in Iraq"...not in the slightest. We should have never gotten involved.

[$tinkle]

"Support the killing in Iraq"...not in the slightest. We should have never gotten involved.seeing how it became part of our foreign policy to actively seek overthrow of saddam since 1998 (iraq liberation act), i don't see how you can make the sweep that we should have "never" gotten involved, outside of a personal preference that is.

[moff_quigley]

<snip>outside of a personal preference that is.

Correct.

[$tinkle]

I think saying just Christians is too broad of a stroke. Christian Right is probably right on target. Christian Right = Republican."The next Republican that tells me I'm not religious I'm going to shove my rosary beads down their throat," railed Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) while stumping for Democrats in Kentucky.american spectator (http://www.amspec.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=10293)

for some reason, i'm not too comforted by a catholic offering to shove something down my throat.

[stevew]

american spectator (http://www.amspec.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=10293)

for some reason, i'm not too comforted by a catholic offering to shove something down my throat.
it's either wafers or penis, depending on your age.

[bac]

what do you make of all this, brad?

What do I make of it? I don't think it has anything to do with my post. I hope you don't have the impression that I'm a democrat?

Anywho, anyone else care to chime in on my original question? "How can a Christian support war?" And by that I mean ANY war.

... Brad

[JRogers]

What do I make of it? I don't think it has anything to do with my post. I hope you don't have the impression that I'm a democrat?

Anywho, anyone else care to chime in on my original question? "How can a Christian support war?" And by that I mean ANY war.

... Brad

What exactly makes you think that Christianity somehow precludes one from supporting a war?

[$tinkle]

What do I make of it? I don't think it has anything to do with my post. I hope you don't have the impression that I'm a democrat?your positions certainly put you in comfortable company
Anywho, anyone else care to chime in on my original question? "How can a Christian support war?" And by that I mean ANY war.so by your logic it's pretty evident we aren't a christian nation by all conflicts from the revolutionary war to present.

i suppose you also think that b/c i'm a christian i won't call you a fool.

[bac]

What exactly makes you think that Christianity somehow precludes one from supporting a war?

http://www.nst.com.my/Current_News/nst/blogs/fillips/images/Ten%20Commandments.bmp


... Brad

[bac]

your positions certainly put you in comfortable company
so by your logic it's pretty evident we aren't a christian nation by all conflicts from the revolutionary war to present.

Correct. Our actions speak louder than our words.

i suppose you also think that b/c i'm a christian i won't call you a fool.

How about a logical answer to my original post? How do you, as a Christian, reconcile the 10 Commandments with war/killing?

... Brad

[rockwool]

so by your logic it's pretty evident we aren't a christian nation by all conflicts from the revolutionary war to present.

Many of your politicians and other powerful people are utalitarians and kabalists, they worship at every shrine. Of course that's of the reccord. Gotta keep face so votes can be won..

Same answer goes for your original question, bac.

[Jeremy R]

Correct. Our actions speak louder than our words.



How about a logical answer to my original post? How do you, as a Christian, reconcile the 10 Commandments with war/killing?

... Brad

You need to read the bible.
If they made a movie about it, Querentino would have to direct it.
God smoked one dude with lightening just for reaching out his hand to steady the ark.

[rockwool]

You need to read the bible.
If they made a movie about it, Querentino would have to direct it.
God smoked one dude with lightening just for reaching out his hand to steady the ark.

That's what you get for giving Gods ark a foot massage.

[JRogers]

Correct. Our actions speak louder than our words.



How about a logical answer to my original post? How do you, as a Christian, reconcile the 10 Commandments with war/killing?

... Brad

If you think that the ten commandments are absolute maxims that it is never acceptable to kill anyone, then your understanding is far too simplistic.

There are wars described in the bible as completely acceptable events. The death penalty is also certainly allowed by the bible.

An alternate translation of that commandment is "You shall not murder," which is probably more accurate. As far as I can tell in the notes in the only Hebrew version of Exodus I have, the verb used may connote premeditation or vengeance, not just killing someone.

[manimal]

How about a logical answer to my original post? How do you, as a Christian, reconcile the 10 Commandments with war/killing?

... Brad

well, if God himself considered David (of david and goliath fame) a "man after his own heart," then i presume that a "just war" is ok. i mean, after all, david was one of the greatest warriors of all time. people tend to believe that God is just a big happy hippy who wants us all to hold hands and sing songs around a campfire...this depiction just isn't true. biblically speaking, he's a very "jealous" God, jealous for our love and respect and, if you so believe, he will be the final judge of every person alive and dead and the visualization of those who are permanently "separated from God" is not a pretty one.

an example of a common "christian" misconception is the idea of "turning the other cheek." most non-believers and many believers as well believe that we are required to turn the other cheek in every situation. this is not so. if a teenager slaps a 5 yr old child in the face just to prover the "bigger than" rule, is the 5 yr old required to take even more of a beating by turning the other cheek? i believe, no. turning the cheek represents the ability to fight back but taking an active stance of submission to prove a point. if you are not in a position where you could naturally defend yourself in the first place then turning the cheek is just weakness, not willful submission. so is fighting back a non-christian act if you're being bullied or threatened?
i hope this example helps you understand the many misconceptions that exist in the world regarding the way christians are supposed to act and believe. i know it doesn't answer your initial question but i think it sheds some light on the difference of what the world thinks we should believe versus what the bible says.

[JRogers]

an example of a common "christian" misconception is the idea of "turning the other cheek." most non-believers and many believers as well believe that we are required to turn the other cheek in every situation. this is not so. if a teenager slaps a 5 yr old child in the face just to prover the "bigger than" rule, is the 5 yr old required to take even more of a beating by turning the other cheek? i believe, no. turning the cheek represents the ability to fight back but taking an active stance of submission to prove a point. if you are not in a position where you could naturally defend yourself in the first place then turning the cheek is just weakness, not willful submission. so is fighting back a non-christian act if you're being bullied or threatened?
i hope this example helps you understand the many misconceptions that exist in the world regarding the way christians are supposed to act and believe. i know it doesn't answer your initial question but i think it sheds some light on the difference of what the world thinks we should believe versus what the bible says.

As a note, another possible interpretation of the "turn the other cheek" story is that we should act in that way in interpersonal relations- our interactions with friends, neighbors and others. Other situations require more forceful measures (for example, Jesus' actions in the temple were not exactly in the spirit of "turning the other cheek")

[Changleen]

The bible is so stupid. :digust:

[stevew]

http://www.cepavw.org/phpBB2/userpix/54_chucknorris6_1.jpg

http://www.cepavw.org/phpBB2/userpix/54_chucknorris2_1.jpg

The beard has been deployed. It's only a matter of time.

[binary visions]

How about a logical answer to my original post? How do you, as a Christian, reconcile the 10 Commandments with war/killing?

You are proposing stupid questions and expect everyone else to jump up and defend themselves?

This is like asking, since we have free speech, why it's illegal for me to walk up to my boss and describe in detail what I'd do to him and his family with a knife.

It's a simplistic question that demonstrates no knowledge of the bible. How about defending your own case before asking other people to defend theirs?

[JRogers]

You are proposing stupid questions and expect everyone else to jump up and defend themselves?

This is like asking, since we have free speech, why it's illegal for me to walk up to my boss and describe in detail what I'd do to him and his family with a knife.

It's a simplistic question that demonstrates no knowledge of the bible. How about defending your own case before asking other people to defend theirs?

Thank you. This is what I was asking for before and all I got was the original question repeated back to me.

[JRogers]

To provide some food for thought, I am going to put in a few words from a book I was reading last night (by chance, it happens to be relevant):

"It does not follow from this at all that Christians, because they are Christians, have no right to rebel against social injustice, to struggle against oppressors and tyranny, or that it would be contrary to Christian doctrine to want to correct what can be corrected in society. To be motivated by hatred, vindictiveness, greed, or lust for power is to be opposed to Christianity...Christianity itself cannot resolve the sorry dilemmas that arise at every step of life and make it impossible to avoid evil. Absolute pacifists, referring to Christian principles, should learn unhypocritically to consider whether they do not simply prefer that other people take their part should war break out. Volunteers in a revolutionary war would be wise unhipocritically to answer the question of why their indignation at social injustice is so outstandingly selective (as notoriously is the case) and on what principle they claim that specifically Christian values (that is, the removal of hatred) have a better chance of flourishing in one system than in another.

For reference, the book is "Modernity on Endless Trial," which is a compilation of essays by Leszek Kolakowski.

[$tinkle]

How about a logical answer to my original post? How do you, as a Christian, reconcile the 10 Commandments with war/killing?let's start with isaiah 28 for some background:

A Message about Samaria
1 What sorrow awaits the proud city of Samaria—
the glorious crown of the drunks of Israel.[a]
It sits at the head of a fertile valley,
but its glorious beauty will fade like a flower.
It is the pride of a people
brought down by wine.
2 For the Lord will send a mighty army against it.
Like a mighty hailstorm and a torrential rain,
they will burst upon it like a surging flood
and smash it to the ground.
3 The proud city of Samaria—
the glorious crown of the drunks of Israel[b]—
will be trampled beneath its enemies’ feet.
4 It sits at the head of a fertile valley,
but its glorious beauty will fade like a flower.
Whoever sees it will snatch it up,
as an early fig is quickly picked and eaten.

5 Then at last the Lord of Heaven’s Armies
will himself be Israel’s glorious crown.
He will be the pride and joy
of the remnant of his people.
6 He will give a longing for justice
to their judges.
He will give great courage
to their warriors who stand at the gates.

***

20 The bed you have made is too short to lie on.
The blankets are too narrow to cover you.
21 The Lord will come as he did against the Philistines at Mount Perazim
and against the Amorites at Gibeon.
He will come to do a strange thing;
he will come to do an unusual deed:
22 For the Lord, the Lord of Heaven’s Armies,
has plainly said that he is determined to crush the whole land.
So scoff no more,
or your punishment will be even greater.


doesn't exactly read like a pleasant bedtime story, now does it? this, and select passages from ecclesiastes teach that there's a time & place for everything, and the judgment described above is necessary for the nation of israel to be restored & redeemed.

[ALEXIS_DH]

let's start with isaiah 28 for some background:

A Message about Samaria
1 What sorrow awaits the proud city of Samaria—
the glorious crown of the drunks of Israel.[a]
It sits at the head of a fertile valley,
but its glorious beauty will fade like a flower.
It is the pride of a people
brought down by wine.
2 For the Lord will send a mighty army against it.
Like a mighty hailstorm and a torrential rain,
they will burst upon it like a surging flood
and smash it to the ground.
3 The proud city of Samaria—
the glorious crown of the drunks of Israel[b]—
will be trampled beneath its enemies’ feet.
4 It sits at the head of a fertile valley,
but its glorious beauty will fade like a flower.
Whoever sees it will snatch it up,
as an early fig is quickly picked and eaten.

5 Then at last the Lord of Heaven’s Armies
will himself be Israel’s glorious crown.
He will be the pride and joy
of the remnant of his people.
6 He will give a longing for justice
to their judges.
He will give great courage
to their warriors who stand at the gates.

***

20 The bed you have made is too short to lie on.
The blankets are too narrow to cover you.
21 The Lord will come as he did against the Philistines at Mount Perazim
and against the Amorites at Gibeon.
He will come to do a strange thing;
he will come to do an unusual deed:
22 For the Lord, the Lord of Heaven’s Armies,
has plainly said that he is determined to crush the whole land.
So scoff no more,
or your punishment will be even greater.


doesn't exactly read like a pleasant bedtime story, now does it? this, and select passages from ecclesiastes teach that there's a time & place for everything, and the judgment described above is necessary for the nation of israel to be restored & redeemed.


ever heard that byrd´s song about teh bible?
"a time for war, a time for peace" duh!

[$tinkle]

ever heard that byrd´s song about teh bible?
"a time for war, a time for peace" duh!why do you think i named ecclesiastes (http://bible.cc/ecclesiastes/3-1.htm).
duh!

shouldn't you be ddr'ing? (a very un-southern baptist thing to do, btw)

[ALEXIS_DH]

shouldn't you be ddr'ing? (a very un-southern baptist thing to do, btw)

oh yeah, like S.B. virginity with loopholes. what would have been of my college days in southern USA without them!
i'll ddr barry manilow songs just to showoff for this.

[$tinkle]

The bible is so stupid. :digust:one of the things i like about you is you're at your funniest when you don't try to be.

[manimal]

The bible is so stupid. :digust:


yeah, no kidding. i can't understand why anyone would read and believe a book based on faith. there's another one like that i read...oh..what's it called again?.... oh yeah! The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin :rolleyes:

[Silver]

yeah, no kidding. i can't understand why anyone would read and believe a book based on faith. there's another one like that i read...oh..what's it called again?.... oh yeah! The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin :rolleyes:

Ah yes. The book which underpins the whole of the biological sciences.

[blue]

yeah, no kidding. i can't understand why anyone would read and believe a book based on faith. there's another one like that i read...oh..what's it called again?.... oh yeah! The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin :rolleyes:

I'd call semi-literal belief in some mythical tome passed down 3000 years through god-knows-whose-hands (pun intended) a bit more outrageous than "belief" in some educated dude's 150 year old book about his objective observations of the world around him, wouldn't you?

[DaveW]

yeah, no kidding. i can't understand why anyone would read and believe a book based on faith. there's another one like that i read...oh..what's it called again?.... oh yeah! The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin :rolleyes:

:clapping: So your saying you can't tell the difference between "faith" and "evidence based observations"? :rofl: :crazy: :homer:

So do you base your arrest evidence on faith or things you have observed? :poster_oops:

[binary visions]

yeah, no kidding. i can't understand why anyone would read and believe a book based on faith. there's another one like that i read...oh..what's it called again?.... oh yeah! The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin :rolleyes:

Look, whether or not you believe in evolution, let's not make absurd comparisons. It doesn't bring your arguments any credibility when you appear to not be able to look at carefully observed, peer-reviewed scientific claims that have been upheld by 150 years of continued testing, and differentiate that from a book whose origins are only vaguely understood at best, full of stories for which we have little to no evidence they even occurred, about a being whose existence is completely unprovable.

Just because you don't like the science, or don't agree with the science doesn't make it the same as faith. The scientific method is not based on believing in something for which there is no physical evidence.

[manimal]

the point is that they're both based on "faith" as both are lacking the ability to scientifically prove their claim. i'm not saying darwin was wrong because no one can either prove or disprove his theory; same goes for the bible.

[binary visions]

the point is that they're both based on "faith" as both are lacking the ability to scientifically prove their claim. i'm not saying darwin was wrong because no one can either prove or disprove his theory; same goes for the bible.

That's just all sorts of wrong.

One has an overwhelming pile of evidence from the scientific community based on observations of thousands of living organisms on a myriad of scales, from microevolution to macroevolution. Will it ever be proven as hard fact? No, probably not - but a "theory" in the scientific community is NOT the same as what the rest of the world generally defines as a "theory." In science, a theory is a model for describing behavior that is generally accepted to be at least probable. Most importantly, it is testable using the scientific method.

Faith in God is not based on evidence, not observable and not testable. Period.

I am not questioning or arguing with your belief in God, but do not make the mistake of thinking that scientific theory is the same as religious faith. It is not, and claiming otherwise demonstrates a lack of knowledge on the subject. The evidence for evolution is not limited to Darwin looking at a few finches and having an idea spring into his head.

[manimal]

So do you base your arrest evidence on faith or things you have observed? :poster_oops:

it's called "probable cause". it means that the crime was "likely" to have been committed by the offender. that can be anything from observing the crime personally or taking someones word for it. not exactly a good analogy.

[Silver]

it's called "probable cause". it means that the crime was "likely" to have been committed by the offender. that can be anything from observing the crime personally or taking someones word for it. not exactly a good analogy.

Yeah, if you didn't personally see the person commit the crime, it didn't happen, according to your criteria.

It's actually a perfect analogy in light of your claim. But that doesn't matter, because apparently when the ball is in your court you take the net down and roll it back over to us...

[manimal]

Most importantly, it is testable using the scientific method.




um...i was under the impression that the third leg of the scientific method is " 3. Test the hypothesis with a controlled experiment
", or perhaps my ultra-liberal university had it all wrong? even my zoology professor admitted to me that the theory of evolution fails to have the ability to be reproduced, thus making it, (in her PHD'd words...) a "faith" based theory.
again, i'm not saying it's wrong but you cannot say that it meets all of the steps of the scientific method. i can theorize which detergent gets my clothes brighter because i can repeat the test and change the variables at will, this is not the case with evolution.
there has been immense work and study into this theory but you cannot tell me that the theory of evolution is devoid of any "faith" that it has occurred at all.

[binary visions]

um...i was under the impression that the third leg of the scientific method is " 3. Test the hypothesis with a controlled experiment

A very common misconception is that evolution is not testable.

That, again, is just wrong. A test isn't limited to a few guys in a lab trying to reproduce results in a petri dish (though I believe they have essentially reproduced microevolution in lab experiments, too lazy to Google the results right now). A test can just as easily be making observations about the world and comparing it to an expected outcome.

Evolution is certainly one of the most difficult scientific theories to prove, but comparing it to a collection of stories and the existence of a being for which there is no evidence whatsoever is just absurdity.

[$tinkle]

One has an overwhelming pile of evidence from the scientific community based on observations of thousands of living organisms on a myriad of scales, from microevolution to macroevolution.again, created by whom?
Faith in God is not based on evidence, not observable and not testable. Period.
you can observe quite an alarming bit of faith in all those whacked out televangelist netwerks.
& in the good book, faith is tested more places than you can swing a dead goat

maybe you meant something else; something "bookish", or whatever you people "study" in your "schools"

[binary visions]

This isn't an argument about intelligent design or creationism, $tinkle. There have been a hundred of those in the P.D. forum.

The point is only that a scientific text that has been tested repeatedly over time (& not in the televangelist way, which is not controlled, impartial or repeatable in all circumstances) is not the same as the Bible.

[$tinkle]

what am i supposed to do w/ this jawbone of an ass? give it back?

i'm going to dragon's throat, where this kind of talk is more appreciated.

[$tinkle]

bac: this week's this american life (http://thislife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?episode=332) (one of my fav radio shows) offers relevant insight on your direct question, coming into sharp focus around 27:00

[JRogers]

A very common misconception is that evolution is not testable.

That, again, is just wrong. A test isn't limited to a few guys in a lab trying to reproduce results in a petri dish (though I believe they have essentially reproduced microevolution in lab experiments, too lazy to Google the results right now). A test can just as easily be making observations about the world and comparing it to an expected outcome.

Evolution is certainly one of the most difficult scientific theories to prove, but comparing it to a collection of stories and the existence of a being for which there is no evidence whatsoever is just absurdity.

Traditionally conceived, the scientific method requires a controlled experiment, right? I don't see how limited real-world observation qualifies as a controlled experiment. I am in no way attacking the validity of evolution- just qualifying its points.

[JRogers]

To the broader point, I think it is inaccurate to say that the theory of evolution depends on faith. If I accept the likelihood of a theory, that does not necessarily rely on something outside of facts or logic. If I were to make claims of absolute and complete truth with regard to evolution theory as it currently stands, then there might be issues where faith comes into play.

On a broader point, the debate between religion and science/faith and reason is mostly ridiculous. I honestly think that the debate between evolution and intelligent design is mostly bogus as well.

[binary visions]

Traditionally conceived, the scientific method requires a controlled experiment, right?

Many phenomena cannot be practically tested via the traditional controlled experiment where an independent variable is manipulated to produce a result. Natural experiments are a valid method of testing can be highly reliable if enough data is collected and much of the knowledge you take for granted about the world is based on such experiments. Virtually all earth sciences are grounded in natural experiments, as is economics, astronomy, etc.

As I said, there have been many discussions on this very topic in the P.D. forum and OMGF certainly has more patience than I for mining links and arguing. No matter what points you want to qualify about evolution, it still doesn't make a book like the Origin of Species equivalent to the Bible. That's my only point in all of this... the fact that evolution isn't concretely and indisputably proven doesn't mean that there isn't far more real evidence for it than there is for the alternative of, "well, God did it."

Not everything is proven, so we take the best available explanation and work from there. Just because we aren't quite sure about the genetic causes of Alzheimer's doesn't mean that our current research is on par with a shaman's book of incantations.

edit: in regards to your latest post, I see we mostly agree. I am not trying to convince someone change their religious beliefs, but writing off a hundred and fifty years of careful scientific research as being the same as any story out of the Bible is frustrating to me, since it's just so far off the mark.

[$tinkle]

on this thorny topic, the holly koran (http://msa.evansville.edu/PagesForNonMuslims/Lectures/KoranMiracles/KoranicMiraclesPresentationIndex.htm) has thoroughly captured allah's essence, for your enjoyment

[JRogers]

Many phenomena cannot be practically tested via the traditional controlled experiment where an independent variable is manipulated to produce a result. Natural experiments are a valid method of testing can be highly reliable if enough data is collected and much of the knowledge you take for granted about the world is based on such experiments. Virtually all earth sciences are grounded in natural experiments, as is economics, astronomy, etc.

As I said, there have been many discussions on this very topic in the P.D. forum and OMGF certainly has more patience than I for mining links and arguing. No matter what points you want to qualify about evolution, it still doesn't make a book like the Origin of Species equivalent to the Bible. That's my only point in all of this... the fact that evolution isn't concretely and indisputably proven doesn't mean that there isn't far more real evidence for it than there is for the alternative of, "well, God did it."

Not everything is proven, so we take the best available explanation and work from there. Just because we aren't quite sure about the genetic causes of Alzheimer's doesn't mean that our current research is on par with a shaman's book of incantations.

edit: in regards to your latest post, I see we mostly agree. I am not trying to convince someone change their religious beliefs, but writing off a hundred and fifty years of careful scientific research as being the same as any story out of the Bible is frustrating to me, since it's just so far off the mark.

Well written post- thanks. I agree with what you are saying; there are many sciences that must rely on natural experiments due to, quite simply, the way the world works and the limits of human action. I would still contend that there is some fundamental difference between controlled and natural experiments (in philosophy, if not always in practice). This does not necessitate that the results of one are intrinsically more valid than the other, just that this is one of the reasons evolution is a theory. Of course, I bet lots of the things that we consider practical knowledge are not too much more than theories, if held to the same standard of proof.

My last post was made more out of constant annoyance at both sides of the reason vs. faith debate (or whatever you want to call it). That faith cannot be justified by reason alone and faith is not a valid replacement in a rational system are both immaterial points- questions based on a misunderstanding of both sides and their intersection.

[$tinkle]

further reading at sciam blog (http://blog.sciam.com/index.php?title=reality_check_83_of_americans_now_ say_gl) about the curious marriage of science & public opinion from late march.

bible gets a mention as though it's scientifically valid from the Yale uni (http://www.yale.edu/envirocenter/yale_epoll2007_topline.pdf) poll, too. (why else would scientific american cover it?)

[4xBoy]

Cats and the moon are never in the bible, why is that?

Find one thing in the bible that can't be contradicted in another part of the bible.

FFS the stupid book says the world started like 5000 years ago.:nopity:

[$tinkle]

Cats and the moon are never in the bible, why is that?nor are references to online sword fights. maybe we don't exist (!?)

[Tmsracing37]

Yum...I do believe that the bush Admin uses and used the Lord as the a praganda tool. The people who follow him and say this is chirstian way, are the ones who show up at church just to accountted for. Speaking for myself I do not support the bush admin,I thought it was scam from the start. I also believe that the only terror we have to deal with is the goverment who strip the people of their power.

[BMXman]

How can a group that supports placing the 10 Commandments in government buildings also support the killing in Iraq? Does this not seem like just a bit of a contradiction to anyone?


lol...Christianity is filled with contradiction....many Christians simply take what they want...or what serves their purposes and ignore the rest...D

[dhbuilder]

Yum...I do believe that the bush Admin uses and used the Lord as the a praganda tool. The people who follow him and say this is chirstian way, are the ones who show up at church just to accountted for. Speaking for myself I do not support the bush admin,I thought it was scam from the start. I also believe that the only terror we have to deal with is the goverment who strip the people of their power.


i always laugh whenever somebody starts bawlin about the rights and powers that the bush administration has supposedly taken from us.

i think it's about time someone starts listing all of the rights and powers that they've now lost as a result of george bush.

c'mon.
let's have em.

[ohio]

i always laugh whenever somebody starts bawlin about the rights and powers that the bush administration has supposedly taken from us.

i think it's about time someone starts listing all of the rights and powers that they've now lost as a result of george bush.

c'mon.
let's have em.

We'll start with the easy ones; if you can comprehend those we'll move onto more subtle ones:
Freedom of the press
Right to assemble
Freedom of religion
Habeus Corpus
Presumption of innocence
Due process of law (often misinterpreted as right to privacy, which it is not; it is however protection from search and siezure)

To put it another way, Constitutional Amendments 1, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, and 15 have all been reinterpreted by the current administration, resulting in either increased power of the government over people, or reduced rights of the people under the governement. 2 is also being eroded, but I wouldn't argue by the current admin.

That's a healthy start... we'll see how you well you digest it.

[Tmsracing37]

i always laugh whenever somebody starts bawlin about the rights and powers that the bush administration has supposedly taken from us.

i think it's about time someone starts listing all of the rights and powers that they've now lost as a result of george bush.

c'mon.
let's have em.

Ok maybe I should restate it isn’t just good old Bush and His admin doing all the bad. It also the big companies who have help the Administration into office, I am going quote my father( I don’t if he copy this statement or not) “ I can remember when America was about making a business, but now America is about making a profit” This administration has taking it to the extreme. They have broadened the gap between rich and poor. A good Example is China. First of all the administration has made it easier for big manufacturing companies to out source their work to china, Mexico, and etc. Yes, the products can be made cheaper by outsourcing products, but do you see that savings on the price tag at your store? No that savings goes into pocket of the Management of the company and there a few more Americans with out jobs. We make easier for China do business in our country, but when an American company tries to make a business in China, bam!!! They close door in your face, unless you agree that all design and manufacturing is done in China. So how is that fair trade?????? I can go on but this not the thread to talk about this subject. To stay on track with this thread, I still stand by what I said earlier, the Administration used their so called Christian beliefs as propaganda.

A side note:
I not a total Bush basher, because when he was the governor of Texas I believe he made so good decisions. One was the cap he put on frivolous lawsuits in the state of Texas. Plus He only human like everyone else.

[Tmsracing37]

lol...Christianity is filled with contradiction....many Christians simply take what they want...or what serves their purposes and ignore the rest...D

Hey while you are on the stereotyping train there, What about the ones you dedicated or dedicated their lives so that less fortunate people of this world can live a decent life. I’m not referring to the men and women of the military either. Although my hat is off to those guys.

[fluff]

We'll start with the easy ones; if you can comprehend those we'll move onto more subtle ones:
Freedom of the press
Right to assemble
Freedom of religion
Habeus Corpus
Presumption of innocence
Due process of law (often misinterpreted as right to privacy, which it is not; it is however protection from search and siezure)

To put it another way, Constitutional Amendments 1, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, and 15 have all been reinterpreted by the current administration, resulting in either increased power of the government over people, or reduced rights of the people under the governement. 2 is also being eroded, but I wouldn't argue by the current admin.

That's a healthy start... we'll see how you well you digest it.

<tumbleweed>

[binary visions]

Hey while you are on the stereotyping train there, What about the ones you dedicated or dedicated their lives so that less fortunate people of this world can live a decent life. I’m not referring to the men and women of the military either. Although my hat is off to those guys.

Maybe you missed the key word "many" in there. :monkey:

[dhbuilder]

We'll start with the easy ones; if you can comprehend those we'll move onto more subtle ones:
Freedom of the press
Right to assemble
Freedom of religion
Habeus Corpus
Presumption of innocence
Due process of law (often misinterpreted as right to privacy, which it is not; it is however protection from search and siezure)

To put it another way, Constitutional Amendments 1, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, and 15 have all been reinterpreted by the current administration, resulting in either increased power of the government over people, or reduced rights of the people under the governement. 2 is also being eroded, but I wouldn't argue by the current admin.

That's a healthy start... we'll see how you well you digest it.

first of all.
freedom of the press.
right now the media in this country is spewing more anti administration speech than ever before.
and none have been shut down by our government.

right to assemble.
this may be tough for you to digest.
if you are a legal citizen of this country.
you have the right to assemble.
show me where you can't.
i'm not going to let you make blanket statements and pass them off as reality.
if you're ignorant enough to let your assembly be infiltrated by trouble makers, you'll end up with a situation like the one out in LA.
and if you're not a legal resident of this country, and you're out there protesting.
well then, you should be rounded up and hauled way.

try getting together a bunch of united states citizens and marching your butt across the border and begin protesting against mexico and their economic failures that have led to the mass exodus to our land.

presumtion of innocence.
that snafu has been happening in this country long before georgie boy was even born.(trust me. i'm no fan of his either.)
he's not responsible for that eroding away any faster than under any other administration.

due process ??
anyone here have their door kicked in lately ?

freedom of religion ?
c'mon give me a break.
what churches has the government gone in and shut down ?
what churches aren't given tax free status in this country ?

c.mon man.
get away from the internet speak.
enter the real world and give me some true real life examples of what specific freedoms you.ve lost as of the begining of the george bush administration.

your list is weak.
very very very weak.

[$tinkle]

i think it's about time someone starts listing all of the rights and powers that they've now lost as a result of george bush.does girl power count?
how about the power to come up with the list?

[dhbuilder]

does girl power count?
how about the power to come up with the list?

my line of work allows me to deal directly with homeowners and land owners and property managers.
95% of the time that ends up being a woman.

no matter if the guy is the major bread winner or not, she ultimately for the most part controlls the household finances.
and they're usually the ones writing the checks.

if that ain't power, i don't know what is.

[Tmsracing37]

Maybe you missed the key word "many" in there. :monkey:

No I did not miss the word "many" He is sertotyping those "Many" as chirstains, which they are not!!

Another side note, threads like this should have a rebuttal section, so when you right down your thought or Idea you have to write a rebuttal of it.

[$tinkle]

To put it another way, Constitutional Amendments 1, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, and 15 have all been reinterpreted by the current administration, resulting in either increased power of the government over people, or reduced rights of the people under the governement. funny, i always thought the judicial branch interpreted teh kkkonstitution.

[binary visions]

No I did not miss the word "many" He is sertotyping those "Many" as chirstains, which they are not!!

You may not call them Christians, but they call themselves Christians which is all that matters.

[$tinkle]

Another side note, threads like this should have a rebuttal section, so when you right down your thought or Idea you have to write a rebuttal of it.which browser do you use: lynx or webscape (http://www.webscape-corporation.com/support/faq.html)?

[Tmsracing37]

Maybe he should of stated that many people that claim to be Christians don’t actually practice Christianity are there to get what they want, while they hurt beliefs of others who do practice Christianity by the word of God.

[binary visions]

Maybe he should of stated that many people that claim to be Christians don’t actually practice Christianity are there to get what they want, while they hurt beliefs of others who do practice Christianity by the word of God.

Or maybe you shouldn't get butt-hurt over his completely valid observation that a lot of people who openly claim to share your belief system suck as human beings.

[Tmsracing37]

Or maybe you shouldn't get butt-hurt over his completely valid observation that a lot of people who openly claim to share your belief system suck as human beings.

No, I am not going to get butt-hurt, whatever that means. But if he is going to make a false statment about my faith that digraces it, then I going to write try a statement to defend it. Maybe he did not bash the entire Chirstain Community..... This will go on on. I am going back to eating my easy mac

[ohio]

funny, i always thought the judicial branch interpreted teh kkkonstitution.

And so it is written.


However, you know as well as I do, that it doesn't work quite that simply. I could go on, but you already know the answer.

[Silver]

No, I am not going to get butt-hurt, whatever that means. But if he is going to make a false statment about my faith that digraces it, then I going to write try a statement to defend it. Maybe he did not bash the entire Chirstain Community..... This will go on on. I am going back to eating my easy mac

Hey, I'll leave you no doubt.

The entire Christian community sucks. The fact that they get up in arms about stuff like this is another example. If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say Jesus himself would be hard pressed to find 1% of Americans who claim they are Christian who actually follow his teachings. And frankly, the minority that let the war mongering moralizing hypocrites take over their faith has to fix that misconception, not me.

I don't believe in your fairy tale anyways. Do you own goddamn PR...

[Tmsracing37]

Hey, I'll leave you no doubt.

The entire Christian community sucks. The fact that they get up in arms about stuff like this is another example. If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say Jesus himself would be hard pressed to find 1% of Americans who claim they are Christian who actually follow his teachings. And frankly, the minority that let the war mongering moralizing hypocrites take over their faith has to fix that misconception, not me.

I don't believe in your fairy tale anyways. Do you own goddamn PR...

Well that is what I am here, trying to fix this misconception. Thank you for your thought

[Tmsracing37]

ohh,sorry for my poor typing and grammer skills

[binary visions]

Well that is what I am here, trying to fix this misconception. Thank you for your thought

It's not a "misconception" since misconception implies that it's not true. A vast majority of the Christian population doesn't even know the meaning of what they profess to believe.

The only thing that will change that is those people changing themselves. No ambassador on an internet message board is going to undo the damage that is done by such a large chunk of the general population. Until the day comes where the Christian community isn't composed of mostly pompous, overzealous and hypocritical douche bags, statements like BMXman's are going to remain entirely true. You characterize a population by its majority, not the tiny minority of Christians who are good people and follow the teachings of Christ.

[BurlyShirley]

You characterize a population by its majority, not the tiny minority of Christians who are good people and follow the teachings of Christ.


Does this mean I get to make racist jokes?

[binary visions]

Does this mean I get to make racist jokes?

Yes. :monkey:

[JRogers]

Hey, I'll leave you no doubt.

The entire Christian community sucks. The fact that they get up in arms about stuff like this is another example. If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say Jesus himself would be hard pressed to find 1% of Americans who claim they are Christian who actually follow his teachings. And frankly, the minority that let the war mongering moralizing hypocrites take over their faith has to fix that misconception, not me.

I don't believe in your fairy tale anyways. Do you own goddamn PR...

I think you are greatly overstating the issue. As with many people, you confuse Christian fundamentalism with Christianity. If you think that only 1% of Americans follow Jesus teaching, you must (1) be pretty confident in your abilities to interpret exactly what that is and (2) you must hold people to quite a high standard in relation to interpretation. I have doubts in your ability to interpret, just as I have doubts in your standards.

As with most things, the idiots on the end of the spectrum are the most vocal. Yes, there are a lot of conservative Christians in this country, but to say that the "war mongering moralizing hypocrites" run the show overstates the case and essentially disregards the normal religious experience of millions and millions of people (ie, lots of people go to church and don't hear about how bad gays are, how Iraq is awesome, etc). To think otherwise is wrong.

[BurlyShirley]

I think you are greatly overstating the issue. As with many people, you confuse Christian fundamentalism with Christianity. If you think that only 1% of Americans follow Jesus teaching, you must (1) be pretty confident in your abilities to interpret exactly what that is and (2) you must hold people to quite a high standard in relation to interpretation. I have doubts in your ability to interpret, just as I have doubts in your standards.

As with most things, the idiots on the end of the spectrum are the most vocal. Yes, there are a lot of conservative Christians in this country, but to say that the "war mongering moralizing hypocrites" run the show overstates the case and essentially disregards the normal religious experience of millions and millions of people (ie, lots of people go to church and don't hear about how bad gays are, how Iraq is awesome, etc). To think otherwise is wrong.


I agree. Something like 90% of Americans are claimed "Christians" right? And yet support of the war is somewhere around 25% now? Really not a majority of christians are doing much "mongering" at the moment anyway.

[Silver]

I think you are greatly overstating the issue. As with many people, you confuse Christian fundamentalism with Christianity. If you think that only 1% of Americans follow Jesus teaching, you must (1) be pretty confident in your abilities to interpret exactly what that is and (2) you must hold people to quite a high standard in relation to interpretation. I have doubts in your ability to interpret, just as I have doubts in your standards.


Christian fundamentalism IS Christianity in the United States. The "Christian Left" is as mythical as a unicorn...

My standards? The beatitudes would be a start. And those describe a Unitarian much more so than your average American Christian.

[Tmsracing37]

It's not a "misconception" since misconception implies that it's not true. A vast majority of the Christian population doesn't even know the meaning of what they profess to believe.

The only thing that will change that is those people changing themselves. No ambassador on an internet message board is going to undo the damage that is done by such a large chunk of the general population. Until the day comes where the Christian community isn't composed of mostly pompous, overzealous and hypocritical douche bags, statements like BMXman's are going to remain entirely true. You characterize a population by its majority, not the tiny minority of Christians who are good people and follow the teachings of Christ.

I agree with you on some parts, but also disagree with you on other parts. Yes, I am not going to change the world in msg. forums, but I might get some people to think. Also isn’t this one reason why forums were started in the first place? If I quite down on subjects like this one, wouldn’t I be letting the so called “douche bags” get the better of me and the faith I believe in?

[ohio]

As with most things, the idiots on the end of the spectrum are the most vocal. Yes, there are a lot of conservative Christians in this country, but to say that the "war mongering moralizing hypocrites" run the show overstates the case and essentially disregards the normal religious experience of millions and millions of people (ie, lots of people go to church and don't hear about how bad gays are, how Iraq is awesome, etc). To think otherwise is wrong.

I disagree and think Silver's point is a very fair one. It doesn't matter if the hate-mongering comes from a minority by the numbers; it is the loudest, most powerful message coming out of Christian America right now. If the vast majority is not fundamentalist extremists, the onus is on them to make it clear the extremists don't speak for Christians, either by convincing extremists to STFU or by overpowering the extremist voice with a more reasonable one.

What right do you have to tell non-Christians to not judge the whole, when the whole is standing by and watching the hate not just pour out but actually effect policy, media, and public opinion?

[ohio]

I agree. Something like 90% of Americans are claimed "Christians" right? And yet support of the war is somewhere around 25% now? Really not a majority of christians are doing much "mongering" at the moment anyway.

Where is the counterpoint to the hatred and bile? Where are the moderate Christian leaders publicly speaking out against the extremists. If anything a statistic like that would show just how spineless 65% of Christians are, since it's only the 25% that are being heard.

[Secret Squirrel]

Where is the counterpoint to the hatred and bile? Where are the moderate Christian leaders publicly speaking out against the extremists. If anything a statistic like that would show just how spineless 65% of Christians are, since it's only the 25% that are being heard.

It's easier to sit in the pews without a spine.

[Tmsracing37]

Where is the counterpoint to the hatred and bile? Where are the moderate Christian leaders publicly speaking out against the extremists. If anything a statistic like that would show just how spineless 65% of Christians are, since it's only the 25% that are being heard.

Have you been to a church lately, Have you participated in any church activities or discussions or you do set in front of a tv or computer and let the media tell you those statistics

[Secret Squirrel]

Where the hell did I leave my glasses?


....the rose colored ones.....damn it....

[JRogers]

Christian fundamentalism IS Christianity in the United States. The "Christian Left" is as mythical as a unicorn...

My standards? The beatitudes would be a start. And those describe a Unitarian much more so than your average American Christian.

I would disagree. Fundamentalism is not the reality for many people. Even within denomincations, this can vary considerably. The Christian left may be rather small (not mythical, though), but there isn't just left and right, you know- most people are somewhere in the middle.

And the beatitudes are not exactly a guide to life. They really don't show much content as far as how one should live and what one should believe. "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth"- how does that fit into the definition of a Christian?

[reflux]

Have you been to a church lately, Have you participated in any church activities or discussions or you do set in front of a tv or computer and let the media tell you those statistics
As said by either Westy or Silver, "going to church makes you a Christian as much as standing in a garage makes you a car." Religion is about your personal relationship with God; using church as a measuring stick is unreasonable.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/12/06/MNG5TG3K661.DTL

Where are the "moderate" Christians? If they have a voice in this issue, where is it? Unless they come out and speak against the fundamentalist Christians, it's easy to gather that they're on the same side of the issue.

[Silver]

The Christian left may be rather small (not mythical, though), but there isn't just left and right, you know- most people are somewhere in the middle.

And the beatitudes are not exactly a guide to life. They really don't show much content as far as how one should live and what one should believe. "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth"- how does that fit into the definition of a Christian?

They may be in the middle, but they still vote to make sure that gay people are discriminated against because of the way God made them. You want a good example of what I'm talking about? After six years of acting as un-Christlike as possible, there are some Christians who are reconsidering George W. Bush. These same people still revile Jimmy Carter (who whatever you think of him as a president, has at least managed to live what an objective observer would see as a more "Christian" life than W.) Why? Because Bush tells them what they want to hear: Gays are bad, liberals are bad, and killing and torturing Muslims is a-ok because Jesus will sort them out.

As far as the blessed are the meek thing, that's easy. You know that person who lives a great life who you don't know is Christian because he doesn't wear it like a boyscout merit badge on his chest but because of the way he acts? That's the meek guy...

[BurlyShirley]

Where is the counterpoint to the hatred and bile? Where are the moderate Christian leaders publicly speaking out against the extremists. If anything a statistic like that would show just how spineless 65% of Christians are, since it's only the 25% that are being heard.

Well, the Pope was against the war from the start actually. Democrats in general who claim to be Christians are against it. Do those count as leaders? If you're looking for Jerry Fallwell you're going to be disappointed but the Catholics are opposed via the Pope's statements. Im pretty sure that gay preacher church is against it.

[JRogers]

Where is the counterpoint to the hatred and bile? Where are the moderate Christian leaders publicly speaking out against the extremists. If anything a statistic like that would show just how spineless 65% of Christians are, since it's only the 25% that are being heard.

Just because someone doesn't try to scream louder than the competition and they don't necessarily have access to the media outlets that others have doesn't make them "spineless." Yes, perhaps moderates and liberals should be more vocal, but have you ever been a part of a group that got some bad press? What did you do, call CNN and develop a large multimedia conglomerate to combat it? I doubt it. What have you done to improve the crappy reputation that America has around the world?

Most people just live their lives. Besides, I find it inaccurate to assume that because two groups see themselves as Christian that they also see themseles as somehow in competition for PR. Lots of Christians don't really care that much about what other denominations say- it doesn't come up much in their lives.

Also, I hold people accountable for their representations of reality, not whether they can accurately describe common misperceptions as reality.

[JRogers]

They may be in the middle, but they still vote to make sure that gay people are discriminated against because of the way God made them. You want a good example of what I'm talking about? After six years of acting as un-Christlike as possible, there are some Christians who are reconsidering George W. Bush. These same people still revile Jimmy Carter (who whatever you think of him as a president, has at least managed to live what an objective observer would see as a more "Christian" life than W.) Why? Because Bush tells them what they want to hear: Gays are bad, liberals are bad, and killing and torturing Muslims is a-ok because Jesus will sort them out.

As far as the blessed are the meek thing, that's easy. You know that person who lives a great life who you don't know is Christian because he doesn't wear it like a boyscout merit badge on his chest but because of the way he acts? That's the meek guy...


To the first point, I just think you are overstating the conservatism of Christians in the US.

To the second, an alternate way to view it would be that the politically weak will be rewarded at the end times (or some point in the future) with a reconstituted people, an ingathering in Israel and physical/political control of that land given to them, perhaps through divine power. I'd give that interpretation at least as much validity as yours, more if we are talking the intention of the author.

[binary visions]

have you ever been a part of a group that got some bad press?

I'm going to leave this discussion before I start typing pages of rants.

It's not only "bad press." I've never met a group of people who were, by and large, as ignorant, intolerant and hypocritical as outspoken Christians. Sorry, but that's been my experience, and it's not been a limited amount of experience I've had, either.

There are a handful of great people who have been knowledgeable about their beliefs and respectful of others (a prime example was Andyman on this board) but for every one of those, I've met five who are ignorant of their own belief system, intolerant of anyone who doesn't fit into their narrow world view and incredibly hypocritical in their judgment of those around them.

That's not to say I will immediately dismiss someone if I know they are a Christian, but I have little sympathy when someone says Christianity is unfairly labeled.

[BurlyShirley]

I'm going to leave this discussion before I start typing pages of rants.

It's not only "bad press." I've never met a group of people who were, by and large, as ignorant, intolerant and hypocritical as outspoken Christians. Sorry, but that's been my experience, and it's not been a limited amount of experience I've had, either.

There are a handful of great people who have been knowledgeable about their beliefs and respectful of others (a prime example was Andyman on this board) but for every one of those, I've met five who are ignorant of their own belief system, intolerant of anyone who doesn't fit into their narrow world view and incredibly hypocritical in their judgment of those around them.

That's not to say I will immediately dismiss someone if I know they are a Christian, but I have little sympathy when someone says Christianity is unfairly labeled.

That's all well and good, but since the vast majority of people in this country ARE christians, it doesnt surprise that most of the people you've met who have done anything in particular would be christians. If the most violent people Ive met in life happened to be black because I spent time in prison, would it be fair of me to characterize that race in such a way? Surely not. People are, in general, pieces of crap. The fact that some of them call themselves christian, IMO, at least makes them feel guilty some of the time for the crap they pull. It's a good thing for alot of folks and chastising "christians" for the mistakes of what are simply BAD PEOPLE is a mistake, to me anyway.

[binary visions]

If the most violent people Ive met in life happened to be black because I spent time in prison, would it be fair of me to characterize that race in such a way? Surely not.

That's not even remotely the same thing. Comparing the vast majority of Christians I have met from multiple financial and ethnic backgrounds, in multiple states and in many social contexts doesn't compare to judging an entire population from a sample that specifically houses violent individuals.

[BurlyShirley]

That's not even remotely the same thing. Comparing the vast majority of Christians I have met from multiple financial and ethnic backgrounds, in multiple states and in many social contexts doesn't compare to judging an entire population from a sample that specifically houses violent individuals.

Point is, most the people you've met are christians because most people are christians (at least in the US). Sine most people are inherently worthless, Christianity loses by defualt I guess.

[$tinkle]

That's not even remotely the same thing. Comparing the vast majority of Christians I have met from multiple financial and ethnic backgrounds, in multiple states and in many social contexts doesn't compare to judging an entire population from a sample that specifically houses violent individuals.anecdotally speaking, of course, would my opinions of unbelievers be just as valid due to the vitriol spewed here?

[binary visions]

Point is, most the people you've met are christians because most people are christians (at least in the US). Sine most people are inherently worthless, Christianity loses by defualt I guess.

I don't buy it.

It's one thing to be an asshole, it's another to use the mask of Christianity to justify the bad behavior. Christian values are being taught poorly - instead of a message of tolerance and "love thy neighbor" it's a message of "gays are bad" and "non-Christians must be converted" and "anything in the name of God is OK."

Maybe if you removed those bad messages and poor values, all those people would still be intolerant idiots, but we'll never know that. Christianity doesn't lose by default if you assume most people are worthless. Christianity loses because the inherently worthless people are using their religion as the reason they act the way they do.

[binary visions]

anecdotally speaking, of course, would my opinions of unbelievers be just as valid due to the vitriol spewed here?

Sure. There's nothing wrong with speaking from personal experience as long as it's not confused with hard facts (as I hope I've done when stating things like "in my experience" and using anecdotes clearly labeled as such).

[Silver]

Christianity loses because the inherently worthless people are using their religion as the reason they act the way they do.

And God forgives them for all their behavior! What a deal. Where do I sign up?

[$tinkle]

Christian values are being taught poorly - instead of a message of tolerance and "love thy neighbor" it's a message of "gays are bad" and "non-Christians must be converted" and "anything in the name of God is OK."have you ever peered into the religion of peace?

how many gay mosques can you name?
how many inter-faith ministries can you name?
how many non-believers are accepted as equal in society?

the scale does not begin to compare.

[Greyhound]

I'm going to leave this discussion before I start typing pages of rants.

It's not only "bad press." I've never met a group of people who were, by and large, as ignorant, intolerant and hypocritical as outspoken Christians. Sorry, but that's been my experience, and it's not been a limited amount of experience I've had, either.
.


Wow. :disgust1:

[ohio]

*sigh* I'll point out at a high level, that it feels good now because the additional power is being used in a way you like... but the power will still be there when we elect some socialist/commie/pinko that you disagree with.


first of all.
freedom of the press.
right now the media in this country is spewing more anti administration speech than ever before.
and none have been shut down by our government.
Condi and Ashcroft have both pre-emptively strong-armed news outlets and publications. Access has been used a journalistic favor for self-censorship and jingoism, or punishment for speaking freely. You don't need an outlet shut down to know that you're not getting all of the information and opinion that's out there.

right to assemble.
this may be tough for you to digest.
if you are a legal citizen of this country.
you have the right to assemble.
show me where you can't.
i'm not going to let you make blanket statements and pass them off as reality.
if you're ignorant enough to let your assembly be infiltrated by trouble makers, you'll end up with a situation like the one out in LA.
and if you're not a legal resident of this country, and you're out there protesting.
well then, you should be rounded up and hauled way.
First immediate events: do you have any idea the size of the legal Hispanic population in the US. What makes you think that anything more than a small minority of the demonstrators in LA were illegal? What illegal would risk deportation when they know thousands of legals will be there to support their cause?
Second, I don't know what magical power you have to prevent a dozen specific people from coming to a public gathering of thousands, but you could be making some good money off that.
Third, we have seen a huge pattern over the last 6 years of suppressing assembly, from quarantining protests to breaking up peaceful demonstrations, to the vilification of protesters by media and politicians. You are right now, at this very moment, undermining your own right to assemble. Bet you never knew you'd be able to **** yourself with a dick that small, didja?

try getting together a bunch of united states citizens and marching your butt across the border and begin protesting against mexico and their economic failures that have led to the mass exodus to our land.
Not really sure what point your trying to make with all the grunting and arm-waving, but see blue's example of a successfully peaceful protest in Mexico.

presumtion of innocence.
that snafu has been happening in this country long before georgie boy was even born.(trust me. i'm no fan of his either.)
he's not responsible for that eroding away any faster than under any other administration.
Not since McCarthur wielded the word "communist" as a weapon have we had a term that instantly blacklists even the innocent as well as "terrorist" and "traitor." These are the tools of absolutism.

due process ??
anyone here have their door kicked in lately ?
See patriot act. See illegal wiretapping. See presidential privilege. See American citizens imprisoned without warrant or trial.

freedom of religion ?
c'mon give me a break.
what churches has the government gone in and shut down ?
what churches aren't given tax free status in this country ?
You really do fail understand an erosion of rights until there is no earth left beneath you. You also fail to understand that an increase in governmental power is, by definition, a loss of individual rights.

[ohio]

Lots of Christians don't really care that much about what other denominations say- it doesn't come up much in their lives.

Well then they shouldn't care when I call Christians a bunch of assholes. If they do care what I think of Christians, they'll start caring what other denominations are saying and how loudly they're saying it.

edit: I'll put it this way, compare the outpouring of dissent against George Bush in an effort to protect the image of being "an American" to the woeful lack of outpouring of dissent against fundamentalist extremism in an effort to protect the image of being "a Christian" (or "a Muslim" for that matter). You don't get to use apathy as an excuse. You can use apathy as a reason for the image but it's not an excuse.

edit 2: and yes, I was part of a group that was unfairly labelled... interestingly enough, I was a fratboy. At first I was very active in campus events and even the national media to change the image. Then I was very active internally to change the policies and behaviors of fraternities. Then I realized the inherent inevitiable downward spiral of the fraternity system and disassociated myself, rather than be characterized by the behavior of people far worse than me. Either take back the name "Christian" or find a new one.

[ohio]

If the most violent people Ive met in life happened to be black because I spent time in prison, would it be fair of me to characterize that race in such a way?

If they explicitly credited their race as the reason for their own violence then yes.

[$tinkle]

Sure. There's nothing wrong with speaking from personal experience as long as it's not confused with hard facts (as I hope I've done when stating things like "in my experience" and using anecdotes clearly labeled as such).the vast majority of <insert racial minority here> i've seen & interacted with are over-sexed, loutish, obnoxious, ignorant, smelly, boorish, misogynistic, socially & financially irresponsible rubes.

shall i write them off?
shall i make a point to share these anecdotes with anyone under my influence?
shall i have a lower standard for them?
shall i seek the comfort & acceptance of like-minded people?

do you see anything wrong with so easily expressing an opinion like this?

[Secret Squirrel]

the vast majority of <insert racial minority here> i've seen & interacted with are over-sexed, loutish, obnoxious, ignorant, smelly, boorish, misogynistic, socially & financially irresponsible rubes.

shall i write them off?
shall i make a point to share these anecdotes with anyone under my influence?
shall i have a lower standard for them?
shall i seek the comfort & acceptance of like-minded people?

do you see anything wrong with so easily expressing an opinion like this?

How you handle said situation is how you handle said situation. Pretty simple...

[$tinkle]

How you handle said situation is how you handle said situation. Pretty simple...http://gallery.allinthefamilysit.com/albums/userpics/10001/carroll%20as%20archie%20bunker.jpg

/disapproves

[Secret Squirrel]

The fact that you finally worked Archie Bunker into this thread is nothing short of amazing.

[binary visions]

the vast majority of <insert racial minority here> i've seen & interacted with are over-sexed, loutish, obnoxious, ignorant, smelly, boorish, misogynistic, socially & financially irresponsible rubes.

Of course your conclusion to the original post was obvious but I think there are some key things to note here.

First of all, Christians are a vast majority, not some persecuted minority struggling to be accepted.

Second of all, there are cases where a group is promoting a stereotype and must make efforts to rise above it. If Christians are stereotyped as intolerant, then every effort must be made to demonstrate tolerance. The same applies to any group and if it's not done, well, the stereotype will remain.

Third, the intolerance that I am discussing is actively & maliciously persecuting and hurting some groups in society. Finding someone to be smelly is a little different than finding it offensive that the Christian right thinks and openly announces that gays deserve to die.

Lastly, I haven't said you should pre-judge people or write them off because of a group they are a member of. I am discussing my observations of outspoken Christians but (especially being located at the moment right in the middle of the bible belt) every individual person should be judged on their merits. Just because I am outspoken about my disapproval of many of the traits of the conservative Christians doesn't mean I'm going to walk away from anyone who mentions God to me.

Your comments about lower standards and seeking out like-minded people have nothing whatsoever to do with this discussion. I don't think I've demonstrated either of those things.

[dhbuilder]

*sigh* I'll point out at a high level, that it feels good now because the additional power is being used in a way you like... but the power will still be there when we elect some socialist/commie/pinko that you disagree with.



Condi and Ashcroft have both pre-emptively strong-armed news outlets and publications. Access has been used a journalistic favor for self-censorship and jingoism, or punishment for speaking freely. You don't need an outlet shut down to know that you're not getting all of the information and opinion that's out there.


First immediate events: do you have any idea the size of the legal Hispanic population in the US. What makes you think that anything more than a small minority of the demonstrators in LA were illegal? What illegal would risk deportation when they know thousands of legals will be there to support their cause?
Second, I don't know what magical power you have to prevent a dozen specific people from coming to a public gathering of thousands, but you could be making some good money off that.
Third, we have seen a huge pattern over the last 6 years of suppressing assembly, from quarantining protests to breaking up peaceful demonstrations, to the vilification of protesters by media and politicians. You are right now, at this very moment, undermining your own right to assemble. Bet you never knew you'd be able to **** yourself with a dick that small, didja?


Not really sure what point your trying to make with all the grunting and arm-waving, but see blue's example of a successfully peaceful protest in Mexico.


Not since McCarthur wielded the word "communist" as a weapon have we had a term that instantly blacklists even the innocent as well as "terrorist" and "traitor." These are the tools of absolutism.


See patriot act. See illegal wiretapping. See presidential privilege. See American citizens imprisoned without warrant or trial.


You really do fail understand an erosion of rights until there is no earth left beneath you. You also fail to understand that an increase in governmental power is, by definition, a loss of individual rights.

i'm simply asking for a list of freedoms that you as a legal and (i'm assuming) law abiding citizen of this country have lost during the tenure of the bush administration.
you're responding with endless diatribe when none is needed here.
and that's all the same stuff that's led me to ask this very simple question.
if all of whatever it is you're saying is true, then there has to be some kind of record of it.
what's been chiseled away ?
who's done it ?
what does it keep any of us from doing now that we couldn't do ten years ago ?
give up the hard facts man.
as hard as you're pushing your side of this, you really need more than just your typed out words and beliefs.

i can honestly see that you're trying to make valid points.
but you're just making hollow accusations full of the same ol' same ol' that flows freely in this section.
the press has free reign in this country at the moment.
they're saying whatever they want freely whether it's the truth or not. you really think the government has any true controll over them ?
when bill clements was governor of texas (long before georgie w.)
he was illegally taping phones at will.
and are you old enough to remember tricky dick nixon ?
give me names and cases of law abiding american citizens who are incarcerated in this country for absolutely no reason.

i'm trying very hard to give you the benefit of the doubt when it comes to some kind of rational thought process.
but ya ain't makin it very easy.

it cracks me up when you can't come up with a substantial case to bolster your view points, and somebody dares question what words you do come up with.
ya start name calling and word changing.

all that does is take you right out of the game as far as someone to be taken seriously here.

[Silver]

all that does is take you right out of the game as far as someone to be taken seriously here.

Okay $tinkle, you can come on out of the closet... :clapping:

[reflux]

i'm simply asking for a list of freedoms that you as a legal and (i'm assuming) law abiding citizen of this country have lost during the tenure of the bush administration.
you're
Well for starters, try reading. Ohio listed "illegal wiretaps" as one of the freedoms lost. If you can find yourself to google, more can be read about the topic under the term "warrantless electronic surveillance."

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the right to unreasonable search and seizure a protected right under the Bill of Rights?

[ohio]

Well for starters, try reading.

The senator here wants to see actual pieces of legislation. What he is failing to grasp is that the executive branch doesn't legislate. They do, however, set precedent.

Amazing how we went to war without declaring war. If you can't show me some legislation declaring war, well, we must not be having one.

I've decided it's going to be impossible to explain "rights" to someone that doesn't understand 6th grade civics.

[blue]

snip

I must say, you are the dumbest semi-literate person I've ever encountered.

:clapping:

[JRogers]

Second of all, there are cases where a group is promoting a stereotype and must make efforts to rise above it. If Christians are stereotyped as intolerant, then every effort must be made to demonstrate tolerance. The same applies to any group and if it's not done, well, the stereotype will remain.

Lastly, I haven't said you should pre-judge people or write them off because of a group they are a member of. I am discussing my observations of outspoken Christians but (especially being located at the moment right in the middle of the bible belt) every individual person should be judged on their merits. Just because I am outspoken about my disapproval of many of the traits of the conservative Christians doesn't mean I'm going to walk away from anyone who mentions God to me.


To the first point, this is a very complicated issue and I don't think a simple "they need to change perceptions" will suffice. How exactly are most liberal and moderate Christians supposed to do this? Why should they be judged in a certain way because other people are spewing hateful crap? You say that you don't prejudge people (which I have no doubt is true), but you and ohio seem to be quick to defend those that are providing extremely overstated views of the intolerance and conservatism of Christians in general. I just refuse to adopt a principle that states that an individual becomes personally responsible for reversing a negative stereotype about an incredibly huge, incredibly diverse group they might belong to. Essentially, that is a justification for stereotypes. How does someone who might go to church once a week so they can sing a bit, hear some readings and have a cup of coffee with neighbors all of a sudden become charged for reversing a false stereotype that they had nothing to do in the first place?

Yes, people who are in a position of some power could do more- few would dispute that. However, it is wrong to allow someone's stereotype to live on freely simply because it seems understandable. Also, just because you don't hear or see the voices, doesn't mean they aren't there. Their lack of channels and possible refusal to get to the lowest common denominator (as in, refusal to be more obnoxious than the other side) isn't worthy of any blame.

My point before was not to stress the apathy of Christians, but that many probably see conservative Christian voices as having so little to do with their own, so far removed from their own existence, that they don't bother to respond in similar fashion. Some people don't see the big picture, but many other Christians think that these people are just as nuts and any group of lefty atheists might. If someone gives white people a bad name, I don't respond much to it because whoever did that is probably not me. I shake my head and move on- just like everyone else.

[reflux]

The senator here wants to see actual pieces of legislation. What he is failing to grasp is that the executive branch doesn't legislate. They do, however, set precedent.

Amazing how we went to war without declaring war. If you can't show me some legislation declaring war, well, we must not be having one.

I've decided it's going to be impossible to explain "rights" to someone that doesn't understand 6th grade civics.
Funny timing, I just gizoogled a good article about the signing statements used by the current administration.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20060113.html

It's disturbing to think just how far future Presidents may attempt to push their powers. Is this situation a Pandora's Box, or is it something that can be reversed in our lifetimes?

[ohio]

assembly:
http://www.amconmag.com/12_15_03/feature.html
http://www.inteldaily.com/?c=144&a=1878

due process/search and seizure:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/17/bush.nsa/
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20070323_i_was_against_presidential_privilege_befo re_i_was_for_it/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/28/AR2006092800824.html

press:
http://www.usdoj.gov/oip/011012.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0108-04.htm
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/11/26/INGAKMHOCV1.DTL

You'll note that some of those links are liberal pubs, some are conservative. Even, gasp, some conservatives recognize that the pendulum of power has swung too far and it's going to hit them in the balls when their boy is no longer in power.

Now before you point out that I'm using the free press to point out that the press isn't free, let me ask you, if some thug just broke into your car and is revving it in the driveway, do you actually need him to drive away to know your car is getting stolen?

[ohio]

Essentially, that is a justification for stereotypes.

Explanation, not justification. And the stereotype won't go anywhere if the people being stereotyped continue to be be silent in the background while those that perpetuate it are loud, clear and visible. It's not right, but it is reality.

[JRogers]

That's not even remotely the same thing. Comparing the vast majority of Christians I have met from multiple financial and ethnic backgrounds, in multiple states and in many social contexts doesn't compare to judging an entire population from a sample that specifically houses violent individuals.

Just remember that for every example, there's a counter-example. I've met more than a few idiots in my day, but I've met many loving people who have gotten comfort, inspiration and kindness from Christianity.

I don't feel comfortable making generalizations about millions of people, no matter how many I've met. Plus, I'm not sure how many churches you've been to, but most aren't exactly sitting their members down and beating into their heads the evil of gays and the greatness of the current president.

In any case, I have a problem with negative stereotypes of Christians for two reasons: first, because I know many good people who claim that name and, two, because it's a gateway to unproductive and unreasonable thought. I've met a lot of people so turned away from the idea of Christianity, or religion as a whole, that they come to think of the entire system as worthless, ultra-conservative, hateful nonsense. I believe that Christianity has an amazing innate power to transform whole groups of people- it recognizes the individual as a basic and free entity with intrinsic worth and carries hope, acceptance and compassion as its principal components.

It was only a few decades ago that the prevailing theory in religious studies was that religion was dying in the developed world- that secularization had taken hold and wasn't letting go. How quickly things have changed in the US. It wasn't too long before that that religion was a progressive force in this country. Many important social movements were, in much of their core, religions in nature. Again, how quickly some things have changed. Christianity, at its very beginning struggled against the oppressive powers of the day. Things changed before, they can change again.

In any case, it's not going away anytime soon, so you might as well work with it rather than against it.

[ohio]

JRogers,
I'm in agreement with you that there are good Christians, and there have been times when Christianity was a wonderful positive force in this country. The kindest, most genuinely good couple I know are devout, but very private, Christians. It is the religion of Martin Luther King, the religion of Abraham Lincoln. But that is not the force that is operating today at least on a relatively significant scale, and the Christians of that tradition have an OBLIGATION to bring it back to that. It is not my obligation to recognize they are hiding under the blankets, while millions of people in my country are oppressed in the name of Christianity.

[fluff]

Originally Posted by BurlyShirley
If the most violent people Ive met in life happened to be black because I spent time in prison, would it be fair of me to characterize that race in such a way?

If they explicitly credited their race as the reason for their own violence then yes.

I disagree, whilst it may be understandable it would not be fair. It would be a conclusion reached on inadequate and limited evidence.

With regard to BV's statements he is judging all Christians by the actions of certain particularly visible examples; they may be a small minority, the size of which he cannot tell.

I live in the UK where we have no dangerous spiders and very few venomous snakes (only the adder which could not kill a healthy adult human) - if I then deduce that I cannot be harmed by any spider or snake in the world it is a flawed conclusion.

[Silver]

With regard to BV's statements he is judging all Christians by the actions of certain particularly visible examples; they may be a small minority, the size of which he cannot tell.


Bull. It's easy to tell the size. Just look at the state proposals to make sure that gay couples get screwed over. This is not a small minority. It's a small loud group that voices the concerns of the majority. Same as with Islam.

I'm sure most Christians think that their fellow churchgoers are nice, reasonable and tolerant people. And you know what? Most of them are, as long as an issue personally affects them. How do I know this? Experience. Ancedotal? Sure. Payback for years of having Protestant dogma and bull**** shoved down my throat? Perhaps.

I'm also sure that most Saudi men don't consider themselves to be especially repressive towards women...

[fluff]

Bull. It's easy to tell the size. Just look at the state proposals to make sure that gay couples get screwed over. This is not a small minority. It's a small loud group that voices the concerns of the majority. Same as with Islam.

I'm sure most Christians think that their fellow churchgoers are nice, reasonable and tolerant people. And you know what? Most of them are, as long as an issue personally affects them. How do I know this? Experience. Ancedotal? Sure. Payback for years of having Protestant dogma and bull**** shoved down my throat? Perhaps.

I'm also sure that most Saudi men don't consider themselves to be especially repressive towards women...

You miss my point entirely. The point was that you cannot judge a group of people upon acquaintance with a small minority of that group. As a principle.

[binary visions]

With regard to BV's statements he is judging all Christians by the actions of certain particularly visible examples; they may be a small minority, the size of which he cannot tell.
I see. Well, as far as I can tell it was mostly people voting with their bible and their ignorance that put our current heinous leader back into office. He has certainly been well supported by the religious right. There is constant Christian-driven state and federal legislation regarding a variety of topics aimed at pushing religion down the throats of anyone and everyone. Gay marriage. Abstinence education. Prayer in schools. Creationism. Abortion.

If this is a small minority then the remaining majority of Christians are being spoken for and are not doing anything about it which is just as bad. I suspect that is not the case, though, since outspoken leaders of a community are put there with the support of the community.

[Greyhound]

Just remember that for every example, there's a counter-example. I've met more than a few idiots in my day, but I've met many loving people who have gotten comfort, inspiration and kindness from Christianity.

I don't feel comfortable making generalizations about millions of people, no matter how many I've met. Plus, I'm not sure how many churches you've been to, but most aren't exactly sitting their members down and beating into their heads the evil of gays and the greatness of the current president.

In any case, I have a problem with negative stereotypes of Christians for two reasons: first, because I know many good people who claim that name and, two, because it's a gateway to unproductive and unreasonable thought. I've met a lot of people so turned away from the idea of Christianity, or religion as a whole, that they come to think of the entire system as worthless, ultra-conservative, hateful nonsense. I believe that Christianity has an amazing innate power to transform whole groups of people- it recognizes the individual as a basic and free entity with intrinsic worth and carries hope, acceptance and compassion as its principal components.

It was only a few decades ago that the prevailing theory in religious studies was that religion was dying in the developed world- that secularization had taken hold and wasn't letting go. How quickly things have changed in the US. It wasn't too long before that that religion was a progressive force in this country. Many important social movements were, in much of their core, religions in nature. Again, how quickly some things have changed. Christianity, at its very beginning struggled against the oppressive powers of the day. Things changed before, they can change again.

In any case, it's not going away anytime soon, so you might as well work with it rather than against it.

You're one thoughtful Yankee......I've enjoyed reading your posts in this thread. Thanks!! :thumb:

[binary visions]

In any case, it's not going away anytime soon, so you might as well work with it rather than against it.

Missed this post the first time around. You have a lot of good points but unfortunately, the more radical and outspoken among the Christians are doing so much damage in the name of religion that it damages the very core of your belief system.

I agree with your points, and truly it is not the quiet practicing Christians that I have any beef with whatsoever. There are some wonderful churches that have been a cornerstone of their community. I went to such a church for two years and the pastor was one of the fairest, most knowledgeable people I have ever met and his only goal in life was to spread a message that he found to be inspiring. Whatever my disagreements with some of his values were, they were far overshadowed by his good nature and his refusal to shove his beliefs down the throat of everyone around him. His church contributed every spare dime to the community and to those who needed it. Absolutely the epitome of good Christian values the teachings of Jesus.

When a vocal majority of the group is dragging the group's name through the mud, though, you must either take the name back or find a different name. Clearly the tolerance and reasonable approach that you and many good people demonstrate is not being taught en masse, or there would be an equally vocal group fighting the intolerance and hate. That group isn't being heard.

I am not arguing with Christianity as it would exist in an ideal society or as it exists in pleasant pockets across the country. I am arguing with what is clearly a general application of Christianity in our society. Vocal leaders aren't heard without supporters.

[$tinkle]

Just look at the state proposals to make sure that gay couples get screwed over. This is not a small minority. It's a small loud group that voices the concerns of the majority. Same as with Islam.look rosie, there is not a single instance of one of our citizens being put to death by the state for being gay.

just b/c a segment of our culture possesses ignorance & fear, leading to hatred for gays does not equate to forming as a matter of policy absolute subjugation & criminalization of homosexuals. so, no: this is nothing quite like islam.

[JRogers]

Missed this post the first time around. You have a lot of good points but unfortunately, the more radical and outspoken among the Christians are doing so much damage in the name of religion that it damages the very core of your belief system.

I agree with your points, and truly it is not the quiet practicing Christians that I have any beef with whatsoever. There are some wonderful churches that have been a cornerstone of their community. I went to such a church for two years and the pastor was one of the fairest, most knowledgeable people I have ever met and his only goal in life was to spread a message that he found to be inspiring. Whatever my disagreements with some of his values were, they were far overshadowed by his good nature and his refusal to shove his beliefs down the throat of everyone around him. His church contributed every spare dime to the community and to those who needed it. Absolutely the epitome of good Christian values the teachings of Jesus.

When a vocal majority of the group is dragging the group's name through the mud, though, you must either take the name back or find a different name. Clearly the tolerance and reasonable approach that you and many good people demonstrate is not being taught en masse, or there would be an equally vocal group fighting the intolerance and hate. That group isn't being heard.

I am not arguing with Christianity as it would exist in an ideal society or as it exists in pleasant pockets across the country. I am arguing with what is clearly a general application of Christianity in our society. Vocal leaders aren't heard without supporters.

Yes, excellent point. Aside from the general characterizations you provided earlier (which, admittedly, are no more or less valid than my own general characterizations), your thoughts are very close to mine.

I've said a few times that more could be done, so I agree there- I just think that this is a very difficult proposition. This would not just require a rethinking of strategy, but a cultural shift among moderate and liberal religious groups.

For example, the more liberal denominations are not as active/aggressive when it comes to finding new members (I am thinking of many small and mainline denominations). People in these denominations are generally less comfortable with the idea of religion as something you press onto others and drag into the public square in front of millions. In a certain way, many of these groups would have to violate some of their generally accepted cultural principles in order to speak out on other principles. Simply, some people may have to come dangerously close to becoming what they dislike. Add to that the established channels of communication that conservative denominations have (which liberal ones generally lack for various reasons, some historical, some cultural/philisophical) and the proposition becomes more difficult. I realize you never said it'd be easy, but I just want to be clear on the reasons. I don't chalk it up to laziness or total apathy.


And, as a side note, I don't consider myself a Christian. =

[$tinkle]

ciaran, please put your post back up. 'twas worthy.

i get the impression this (http://www.worshiphousemedia.com/index.cfm?hndl=details&tab=MM&id=42) is what BV thinks of christianity in our country (click image to begin video).