Why is it so important to refute Christianity?

Sofia wrote:

Craven.
Really.
Christians and pedophiles?
I object.

I'm not comparing them, I'm using pedophiles as an example that: "public speech should require the same deference for all groups" is not accurate.

You've been mixing inborn groupings with groupings of choice. They are very different things (even though I see no point in Christian bashing I see nothing wrong with criticism of the religion. Kinda like a love the sinner/hate the sin thing).

Quote:

I know you have personal insight into possibly one of the most oppressive interpretations of 'good Christian living', but I must defend that the tie that binds Christians is not as destructive, or doesn't produce behavior as destructive as tiddling with a child.

What I'm about to say wasn't my point when I used pedophiles as an example of a valid group to criticize but the tie that bound Christians when I grew up did in fact produce "tiddling" with children.

The group viewed sexual "inhibitions" as secular evil and justified sex with young girls. This was sheilded from the "persecution" of society who were always "persecuting" the group for this kinda thing.

Girls who did not wish to partake in the "sharing schedule" (basically a "swinging" schedule) were criticized as saying no to God.

And of course all of this was backed up by a myriad of scriptures.

I don't see this as inherent to Christianity, but I will note that none of this would have been possible without the religious beliefs. I'll also note that religious lunatics are far far far more common that you think.

IMO, religions are a breeding ground for such lunacies, I view them as being founded on falsehood and I view the call to "faith" to be the most dangerous mental tool for conversion and convincing ever made.

"Just have faith" to me is "just don't think" and IMO that is a root of a lot of "evil".

0 Replies

Good grief.

0 Replies

I don't think it is religion that makes people go crazy. I think that crazy people are just drawn to religion.

0 Replies

What does that say about you in context with the LDS?

0 Replies

I became insane, with long intervals of
horrible sanity. During these fits of absolute
unconsciousness I became religious, God only knows how
often or how much. As a matter of course, my
enemies referred the insanity to the religion
rather than the religion to the insanity.- EA Poe, adapted by me

0 Replies

I have nothing against religion. It does a lot of good. But I still recognize that there are fanatics in every religion, that do not do good. I make a point to seperate the things a crazy person does, from their religion. I've met plenty of really nice muslims. In fact, they are some of the nicest people out there, and yet in various forms of media they are depicted as murdurous fanatics.

0 Replies

I have been struck in perusing these goodly fora this evening, at how many of a conservative point of view (not to put too fine a point on it), decry constantly the monolith of Islam, with its fanaticism and violence. When one points out that these are a handful of fundamentalists, then it is suggested that there is something wrong with all of their co-religionists for not restraining them, or at the least condemning them before the world.

How often has any one seen the population of the United States publicly condemning before the world the fundamentalist christian fanatics who blow up abortion clinics, murder be damned, or who gun down abortion doctors? Can someone explain the qualitative difference for me of a Muslim fanatic with a bomb as opposed to a Holy Roller fanatic with a bomb? Ah, you might say, this is rare here, while common there. In fact, the only thing which protects us from networks and cells of fanatical christians willing to bomb or murder, is that they do not have privileged sanctuaries from which to operate, as is the case for Muslim nut jobs, who can go hang in the Sudan (oops, not Libya any more--or, at least for now . . . ), or Pakistan (now the Taliban official chaos is replaced . . . uhm, removed, i meant removed . . . ). No, white folks in general have made our more colorful bretheren and sisters healthy sceptics with regard to our motives. The United States in particular lately, has been playing some adolescent game of "I don't care what you think of me, i can do what i want ! ! !" No, we are unfortunately stuck with our Olympic bomber, our David Koresh (not to mention the political crazies--of the right as in Oklahoma City; and of the left, as in Kazcinski), because no one else will have them. Righteous anger enshrined in the Patriot Act will protect us, though . . .

0 Replies

Love it, set.

0 Replies

I don't think you can blame christians for the things that some "christians" do. It's dangerous to label groups.

0 Replies

There is enough reference material in the Torah, Biblle, or Koran to justify any type of aberrant behavior.

Imagine our public school classrooms being taught with textbooks that have not changed in 1500 years. Would there be an outcry? Why is it not considered strange or unusual to use such textbooks for religion?

0 Replies

Quote:

Imagine our public school classrooms being taught with textbooks that have not changed in 1500 years. Would there be an outcry? Why is it not considered strange or unusual to use such textbooks for religion?

Mesquite- I think that you have hit the nail right on the head! In every area BUT religion, human beings have advanced, and writings and thoughts document humanity's advancement. But for some strange reason, religious thought remains stuck in a time warp.

0 Replies

SCoates wrote:

I don't think you can blame christians for the things that some "christians" do. It's dangerous to label groups.

Is that so? This entire thread labels a class of people for what some do. That is the pathetic response of religionists everywhere when the extreme behavior of others is mentioned. That sort of simplistic crap is a cop-out to the core question, as well, of what is it in religion which lends itself to such fantaticism. Were religions rational systems, were morality more than a convenient justificatory shell game, they could not be used to authorize such horrors. It is entirely possible for the socialist, or the capitalist democrat, so say that the fanatic with a bomb is no part of their belief, because they believe in the greatest good for the greatest number and that is not accomplished with violence. The Muslim or Christian fanatic with a bomb, however, can find scriptural justification for their murderous madness, no matter how you try to explain it away with appeals to what a "true believer" does or does not do.

Of course, it is noteworthy that you side-step the entire issue of the identical nature of the Muslim fanatic with a bomb and the Christian fanatic with a bomb.

0 Replies

Stays in a timewarp (in some ways - it gets interpreted in new ways all the time - sort of a post-hoc fiddle factor) because it oftentimes believes in a received truth. Very hard for mere mortals to re-write the words they are supposed to believe came from a deity - unless the deity obligingly submits regular corrections or Part II's.

Now, some folk think the deity has - but, in my experience, the addenda tend to be way odder even than the originals.

So what happens is selective ignoring/re-interpreting of bits as humans advance and change.

0 Replies

Not sure I ever heard of a Buddhist who killed/maimed for their religion - except themselves (like the monks whe set themselves alight to protest the continuance of the war in Vietnam)?

Mind you, Buddhism has no god - though it tends to acquire them when it spreads to places with them.

0 Replies

Our Dear Miss Wabbit, i advise you to consider the Amida Tong sect of Chinese buddhists. They hired out as assassins, and were every bit as good as the ninjas.

Among the Hindus, the Thugee sect comes to mind . . .

0 Replies

SCoates wrote:

I don't think you can blame christians for the things that some "christians" do. It's dangerous to label groups.

Blaming Christians as a group would rarely make sense, faulting elements of Christianity itself does.

0 Replies

I'll post my two-cents here, because, well, I can Smile

I see two types of religion in the world. Personal religion and political religion.

I have no problem with personal religion - an individual's relationship with their god(s). Believe what you want - as long as it does not interfere with someone else's right to believe what they want.

It's when religion is promoted as a basis for government that I take issue with it. I do not 'attack' religion unless it is put on the political stage - a place which invites and requires debate. Some who would support a religious view in the political process are going to view any opposing view as an attack.

I believe very strongly that the government should stay out of religion, and that religion should stay out of the government. I feel that if a public official cannot put the US Constitution ahead of their religious text (at least while they are 'on the job'), then they should not be part of the government. There are places for people who put their religion first - churches, synagogues, etc.

Do I expect public officials to denounce their religion? No. But if they hold their religion higher than their public duty, how can they be expected to follow the rules of government when they diverge from or contradict the rules of their religion? And how can anyone who may not agree with their religious belief expect to be treated without bias?

I think I've gotten off-track here. For an answer to the original thread question, see paragraph three. Smile

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Our Dear Miss Wabbit, i advise you to consider the Amida Tong sect of Chinese buddhists. They hired out as assassins, and were every bit as good as the ninjas.

Among the Hindus, the Thugee sect comes to mind . . .

Well, Amida Tong, hmmm - I shall google the smeggers.

However, my claim was not that no Buddhists are murderers - that would be crazy - it was that I was unaware of any who killed in the name of their "religion".

Did the Amida folk kill in the name of their religion?

Hindus - well, I have known them to kill in the name of their religion.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

SCoates wrote:
I don't think you can blame christians for the things that some "christians" do. It's dangerous to label groups.

Is that so? This entire thread labels a class of people for what some do. That is the pathetic response of religionists everywhere when the extreme behavior of others is mentioned. That sort of simplistic crap is a cop-out to the core question, as well, of what is it in religion which lends itself to such fantaticism. Were religions rational systems, were morality more than a convenient justificatory shell game, they could not be used to authorize such horrors. It is entirely possible for the socialist, or the capitalist democrat, so say that the fanatic with a bomb is no part of their belief, because they believe in the greatest good for the greatest number and that is not accomplished with violence. The Muslim or Christian fanatic with a bomb, however, can find scriptural justification for their murderous madness, no matter how you try to explain it away with appeals to what a "true believer" does or does not do.

Of course, it is noteworthy that you side-step the entire issue of the identical nature of the Muslim fanatic with a bomb and the Christian fanatic with a bomb.

That's extremely prejudice. It's the same as if I say black people are killers and theives. I mean, there certainly are black killers, but it has nothing to do with the color of their skin. Craven has a point on his last comment, but the basis for your argument is invalid.

0 Replies

I asked this same question. "Why do many act like atheism is a religion" (or something like that.)

0 Replies

Why is it so important to refute Christianity?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know