Why is it so important to refute Christianity?

Racist?

I doubt it. But I used to have a persecution complex when I was a Christian, this was exacerbated by the fact that we really were persecuted (though not really for the religion).

I'd be woken up at night and have to run into the forrest or to the bomb shelter to practice hiding from the "persecution" (i.e. social workers).

I had to flee the bad Christian-hating landlord's house in the middle of the night (he was just an ass who didn't like hundreds of people and their effect on his property).

I had a hell of a persecution complex, hell I had nightmares of "persecution".

I saw "persecution" in current events. Just like you probably do.

Thing is, this is a bit of a dillema. Everything about any religion that sticks is meant to make it stick.

Doesn't sound quite right? Have faith and it will.

People bothering you? Well, this is predicted. It's "persecution" for your faith.

I personally do not envision prosecution for religion in America. What I envision is the continued trend in which the more education a society has the less religion it will have.

It can be called "persecution" but that's not necessarily a bad thing.

Given that i cannot accept any statement from authority that god exists (knowing of no such authority), it does not boil down to a question of whether or not christians say that i'll burn in Hell. It's that they think as much. Who cares if christianity is (only ostensibly, to my mind) an "accepting" religion. The basic mind-set is still believe, or burn in Hell. It gives the lie to all of the peace, love and understanding hypocricy. I could also give a ---- less about the constant rationalization which goes on with christians who want selectively to ignore certain portions of their bible--i'd prefer the fire and brimstone type of bible-thumper who i know to be my bred-in-the-bone enemy, and who knows it as well. That at least, has an honesty about it.

The particular label of the organized religion means nothing, in my opinion. Sooner or later, and usually sooner rather than later, fanaticism will arise from any belief system which dispenses with intellectual inquiry and consensus, and instead resorts to a demand for adherence to beliefs based upon faith in the unknown and unknowable. That fanaticism will always be dangerous, because the fanatic is closed to all other input, feeding upon the obsession, convinced of possessing absolute truth, the rejection of which authorizes any cruelty, any degree of bloodshed. Protestations of the mild and loving nature of one's co-religionists are nugatory as well, in the face of the eternal potential for fanaticism, and the history of "non-interference" with such fanaticism on the part of the "loving" theists.

Just to elucidate: Our society seems to have been divided into racial/gender/religious/etc groups, as all know.

As a white man (I'm assuming, edgar), you are a member of an unprotected group. Did you do something to deserve the distain most of the other groups have for your group? Having read many of your posts, I doubt it. Yet, there you are.

Christians are also in an unprotected, vociferously maligned group. Things have been done in the name of Christianity which are deplorable--but individual Christians should only be held responsible for their own words and actions...and protected just as all the other groups. It is wrong to condemn a whole huge, diverse group of people because of one similarity, IMO.

<Beating my fairness drum, again.>

But, whether you think its just desserts, or not--Christians are persecuted, and I think it's just as wrong as gays, Arabs or fat people being persecuted.
.
Craven--You said:


PC? But, I don't say anything. They have a right to say whatever they please; I don't think I've ever complained about 'blasphemy'. 'Splain?

And, certainly, I thought the whole Biblical story could have been devised to uphold law and order and morality in a much more sinister way than lgovernment ever could. But, my personal experiences and study, over time, gave me my answer.

Anyway. I'm sure you know I'm not trying to convert anybody. We just got to a point in the discussion where I became interested. Thanks for the back and forth.

There are elements that are interpreted as being against blacks (cursed sons of Ham, but this is a streeetch), there are elements that are against gentiles and then quite a few about regional ethnicities that got in the way.

You Philistines should know.

But yeah, compared to the other prejudices in the Bible racism is less of a visible issue, it came in the form of just saying they were slew most of the time and that their God helped (see holding up Moses' arms to help kill the other fellas).

Yes - I knew about the Ham thing - but dinna think that was much of an issue - and I know that in some places the church (even as it set about destroying "natives'" culture through its conversions) attempted to protect them from the worst of rape, looting and murder and such...

I am with you on the rest....

Seems to be something really narrow about those religions that grew up in the damned deserts about those things.

I know some have argued that nomadic cultures tend to be especially 'orribly patriarchal, but I don't know....

I think racist people may pore over the Bible, trying to make something uphold their racist tendencies... (Like Craven's Ham stretch, above)

My mother used the passage where someone (God, Moses, Abraham...) decreed that the sons of A shall not marry the daughters of B. Undeniable proof, said mom that the races were NOT TO MIX.

So are pedophiles. But before you think I'm trying to compare I am making the point that there's a difference between maligning an inborn classification and maligning a chosen course.

We vociferously malign criminals as a group, pedophiles as a group etc etc.

This is one reason Christians push to not recognize the "gay gene". As long as they call it a choice they think their discrimination is valid.

SO, IMO, disparaging Christian ideology is not the same as disparaging, say, blacks.

I've little qualm with Christians, I have a qualm with their belief, I've a qualm with Christianity.

It's not a huge deal to me, and when people preach to me at bus stops it doesn't bother me. But I do feel that it's a societal bane.



I'm not talking about doing harm in the name of the religion, I think the religion itself is harmful.



I disagree. We commonly do so (see the pedophile example). But that's irrelevant to me, because I don't condemn Christians at all.

I have a qualm with the belief, I think it's pernicious. To me, Christians are the victims of said belief.



First let's qualify "persecution".

I'd not tolerate discrimination of employment, for example, based on religion (except in certain circumstances, e.g. the position of head of an atheist foundation might not be well served by an evangelical Christian).

Now if you mean "persecution" as in criticizing the belief I don't think this is "persecution" any more than I think Democrats and Republicans are "persecuting" each other.



'Twas just a bad joke, a strong element of "PC" for many is that "it's not offensive, it's humor". I don't subscribe to this anyway so it was just a rib at you for your own tendency to evoke "PC".



Preachers don't bother me. Never really have. I always thought they were fun.

As a teen I used to play basketball in church lots, the preachers were always arguing with em and all my friends were pissed at me for keeping them going on and on.

Never bothered me a bit, I liek discussing religion. I had a very religious upbringing and it's a subject of interest for me (kinda like discussing my hometown would be like).

We are, all of us, unprotected. I live a quiet life away from any sort of power centers. Most of the persons I know haven't a clue as to how I view religion. But, even in a secluded environment they encroach on atheists' liberty. They don't want to hear freedom of religion. One of the locals who writes for the hometown free paper said, among other things, "We are in the majority - The heck with the minority rights" - He wants to have prayer at school functions. People actually recoil if I give a hint of my true views.

It was for me. I grew up hating blacks because of that insipid interpretation of the Ham story.

When I finally met some blacks I realized they wer not cursed, and had a serious beef with the religious leader who had taught this. He ended up publishing a retraction which he called "the uncursed sons of Ham".

Ham is a double whammy, it's used by some to say that Blacks are cursed "see Africa and slavery it's all because of Ham" and doubles as homophobic validation.



Very true, they clashed with other societies more often and tend to be more exclusionary with different peoples.




Oh I definitely agree. Especially with racism. Racism wasn't really an issue back then. They were just evil enemies to slay.

Things like sexism and homophobia are more clearly codified. Especially the homophobia.



Tee hee, the anecdotes are fun.

My point, however minor, is that it is open season on white men and Christians. You are free to discredit them with slurs and blanket criticisms without reproach.

Try it with other ethnic/religious groups.

I think news organizations and public speech should require the same deference for all groups.

It is not really open season on white men. That is a fad that has passed.

I don't see where white men come into it. Fishin' said that a long time ago and it's a very American thing.

Anywho, I disagree that all groups should be treated equally.

I already cited examples and why above.

Because honkey sounds silly.
But, it has been a while since I saw a Save The Males bumpersticker.

OK, forget the men, it's just Christians.

(I'm flexible.)

Hey don't say that, it leads to dancing.

I've done forgot the argument.

Craven.
Really.
Christians and pedophiles?
I object.

The one thing peds have in common is the sexual molestation of children.

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.

(This is hilarious. I'm always criticising the church.)

I believe that as people go, many Christians are no worse or better than the next group. My wife is a Christian, something we never ever argue about. But when a group wants to displace science in our schools with fables and misinformation, send non members to hell, and rail against persons for the simple fault of being non Christian, among other things, I get a little unsettled.

I can understand that, edgarblythe.

Do you hang around for the Church Ladies' Meetin's at your house?
<kidding>

Thankfully, no. I haven't been inside a church for purposes other than to attend weddings since perhaps 1964.