Today's example of Christians behaving badly

[Michchamp]

you're right it doesn't.

you've convinced me: religion is great, and I should go back to being Catholic and going to Church.

 

[Gulo Blue]

you're right it doesn't.

you've convinced me: religion is great, and I should go back to being Catholic and going to Church.

I wasn't being funny or making a point. I really don't know how an analogy about a liar in a trial has anything to do with the difference between ideas and principle vs people and organizations.

 

[Michchamp]

I wasn't being funny or making a point. I really don't know how an analogy about a liar in a trial has anything to do with the difference between ideas and principle vs people and organizations.

I can certainly separate the two. Just because one Catholic does something, it doesn't mean all Catholics are bad. Right. It also doesn't automatically mean catholicism is bad.

My point is that if the person asserting some principle happens to be of dubious moral character (say... they molest kids, or work to actively shield child molesters from justice by destroying records or moving them to new parishes), and the only evidence for the principle rests on that person's assertions of it, or a book he and his ilk wrote (or heavily edited to suit their needs), I'm not going to believe in it.

this isn't to blame the principle... just saying the principle becomes highly dubious at that point.

I don't think Monster was blaming his father-in-law's behavior on catholicism/christianity, just pointing out how absurd Catholicism/Christianity is. And it's not like his father-in-law's behavior is anywhere close to the worst things catholics, and the catholic church have done over time...

 

[Gulo Blue]

I can certainly separate the two. Just because one Catholic does something, it doesn't mean all Catholics are bad. Right. It also doesn't automatically mean catholicism is bad.

My point is that if the person asserting some principle happens to be of dubious moral character (say... they molest kids, or work to actively shield child molesters from justice by destroying records or moving them to new parishes), and the only evidence for the principle rests on that person's assertions of it, or a book he and his ilk wrote (or heavily edited to suit their needs), I'm not going to believe in it.

this isn't to blame the principle... just saying the principle becomes highly dubious at that point.

I don't think Monster was blaming his father-in-law's behavior on catholicism/christianity, just pointing out how absurd Catholicism/Christianity is. And it's not like his father-in-law's behavior is anywhere close to the worst things catholics, and the catholic church have done over time...

The principles aren't dubious at all if the failures run counter to the principles. Most powerful assholes claims they're working towards something good. When Wall Street banks say they're doing the Lord's work while they wreck our housing market, that doesn't show free markets are bad and when Stalin kills millions as the "Gardener of Human Happiness", that doesn't prove socialism is flawed. You shouldn't judge an idea by the actions of the people that claim to follow it if they don't actually follow it.

 

[Michchamp]

The principles aren't dubious at all if the failures run counter to the principles. Most powerful assholes claims they're working towards something good. When Wall Street banks say they're doing the Lord's work while they wreck our housing market, that doesn't show free markets are bad and when Stalin kills millions as the "Gardener of Human Happiness", that doesn't prove socialism is flawed. You shouldn't judge an idea by the actions of the people that claim to follow it if they don't actually follow it.

you can have objective studies done of market economics and socialism; you can't do the same with the tenets of catholicism, regardless of which of its principles it violates. And it has pretty much violated them all, if not recently, certainly often throughout its history.

 

[Gulo Blue]

you can have objective studies done of market economics and socialism; you can't do the same with the tenets of catholicism, regardless of which of its principles it violates. And it has pretty much violated them all, if not recently, certainly often throughout its history.

I'm sure pretty much every rule or principle has been violated. No argument there. I hope, as we progress, our principles continue to evolve towards truth and our leadership has fewer occasions of ignoring them.

 

[Michchamp]

I'm sure pretty much every rule or principle has been violated. No argument there. I hope, as we progress, our principles continue to evolve towards truth and our leadership has fewer occasions of ignoring them.

...and there are fewer religious people in the world.

 

[KAWDUP]

It's not just that; for one thing, the clergy, the Church, the Papacy, all claim to hold some divine moral superiority over lay people. That holds no water anymore.

Divine moral superiority?!? I doubt highly that any of them believe they are morally superior to anyone else. More learned perhaps, but they are all human and prone to sin just as much as any lay person.

So a feeling of moral superiority granted by God is rarer still. You must be somehow saying that because they believe they have the right to help define dogma, they must be claiming moral superiority. I don't see the connection to being superior.

If you are pointing to any action in particular that gives you this impression, that they believe their actions to actually be morally superior, is there a chance they are just showing their own faults and foibles?

As far as still holding water - what authority they do have only doesn't hold water for you atheists. Believers might claim otherwise.

I wonder if the belief comes from you elitist progressives wanting to define morality for everyone, or at the very least what is best for everyone else but themselves. :*)

 

[Michchamp]

Divine moral superiority?!? I doubt highly that any of them believe they are morally superior to anyone else. More learned perhaps, but they are all human and prone to sin just as much as any lay person.

So a feeling of moral superiority granted by God is rarer still. You must be somehow saying that because they believe they have the right to help define dogma, they must be claiming moral superiority. I don't see the connection to being superior.

If you are pointing to any action in particular that gives you this impression, that they believe their actions to actually be morally superior, is there a chance they are just showing their own faults and foibles?

As far as still holding water - what authority they do have only doesn't hold water for you atheists. Believers might claim otherwise.

I wonder if the belief comes from you elitist progressives wanting to define morality for everyone, or at the very least what is best for everyone else but themselves. :*)

:hmm:

Not sure I follow exactly.

Their claim to moral superiority - if not stated outright by every priest, bishop, and pope out there - is implicit in their dogma, and presumption that they can define sin, absolve sin through confession, grant access to heaven, etc. based on their (allegedly) divinely inspired church.

they certainly don't behave according to their own moral code, or often even how Jesus preached they should live: declaring Crusades, murdering other popes and religious rivals, selling indulgences, unleashing the Counter-Reformation/Inquisition when their authority was threatened, hoarding gold and money see also e.g.:

And I don't think any progressives want to define morality. Now that's a stretch. At least I've never read anything about it. I'm okay with a criminal code based on respect for other's property & civil rights, and some basic instruction on why laws are needed (because the alternative is the jungle; anarchy). it's not about dictating anything, or being a prick about it, just basic common sense and decency.

 

[KAWDUP]

:hmm:

Not sure I follow exactly.

Their claim to moral superiority - if not stated outright by every priest, bishop, and pope out there - is implicit in their dogma, and presumption that they can define sin, absolve sin through confession, grant access to heaven, etc. based on their (allegedly) divinely inspired church.

they certainly don't behave according to their own moral code, or often even how Jesus preached they should live: declaring Crusades, murdering other popes and religious rivals, selling indulgences, unleashing the Counter-Reformation/Inquisition when their authority was threatened, hoarding gold and money see also e.g.:

They really don't define Original sin, nor the ten commandments if you believe in the Moses story. They also don't grant access to or prevent access to heaven. Absolving sin was granted by the grace of God. Forgiveness and absolution is not given just because, there is always the part about actually being sorry. If your heart is still in the state of sin on the way out of the confessional, that absolution didn't last very long did it?

Not behaving according to their own moral code and doing those other things you mention would not be considered good moral actions by anyone I know. How about you? They believing they were doing it in the name of God incorrectly, does not make them right or actually morally superior in any way.

The number of "things", tenets, or professions of faith that are actually believed to be divinely inspired by the whole church is actually quite small.

Apostle's creed comes to mind as attempt to define some of those things. As I said before - isn't it amazing how many believers there are, even with all of that false moral superiority around?

 

[Michchamp]

...

Apostle's creed comes to mind as attempt to define some of those things. As I said before - isn't it amazing how many believers there are, even with all of that false moral superiority around?

No. there are a lot of stupid people.

and even if they aren't stupid, they may have other reasons for "believing" e.g. family tradition, economic gain, community, marriage to a believer, etc. Or they've managed to live their lives in a bubble and really never gave it too much thought. Or they're 6 years old and their parents tell them what to believe.

 

[KAWDUP]

No. there are a lot of stupid people.

and even if they aren't stupid, they may have other reasons for "believing" e.g. family tradition, economic gain, community, marriage to a believer, etc. Or they've managed to live their lives in a bubble and really never gave it too much thought. Or they're 6 years old and their parents tell them what to believe.

Well, just as there are a lot of reasons for being an atheist. Intelligence isn't one of the qualifications for that either.

Although I also need to state that I disagree that you can classify nearly a billion people into your little stereotypes. Plenty of scientists, engineers, and intelligent people on this very message board that can attest to that.

 

[Michchamp]

Well, just as there are a lot of reasons for being an atheist. Intelligence isn't one of the qualifications for that either.

Although I also need to state that I disagree that you can classify nearly a billion people into your little stereotypes. Plenty of scientists, engineers, and intelligent people on this very message board that can attest to that.

Okay, I see where this is going now. I don't know how this line of thinking came about, but just to patronize you, I'll say it:

"All religious people are stupid. All atheists are intelligent. All atheists are more intelligent than all religious people. You could take the dumbest atheist, and he or she would still be more intelligent than the smartest religious person. I believe this to be true, and will argue it til the cows come home because I have a completely irrational and indefensible hatred of religion, I am stubborn, and I am full of spite and anger, and must not have had a happy childhood. Boo hoo."

Have at it. prove me wrong.

 

[KAWDUP]

Okay, I see where this is going now. I don't know how this line of thinking came about, but just to patronize you, I'll say it:

"All religious people are stupid. All atheists are intelligent. All atheists are more intelligent than all religious people. You could take the dumbest atheist, and he or she would still be more intelligent than the smartest religious person. I believe this to be true, and will argue it til the cows come home because I have a completely irrational and indefensible hatred of religion, I am stubborn, and I am full of spite and anger, and must not have had a happy childhood. Boo hoo."

Have at it. prove me wrong.

Take you and I for example . . .






















QED
:nod:

 

[Michchamp]

sigh...

this board news some new posts appropos of the thread title.

grandy, turok, monster, anything? I've been dropping the ball on bad christian news lately. you guys are putting me to shame in the atheist competition.

I just scanned reddit and twitter to no avail.

 

[grandy]

sigh...

this board news some new posts appropos of the thread title.

grandy, turok, monster, anything? I've been dropping the ball on bad christian news lately. you guys are putting me to shame in the atheist competition.

I just scanned reddit and twitter to no avail.

Here you go

http://www.cracked.com/personal-experiences-1734-5-things-i-learned-at-pray-away-gay-camp.html

One person's experience at a "pray the gay away" camp

 

[turok]

sigh...

this board news some new posts appropos of the thread title.

grandy, turok, monster, anything? I've been dropping the ball on bad christian news lately. you guys are putting me to shame in the atheist competition.

I just scanned reddit and twitter to no avail.

It has now been revealed that the Duggars' den of inequity was visited by the local CPS, and as you would expect from Ma and Pa Kettle Fundie freaks, they refused to cooperate, necessitating a 911 call for law enforcement assistance.

This event occurred a couple of weeks prior to their interviews by Toxic Views, and of course, it was not mentioned nor would they accept any blame for the molestations, or their attempts to cover it up.

http://www.intouchweekly.com/posts/new-investigation-launched-against-duggar-family-911-called-60330

The Duggars' contempt and disrespect for the laws that were made by state and federal government typifies what the majority of the Religious Right believe, and many of whom are aggressively attempting to turn the US into a Dominionist theocracy. b/c it is a so-called "Christian" nation.

Makes me wonder how Jewish-Americans feel about this, especially those who are conservatives. But perhaps like the LBGT Log Cabin Republicans, its all about the $$$ which makes them overlook their hypocrisy.

IMO, those churches who are found to be concealing, aiding and abetting chimos, pedos, incest, abuse, and other heinious crimes should have their tax-exempt status revoked.

 

[zyxt9]

:hmm:

Not sure I follow exactly.

Their claim to moral superiority - if not stated outright by every priest, bishop, and pope out there - is implicit in their dogma, and presumption that they can define sin, absolve sin through confession, grant access to heaven, etc. based on their (allegedly) divinely inspired church.

they certainly don't behave according to their own moral code, or often even how Jesus preached they should live: declaring Crusades, murdering other popes and religious rivals, selling indulgences, unleashing the Counter-Reformation/Inquisition when their authority was threatened, hoarding gold and money see also e.g.:

And I don't think any progressives want to define morality. Now that's a stretch. At least I've never read anything about it. I'm okay with a criminal code based on respect for other's property & civil rights, and some basic instruction on why laws are needed (because the alternative is the jungle; anarchy). it's not about dictating anything, or being a prick about it, just basic common sense and decency.

Wait, so let me get this straight. It is NOT okay to follow the laws/customs/etc of Christianity due to the non-Christian behavior demonstrated by Christians from top to bottom.

However, it is perfectly acceptable to follow the laws/customs/etc of the state government despite their continued demonstrated abuses of those laws.

"well that's because Christianity is based on some stupid book with stupid laws that no one really believes in"...yet, the people violating the state's laws would argue they are unwilling to follow some stupid book with stupid laws that they do not believe should exist.

just pointing out that with your logic, you not only should be an atheist, but also an anarchist. but if you are an anarchist, why are you a lawyer who practices those stupid laws?

Edit: The religious laws provide just as much, if not more, of the "respect for other's property & civil rights, and some basic instruction on why laws are needed" which you used to validate the reason why you follow those laws.

 

[zyxt9]

It has now been revealed that the Duggars' den of inequity was visited by the local CPS, and as you would expect from Ma and Pa Kettle Fundie freaks, they refused to cooperate, necessitating a 911 call for law enforcement assistance.

This event occurred a couple of weeks prior to their interviews by Toxic Views, and of course, it was not mentioned nor would they accept any blame for the molestations, or their attempts to cover it up.

http://www.intouchweekly.com/posts/new-investigation-launched-against-duggar-family-911-called-60330

The Duggars' contempt and disrespect for the laws that were made by state and federal government typifies what the majority of the Religious Right believe, and many of whom are aggressively attempting to turn the US into a Dominionist theocracy. b/c it is a so-called "Christian" nation.

QUOTE]

I'm sorry, but the mere fact that they had a reality show is an example of them behaving badly. There is zero good that has come from reality TV shows, especially since the "reality" word is used so dishonestly.

 

[zyxt9]

Makes me wonder how Jewish-Americans feel about this, especially those who are conservatives. But perhaps like the LBGT Log Cabin Republicans, its all about the $$$ which makes them overlook their hypocrisy.

Jews have a long history of being considered second-class citizens. The US becoming a Dominionist Theocracy would do little to change the Jews opinions or livelihood, as they have historically been treated like second-class throughout US history, and are targeted by groups like the KKK and others. Despite a reduction in recent years, hatred for Jews still exists and as anti-Israel opinions have increased in recent years, the Jews are pretty much awaiting the time when the hate crimes increase in frequency again. Whether the hatreds flow from Christians, Muslims, Atheists, or others is irrelevant, they are always waiting for it to rear its head again. It is one of the reasons Jewish communities remain ghetto-ized and they rely only on each other, because trusting non-Jews has always been something that resulted in Jews being killed or enslaved. Despite the US current position of acceptance, that has really been more a position of tolerance and feeling sorry for having turned away Jews trying to escape the Nazis, sending them back to their deaths. Even after WWII, Jews were marching for Civil Rights next to blacks, dreaming of being considered equals just like the black community was wanting. Yes, (most) Jews being white was an advantage the blacks did not have, but blacks being Christian was an advantage the Jews did not have. Black Jews had it the worst of all. Still, while white Jews could hide their religious beliefs at work or in their neighborhood, many preferred to not hide and oft suffered for their openness, from being denied work/equal pay, stores boycotted by Christians to arson, murder, and other felonious behavior. Such behavior by non-Jews keeps the Jewish community bond close, and why none will be surprised WHEN Jews are once again "put in their place"...and why maintaining the State of Israel is non-negotiable (not that a dual state system is opposed by many Jews, but the preservation of Israel is of paramount concern).

And yes, it baffles me that based on their history, Jews were slave owners back in the pre-Civil War surrender of the South as well as the current mistreatment of Palestinians (the settlements and unwillingness to support a dual state). Every group has their unsavory members who go against the stated morals and character of the group, defying the very principles they supposedly strive to uphold.