DMB

Danielius: I still can't see where you've clarified your position with regard to xianity being a reasonable world view. I still wish that you would.

In the meantime I wish to pick a few nits.

You seem to be insisting here on your own definition for "love". Of course we all have our own ideas about the basic meaning of words. I personally don't like the term "free love", so I don't use it. But why are you so dogmatic about the "commitment" idea? There are many types of love. In my experience love is an emotion. We can't help feeling it. It may be accompanied by commitment of some sort, but there are also different types of commitment. Love can be destroyed as well as created and can therefore be transient. Ought some sort of commitment to necessarily persist?

I'm not at all sure what you mean by this statement. (I have that problem with a lot of your writing.) It reminds me of the sort of thing that the present pope is fond of spouting when he attempts to justify the unequal treatment of women within the catholic church. This sort of thing sets my teeth on edge, especially when it comes from someone who has no realistic possibility of ever experiencing motherhood. FYI I am a mother and have never found it the least bit dignified. It starts with 9 months of difficult physical change, often accompanied by vomiting, piles and other delights. Then there is the pretty undignified, exhausting, painful and messy process of labour and birth. After that, there's years of cleaning babies' arses, mopping up yet more vomit, dealing with bloody knees and so on. I don't see the dignity here. Of course, most of us love our children and enjoy many aspects of bringing them up, but dignity? -- no way!

While all muslims accept the five pillars, it doesn't mean that that is all there is to their religion. Don't be so dismissive. There is much variety in islam as there is in xianity.

emotional

A religion that stresses building one's character would be hard to keep. It's like having to undergo constant exercise in order to stem the natural tide of body fat. Maybe I've been exposed to much to fundamentalist Christianity, but I think the whole point of this religion is to have "a rest for one's soul" (recall Jesus saying that his yoke is easy), instead of having to work on oneself. The fundies, anyway, emphasise that works will not save you; you are not to come to God, but God is to come to you.

So salvation is by works in addition to faith? Again, you are at odds with the fundamentalists here. They describe faith in Jesus as a magic button which, once pressed, shuttles the person into the Kingdom of God. See here for a good example of this view. Christianity, at least in its fundamentalist variety, is THE religion for lazy people.

Biff the unclean

Also, I'm aware that the N.T refers to homosexuality in a few places, but I'm not convinced that it refers explicitly to *all* gay relationships. I have no problem with drawing the line at gay infidelity, rape, prostitution, abuse etc., just as I draw the line at straight infidelity, rape etc.

Now you are stuck with a problem.
You are saying that Christianity is a reasonable world view. But to make it a reasonable world view for you to hold you have changed what it said to fit what you consider a reasonable world view. So it isn't really Christianity anymore but something you made up yourself.
In playing chess I don't like it that the pawns can only move one space forward. I would like it better if I could move them three spaces in any direction. Now I can do this because I own the board and the pieces, I can do whatever I please. Except say that I am still playing chess because I've changed it into another game.
If you change the rules of Christianity to make it more fun for you, then fine, knock yourself out.
But don't claim you are still playing Christianity. And don't claim it is a reasonable world-view; when you were forced to change the rules to suit yourself they still stayed the same for the straight Christians.

emotional

Biff,

Liberal Christians do that all the time, and they, not the fundies, are the majority of Christians today. Are you saying that only the fundies are true Christians?

Sabine Grant

I quoted directly from Matthew......please can you refute my argument that Christ does not consider the interaction a self proclaimed believer will have with the outcast and needy in his evaluation of whom he will say " depart from me for I know you not" using the same source rather than what fundamentalists or any other kinds of church doctrine teaches.
I replied to what YOU stated not what other individuals state. Or are you in agreement with fundie beliefs? It is your personal analysis I am expecting to recieve on what I presented in my reply.

Being at odds with one group or the other is not what will ever determine the freedom I have to exercise my own thoughts. I hope it is the same for you.

What are your personal thoughts on what I presented? is there or is not there a degree of personal accountability in the way followers of Christ are to behave towards other human beings? does the claim suffice?

Rational BAC

"Straight Christians?"----

I assume that you mean that fundies are the "straight Christians". Just shows a preference for many atheists to so easily demolish an easily defeatable sect of Christianity.

If all you would like to do is to debate Fundies, then go right ahead. It is easy to show them how wrong they are intellectually.(even if they will never admit it) --- A liberal "cherry picking" Christian can do the same exact thing easily enough.

Kind of a waste of intellect, however, in my opinion.

Jinto

Since others have already refuted this better than I did, I'll limit myself to attacking your revised argument: Yes, it is fully possible to explore two diametrically opposed ideas at the same time: I recall quite clearly an incident where a friend of mine who works on the school paper was simultaneously dialouging with me about how bogus "school spirit" is and writing an article for the paper about the necessity of school spirit. This kind of doublethink is quite simple actually: in fact, many people do it without even realizing it. I refer you to the same Christians who think that homosexuality is evil because the bible says it's an abomination to the lord yet at the same time have no problem with eating pork, or wearing fabric made of two kinds of cloth, in spite of the fact that these things are also abominations. Clearly, most humans have no difficulty whatsoever with entertaining multiple lines of thought at once.

The 1960s movement that called itself 'free love' is no better proof of something than a politican who calls himself a 'compassionate conservative' is proof that conservatism is really compassionate. Love requires commitment. If you love something, you are emotionally tied to it. If you are tied to something, you can't be 'free'

Tell me, do you believe lying to be ethical?

I suppose by the fact that you have degraded to criticizing my spelling that you are in fact not capable of refuting the argument?

See, what did I tell you?

And you still haven't answered my question: how can you be sure that this isn't just conditioning from your Christianity? I would also add peer pressure as a possible reason why you feel inadequate, from your next response:

It's interesting that you find yourself in others, considering that that's the last place that any trace of you would be. It's like looking for matter in a vaccum (and no, I am not referring to the device that your mother uses to clean carpets).

As for the cliche, it's getting old.

Aside from the fact that that tired old advice is not intellectually tenable, I have one question: how exactly does that make me more me? I am I. I am no more or less than myself. To declare otherwise is not logical. To quote Amaranth:

This is rediculous. Jinto is Jinto. There is no "more Jinto" or "less Jinto" version of Jinto. It's really quite bloody cut and dry. Jinto - Are you Jinto? Check yes or no.

Jinto: *checks yes*

And your next post:

Adressed earlier this post, and by other posters.

So do you or do you not believe that love is incompatable with freedom? If so, then please answer my original question. If not, then tell me why there is no such thing as free love. You sound like you do believe this, and you care about your family, so I'm guessing that you don't care much about your own freedom. Not surprising, considering that you allow other people to dictate your very identity.

Precision of language please. What you meant to say was that a circle exists in the plane segment bounded by the sheet of paper, which is not itself the sheet of paper.

And anyway, what IS your point?

I am I. Next question please.

Ah, you must believe in free grammar, considering that the porper expression is "try to explain my position." What the hell does "I'll try and" mean anyway? The word "try" is meaningless without a direct object. So what are you saying? You'll explain your position and you'll try? Try what? That just doesn't make any sense.

So... you believe in moral responsibility, but not free will. You feel personally responsible for the fact that your community doesn't preconditioning every single person there to be good citizens, but (presumably) you don't blame God for not designing that same conditioning into our brains from the beginning (and you can't use the FWD because you don't belive in free will), despite the fact that it's within his capability to do so, and not yours. You also don't see that this worldview makes you by definition guilty for all the crimes of Christianity, including the infamous crusades and witch hunts. If your goal is to resolve the injustice resulting from such worldviews, then shouldn't you at least stop lending your support to them?

Congratualtions. I hereby award you the Daily Award for being Fucked Up Beyond All Recognition.

No, we don't ask you to summarize your worldview, we ask you to summarize the reasons for it. And not your entire worldview either: just the part about your God-belief. What is so difficult about this?

People relate to and are dependant on each other, yes. Now, what does this have to do with Christianity?

If you define yourself solely in terms of your relationships to others, then where does that leave you when others stop believing in you? Or suppose that everyone else decides that you ought to be a certain person. Do you suddenly conform to their desires? If you do, then indeed you do have no identity apart from your relationships, and you have my deepest sympathies.

And whether this is true or not: what does this have to do with Christianity?

Basically a restatement of #2. Again: what does this have to do with Christianity?

They do that out of custom. Recall the first rule of television: assume that any statement made on television has a political or financial motive. Corollary: no one says what they actually believe on television, except sometimes by coincidence. Can you imagine how quickly their PR would drop if they said what they really feel, which is usually that they earned that reward and would like to be able to take credit for it themselves rather than wasting time thanking people that they barely even remember?

Secondly: I don't recall any instance where any court upheld punishing a community for the crimes of a few of its members. Not a one. I do recall lots of court decisions where people have been held personally responsible for their crimes IN SPITE of conditioning from their community and ideology, or even direct orders from their government (the Nuremburg trials come to mind). Now, I know you're not basing your opinions on legal precedent, but can you think of any reason WHY that might be?

And finally, what does this have to do with Christianity?

What does "our knowledge seems to outweigh our compassion" mean? Is this another diatribe about how fundamentally evil humanity is? And how is it that we are unaware of the interconnectedness of human society? And how does that lead to the conclusion that we are all guilty? Have you ever heard of proximate cause? And how are we all equal, except in terms of our legal rights? If I were to atempt to list the differences betwwen me and you, I would need several CD's minimum to contain the list. And finally, WHAT DOES ANY OF THIS HAVE TO DO WITH CHRISTIANITY?

How does Christianity support any of the above conclusions? It suonds like you are supporting Christianity because it has some of the same logical contradictions that you do, and now you can claim allegiance to a higher worldview rather than your own lapse in logic for their existence. Oh, and about that equality thing:

Leviticus 27:3-4:And thy estimation shall be of the male from twenty years old even unto sixty years old, even thy estimation shall be fifty shekels of silver, after the shekel of the sanctuary. And if it be a female, then thy estimation shall be thirty shekels.

So a woman is only worth three-fifths as much as a man, according to your bible. Now, you were saying something about equality?

Jinto

Actually, our preference is for people that don't run around telling us that we should be Christians or that Christianity is rational when the word is redefined to mean whatever the hell they want it to mean. Debating them is like trying to nail jello to the wall, which if you'd ever tried it you would know is a thoroughly unproductive actvity.

emotional

No, I can't much refute interpretations, except in cases the text is too obvious. You and the fundamentalists have different interpretations on the same Word, which in turn causes me to be sceptical of the whole idea that God has left a final communication of His will/essence in a written word.



I'm not in agreement with fundie beliefs, it's just that they shout louder than most other Christians, so I've heard them much more than any other Christians.

This particular excerpt from Matthew doesn't talk about social obligations. All it says is that not all who call Christ's name will be admitted to the Kingdom of God. It can be interpreted as you do, or it can be interpreted as the fundamentalists do.

Either way, I reject Christianity because it makes a god out of the man Jesus. All this trinity stuff is crazy.

Biff the unclean

Dan very early on said that he was an "Orthodox Christian" which is (supposed to be) something very specific. Then he started this thread about Christianity being a reasonable world view. However the world-view he then attributes to Christianity is a very un-Orthodox one. Which means that he can't think that Orthodox Christianity is a reasonal world-view. Orthodox Christianity says that he and his partner are vile sodomites worthy of death and eternal damnation...not something I personally would say was a reasonable world-view. In fact if you ask me I'd say it was sick, but then I'd say that about a lot of Christian beliefs.
The point I'm making is only a debating issue. You can't be a vile sodomite...er, I mean a gay guy, and hold that Orthodox Christianity has a reasonable world-view unless you consider yourself worthy of eternal damnation. Since Dan doesn't, he doesn't appear to think he is a sinner at all just for being gay, then he isn't holding the Orthodox Christian view. His beliefs and actions show that he considers it unreasonable.

Why he even associates with an organization that holds him in such low esteem is beyond me, let alone why he promotes it.