MattofVA

I'm sure we're all familiar with the fact that Christians will never admit to the fact that some of their dogmas might be what contributes to some problems among their ranks, or society in general. For example, if someone ends up in the happy-house because of the teaching of HELL(this nearly haapened to me), well then that person just needed to get right with GAWD, then Jesus would give them peace(which, BTW shows how selfish the whole salvation thing is).

There is this one dude in a thread a while back at Baptistboard who acts all astounded that wife-beating is fairly common among conservative clergy and laity alike. Gee, I wonder why.

I've heard I think Pat Robertson say that children might be acting like monkeys these days because we teach them they came from monkeys. So, I don't suppose teaching kids they're born wicked could make them act wicked, could it?

They love to critique secular ideas and point to real-life consequences of such ideas, but never ever ever will they admit to Judeo-Christian/biblical ideas even possibly having undesirable consequences. It shows their hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty.

Sabine Grant

First of I do not abide to any of the principles you attribute to all christians. You did not use " some christians" or " most" or any other moderated terms which would indicate that you aknowledge that you have different thought currents and behaviors in christianity. You make a gross generalization of all christians. You simply establish a judgement on an entire group of individuals which you reduce to the negative notions of them being hypocrites and intellectualy dishonest people.

IMO it is the same kind of prejudicial and offensive attitude a fundie will exhibit when reducing atheists to immoral individuals. Or a Jerry Falwell outpooring his hatred against homosexuals.
Your OP is loaded with harsh statements against all christians based on what you as an individual has expereinced and believe we " christians" ought to all abide to.
I am grateful I grew up with a sense of repulsion for any labeling of people based on their choices for faith or lack of.

seebs

Sabine's got a fairly good point, there. I'm pretty sure that ideas have consequences. Now, I think that some ideas are too hard to understand the consequences *of*, but mostly, I work through them as best I can anyway.

MattofVA

I was speaking of conservative Christians. I don't consider liberal chrisitans to really be christians(that is a semantic judgement, not a moral or spiritual one) because they reject the bible and most of the stuff that defined christianity for 1900 years.

seebs

This is an exceptionally ignorant and bigoted thing to say. What exactly do you think "defines" Christianity, that you think we reject? Were you part of the council that determined the wording of the Nicene Creed? If not, what authority are you going by?

MattofVA

It is revisionistic to say that most aspects of Christianity(such as the trinity) were first defined at any one council as late as the fourth century. All that stuff was already there in the New Testament text which was not written that late and believed already by most chrisitans. Why does everybody keep bringing up those late councils? They weren't doing anyhting new except defining the long-existent consensus or at least near-consensus. Christianity was rotten from the get-go. Read the bible much?

Sabine Grant

Wheter you spoke of conservative or liberal christians, you are basicaly making a general statement loaded with harshness and negative assumptions affecting an entire group of individuals. Again and IMO it is no different than a theist of any background making a negative blanket statement on the account of non theists.
Your semantic evaluation of what a christian is is then limited to how Americans use the word " christian". Understand please that as you use that term as a label you are affecting also all individuals who follow the teachings of Christ. Maybe specifying biblical literalist conservative fundamentalist christians who abide to the following church doctrines... then quoting the church doctrines you refer to. And even as you define which particular doctrines you refer to , you would have to accept the fact that some members of those churches do not necessarly believe Pat Robertson's statement, do not beat their wives, etc.....
I prefer to see a critical approach of a particular statement from one christian than a blanket statement which projects negatively the character of millions of individuals.
And no... not all liberal christians reject the Bible as a whole. They are moreso non legalistic and focus on the application of their faith in their daily lives rather than forcefeeding dogma onto others.

seebs

You seem to be rather totally missing the point, here. I was merely addressing the claim that you can dismiss non-fundamentalists entirely. That's the most overt straw man I've ever seen; pick an argument you can beat, then declare that every argument that isn't that argument is wrong simply by fiat.

The point here is, you're not the one who defines what is or isn't Christian. You don't have the authority to say "people who do not believe X are not Christian". Those councils may have been later than the original definition, but they predate you by something over 1600 years, giving them substantial precedence.

And, by those definitions, all those people whose arguments you can't beat are Christians too. Bad luck, try again next time!

enrious

Just thought I'd pop in so the theists didn't think they were the only ones who see the various logical fallacies utilized in the OP.

Vorkosigan

Sabine, did you ever meet a Christian who thought belief in god and the supernatural was immoral?

Allowing for the moment that belief in the supernatural might be unethical -- and I believe it is -- then exactly why wouldn't the OP be true, however harsh he may have cast his judgment?

I personally view Christianity as nihilistic, authoritarian, and amoral, driven primarily by the need for power over others' minds and bodies, and willing to do anything to reach that goal. I think history supports that view. Do you think that view is bigoted? If so, since I think the same of Islam, Communism and Facism, viewing all, including Christianity, as forms of authoritarianism, does that make me a bigot about them too?

Vorkosigan