Starboy

Rufus I have looked those words up and there doesn't appear to be much difference in their meaning. I suppose you might personally hold a distinctive definition of those words that would allow you to see them as somehow different.

Starboy

Yes I am hard on the Christians but there is method to my madness. I am trying to get them to consider the possibility that cramming their religion down peoples throats through government, the schools, and so forth is an incredibly aggressive act. That not speaking up against those who denigrate atheists and just quietly look on are by their silence are condoning the act. That complete absences of any attempts to patrol their own ranks and allow any crazy Tom, Dick or Harry with a bible to start up a new church or cult, especially with the power and influence these people have over their followers is criminal. If religion was a good neighbor I would be fine with it, but it is one of the worst neighbors one could have! If it went away tomorrow it would be too soon. {deleted}

Starboy

[ December 19, 2002: Message edited by: Starboy ]

{content deleted by scigirl}

[ December 19, 2002: Message edited by: scigirl ]</p>

RufusAtticus

Well then, Starboy, you need to look closer at superstition(2) and faith(2).

The moderate and liberal christians already know this. You do realize that the head of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State is an ordained reverend in the United Church of Christ? You seem to be confusing Christian Reconstructionists with Christians in general. That's like insisting that Stalin is representative of all atheists.

Pot kettle black. Maybe if you weren't so agressive with people of faith, you might get some sympathy.

So the Greek Orthodox Church should be responsible for the scandels of the Catholic Church and the Methodists should take responsibility for Roy's Rock? Sorry, but Christians are only responsible for what goes on in their Church, not others.

And here I thought we had freedom of religion in our country. I guess we only have freedom from religion, not freedom of religion. Starboy, if you want people to respect your right to self determination, you should suppor theirs.

What exactly do you find so morally wrong with the teachings of--say--The <a href="http://www.umc.org" target="_blank">United Methodist Church</a>?

You chide them for not standing up for you, and then you say something like this. It's no wonder that you get no support from people of faith.

~~RvFvS~~

[ December 19, 2002: Message edited by: RufusAtticus ]</p>

RufusAtticus

You believe that. I believe that. But they don't. I see no reason why we must insist that they are chasing fairy tales when it doesn't matter with the issue at hand.

Perhaps, but I know quite a few people who draw the line between what is natural and what is spiritual and function quite admirablly in our natural world.

~~RvFvS~~

Starboy

Rufus, your defence of Christianity is at best strained. We also have free enterprise in this country, but that doesn't make its Okay to defraud and decieve the public. That doesn't mean that there are not bodies to police and regulate their activities. In this society it is a well accepted tenant that social institutions that are capable of causing great harm are monitored. Religion has had a free ride for too long in this country.

Starboy

[ December 20, 2002: Message edited by: Starboy ]</p>

Starboy

Rufus, it would appear that they can dish it out but they can't take it. They are not innocent parties in all this. It is time they take their lumps. Nothing would make me happier then for these fine Christians to deflate my arguments by sympathizing if not with my message at least with my complaints.

Starboy

RufusAtticus

Except that due to the laws of our land, religious organizations are considered differently than commercial ones. Thus your appeals to "enterprise" show an extreme lack of understanding, about which you complain.

So you think there should be a "faith police" that descides what is "accurate" doctrine and what is "false" doctrine. I guess the Xian Reconstructionists would agree with you.

Okay, you do realize that in this society American Atheists and the SecWeb would be among the first to go since it harms people by taking them way from Jesus. Oh, you meant that you get to descide what social institutions are harmful? What makes your opinion better than Jerry Fallwell's?

The press too I'd imagaine. Not to mention assemblies of people, protesters, and speech in general. Damn that first amendment!

They are not doing anything. I've been to church many times with my wife and have never heard a minister or speaker preach badly of non-believers. Rabid fundamentalists do not speak for Christianity as a whole, no matter what the voices ( ) in their heads tell them. Do you really think that Baptists speak for Methodists and Orthodox speak for Catholics? Christianity is not one connected organization, but a group on independent, diverse, and organizations that often disagree on many things. You can try to generalize them and put them in the same organization, but you will alienate those people of faith that do have similar social concerns as you. That is the entire point.

~~RvFvS~~
P.S. I'm still waiting for you to tell me what is so wrong with the teachings of the UMC.

Starboy

Rufus, are you blind. On this board alone have been posted numerous examples of Christian intolerance. An example of one tolerant Christian group doesn't excuse the actions of the intolerant.

You fail to get my point regarding our freedoms. They to not give us the right to do anything we please. A point that is lost on many Christians.

Starboy

RufusAtticus

Starboy, are you blind? History alone has been full of examples of Atheist intolerance. An example of one tolerant Atheist is not enough to excuse the actions of the intolerant. If you find my above statement infuriatingly inaccurate, then you should know how many Christians feel when encountering a person with your attitude.

I'm not trying to excuse the actions of intolerant christians, I'm trying to get you to realize, as evidenced by many Christians on this board, that you are just as intolerant as fundies and creationists when you seek to oppress people of faith, just because some of them are bad. Using that logic, we can oppress any group we want to if we can find one example of a member doing something bad.

Really now? What things do these "Christians" do that they don't have the right to? Going to church? Reading their Bible? Tithing? Worshiping? Praying?

[ December 20, 2002: Message edited by: RufusAtticus ]</p>

Starboy

Rufus, if they would confine their activities to those you list above we would not be having this discussion. Stop playing dumb, you know what I am talking about.

Starboy