Roman catolics...
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-03-2011, 08:53 AM
RE: Roman catolics...
I'm confused.

I can understand wanting to challenge Biblical literalists with facts because Biblical literalism is pretty hard to defend in the face of facts and the spread of Biblically literal truths can inhibit the spread of scientific truths. Gotchya. With ya. I grok its fullness.

But what's the problem with people who are not Biblical literalists? They have a belief in God and they follow the teachings of the Bible (which is the vast majority of Christians). What's wrong with that?

How are people that accept modernity and science a problem? (Not that I'm a fan of modernity, but hey.)

Like for real, straight up, I don't see what the problem is. Not even joking. I just plain don't get it.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-03-2011, 09:51 AM
 
RE: Roman catolics...
(17-03-2011 08:53 AM)Ghost Wrote:  I'm confused.

I can understand wanting to challenge Biblical literalists with facts because Biblical literalism is pretty hard to defend in the face of facts and the spread of Biblically literal truths can inhibit the spread of scientific truths. Gotchya. With ya. I grok its fullness.

But what's the problem with people who are not Biblical literalists? They have a belief in God and they follow the teachings of the Bible (which is the vast majority of Christians). What's wrong with that?

How are people that accept modernity and science a problem? (Not that I'm a fan of modernity, but hey.)

Like for real, straight up, I don't see what the problem is. Not even joking. I just plain don't get it.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt

For me specifically the key phrase is "don't go to church". The church is the issue for me, and tithing just encourages them. All the problams come from the core organization, the boycotts, the intolerance, etc... Believe what you want in the privacy of your own home, I'm firmly with Ghost on this one.
Quote this message in a reply
17-03-2011, 01:29 PM
RE: Roman catolics...
Quote:But what's the problem with people who are not Biblical literalists? They have a belief in God and they follow the teachings of the Bible (which is the vast majority of Christians). What's wrong with that?

How are people that accept modernity and science a problem? (Not that I'm a fan of modernity, but hey.)
My mother's one of them. She never teached us that there's a hell, cherry picks the bible parts that she likes and doesn't make a big deal about religion. She's all for gay rights and science, although she's a deakoness.
I see no problem with the kind of people, as long as they don't frighten their kids with hell.

Correct me when I'm wrong.
Accept me or go to hell.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-03-2011, 04:35 AM
RE: Roman catolics...
(17-03-2011 08:53 AM)Ghost Wrote:  I'm confused.

But what's the problem with people who are not Biblical literalists? They have a belief in God and they follow the teachings of the Bible (which is the vast majority of Christians). What's wrong with that?

Hitchens explains the need to eradicate religion in this clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5b1aIuoCq...re=related

And I can't at this moment find the clip in which Sam Harris makes an excellent argument that the moderate, nice, every day Christian who means no harm, is unwittingly aiding the extremists in their plans to bring about Armageddon, by keeping religious belief the accepted norm which we support with our institutions, our politics, media, and our money. It's the harmless, moderate Christians who supply the platform and resources upon which the fanatics rely upon when they call for an end to scientific inquiry and war against their enemies and the repeal of hard-won human rights. Oppressive Theocracies cannot exist without the moderate theists who make up the bulk of the population. Therefore the "harmless" moderates are just as much a threat to the future of humanity as the zealots who rely upon them to give them legitimacy.

The way to see by Faith, is to shut the eye of Reason. - Ben Franklin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-03-2011, 08:03 AM
RE: Roman catolics...
Hey, Hotrod.

Man, I wrote this whole thing about Hitchens' speech, but I scrapped it. I'm just tired of his arrogance and his rhetoric and his demagoguery.

I've heard Sam Harris' position before and I've said before all the reasons that I think it's ludicrous.

The thing that bothers me about these men is they think they're originals, like they are somehow seperate from everyone else in the history of the human race that has tried to erradicate ideas. It always amounts to the same thing. Bluster until power is attained and then death to the holders of those ideas.

Anyway, I've obviously had a very powerful reaction to what these men have said. All I have to add is, I still haven't heard any valid reason for trying to fight the religious other than they're poo poo heads and we disagree with them, neither of which are good reasons as far as I'm concerned.

More to the point, I'm still confused. Forget about the attack dogs. I'm interested in why people here think that non biblical literalists are a threat to be neutralised. Why is that?

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-03-2011, 08:57 AM
RE: Roman catolics...
(18-03-2011 04:35 AM)hotrodmike Wrote:  
(17-03-2011 08:53 AM)Ghost Wrote:  I'm confused.

But what's the problem with people who are not Biblical literalists? They have a belief in God and they follow the teachings of the Bible (which is the vast majority of Christians). What's wrong with that?

Hitchens explains the need to eradicate religion in this clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5b1aIuoCq...re=related

And I can't at this moment find the clip in which Sam Harris makes an excellent argument that the moderate, nice, every day Christian who means no harm, is unwittingly aiding the extremists in their plans to bring about Armageddon, by keeping religious belief the accepted norm which we support with our institutions, our politics, media, and our money. It's the harmless, moderate Christians who supply the platform and resources upon which the fanatics rely upon when they call for an end to scientific inquiry and war against their enemies and the repeal of hard-won human rights. Oppressive Theocracies cannot exist without the moderate theists who make up the bulk of the population. Therefore the "harmless" moderates are just as much a threat to the future of humanity as the zealots who rely upon them to give them legitimacy.

I've heard this argument before, and it sounds as absurd now as it did then. To say that moderates are a threat because they provide zealots with a platform is to imply that moderates should be eradicated so the platform of the zealots crumbles.
When your dog gets fleas, do you shoot it so the fleas have no way to survive??

So many cats, so few good recipes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-03-2011, 09:15 AM
 
RE: Roman catolics...
I have to go with Ghost and Stark here. I have very little issue with these folks.
Quote this message in a reply
18-03-2011, 11:27 AM
 
RE: Roman catolics...
(18-03-2011 04:35 AM)hotrodmike Wrote:  
(17-03-2011 08:53 AM)Ghost Wrote:  I'm confused.

But what's the problem with people who are not Biblical literalists? They have a belief in God and they follow the teachings of the Bible (which is the vast majority of Christians). What's wrong with that?

Hitchens explains the need to eradicate religion in this clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5b1aIuoCq...re=related

And I can't at this moment find the clip in which Sam Harris makes an excellent argument that the moderate, nice, every day Christian who means no harm, is unwittingly aiding the extremists in their plans to bring about Armageddon, by keeping religious belief the accepted norm which we support with our institutions, our politics, media, and our money. It's the harmless, moderate Christians who supply the platform and resources upon which the fanatics rely upon when they call for an end to scientific inquiry and war against their enemies and the repeal of hard-won human rights. Oppressive Theocracies cannot exist without the moderate theists who make up the bulk of the population. Therefore the "harmless" moderates are just as much a threat to the future of humanity as the zealots who rely upon them to give them legitimacy.

Great summation hotrodmike.

I'm going to quote a short passage from one of my personal heroes, Tim Wise, who is a white anti-racist activist. In this passage he explains how white supremacy and the oppression of blacks in this country could never have persisted if the majority of whites, who it is believed were not violent white supremacists, had stood up and spoken out against the lynchings, segregation, rape, torture, enslavement, and violence that was perpetrated against blacks for the better part of this country's history.

Tim Wise Wrote:But here’s the bigger truth: if white folks are tired of seeing Jackson and Sharpton out front whenever white racism rears its ugly head, there’s an easy way to solve that problem. Namely, all we have to do is do the work ourselves! If whites were willing to stand up and unapologetically, and without equivocation, condemn the racism in our community–following the lead of grass-roots folks of color with names far less known than the two men in question–perhaps Jackson and Sharpton wouldn’t have to be the ones leading the rally. Maybe they could take a break. Maybe they could get a much-needed and earned vacation. But that’s the problem: most whites do nothing in the face of racism. Most of us don’t speak up, don’t talk back, don’t challenge family, friends, colleagues, or anyone else when they engage is racist actions or merely tell racist jokes. We sit back and remain largely silent, or condemn but only with caveats included. No wonder black leaders like Jackson and Sharpton end up being the visible faces of resistance: we aren’t showing up at all, so what are they supposed to do?

At the end of the day, it is white silence and collaboration that has always made racism–whether of the personal or institutional type–possible. If whites had, in larger numbers, joined with folks of color to challenge white supremacy, there is no way that such a system could have been maintained. There is no way that racist persons would be able to spew their venom without fear of reprisal, in most cases. They would know that such verbiage, or racist actions would be met forcefully, and that those engaging in such things would be ostracized. But white silence and inaction has given strength to the racists, whether on radio or in corporate offices, or government positions, or police uniforms; it has emboldened them to act out, since they have long had little reason to believe anything would happen. Slaveowners would have been powerless had the whites who didn’t own slaves stood up to them and challenged their evil; so too with segregationists, those who lynched thousands of blacks from the late 1800s to the early 60s, and those who engage in discrimination today. The silent and passive collaborators with injustice are just as bad as those who do the deed, and have always been such. And too often, those folks have been us.

Only when whites decide to connect with the alternative tradition of resistance, as opposed to collaboration, will things change. Only when we choose to take our place in the line–however much longer it should be–of antiracist white allies, will we be in a position to lecture folks of color on how they come at the issue. And even then, we’ll have far more to learn than to teach in that regard. But until that time, and for however long white folks decide to remain on the sidelines in this struggle, our entitlement to say much of anything sideways to the Jacksons or Sharptons of the world will remain virtually non-existent. Pay some dues, and then maybe you can talk. Until then, shut it down.

In my opinion, this relates perfectly to religion. As long as there are zealots, fundamentalists, and terrorists who perpetrate violence in the name of a religion, these bad apples will and can forever be directly associated with so-called "good apples" who stand by and do nothing. And putting out a press release that simply denounces the actions of these folks cannot be called "action". It's just words. If the so-called "good" Christians and Muslims who by their accounts outnumber the "bad" Christians and Muslims, then they have the numbers and the power to forcefully clean up their own backyard.

A good sentence which sums up my opinion on this is "Silence equals collaboration."

If you are going to remain silent in the face of evils done by people who belong to the same group as you, then not only are you a part of the problem, you deserve to be ridiculed with them.

Another more well known quote which address this was uttered by Edmund Burke: "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
Quote this message in a reply
18-03-2011, 12:30 PM
 
RE: Roman catolics...
Ok Ok hold on so the question was what is wrong with the moderate Christian's belief. You are saying that they should stand up against religous zealots which is a nice thought, but it says nothing as to why their beliefs are an issue. Not to mention if you turned all the moderate Christians into moderate atheists they still wouldn't speak out against the Zealots. Hell we could be held acountable for the nut case ateists under the same reasoning.
Quote this message in a reply
18-03-2011, 12:58 PM
RE: Roman catolics...
The way I see it is that moderates are harder to argue with than a decent proportion of creationists, mainly because creationists have to think of ways to defend their literal beliefs and moderates have delved into the realm of deism, which, as we know, is unfalsifiable.
The typical moderates I run into take their belief seriously and go to church and do other church related activities but they never argue about their beliefs and don't want to. This makes it really hard to get a moderate to question their beliefs, whilst the creationists actually care whats true which on occasion, leads them to try and find out.

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason and intellect has intended us to forego their use." - Galileo

"Every man is guilty of all the good he did not do." - Voltaire
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: