Why do christians think they are an oppressed minority?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-12-2010, 01:01 PM
RE: Why do christians think they are an oppressed minority?
Hey, Green.

Quote:Well that's what it boils down to now, doesn't it?

No, it does not, that's what this particular frame boils it down to.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-12-2010, 01:22 PM
 
RE: Why do christians think they are an oppressed minority?
(01-12-2010 11:18 AM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, Gassy Kitten.

You frame it so that if I answer one way I invalidate the moral influence of Christianity and if I answer the other way I cast them as people whose altruism comes from a place of utter self-interest. So I won't answer the question based on that frame.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
I don't find that there's anything substantially moral within Christianity. If someone requires a faith to influence them to be morally upright, decent, good people, then their moral character is weak from the beginning. Because everything in any faith boils down to an assumed behavior results in reward, while abdication of assumed behavior results in damnation. So the fear paradigm compels one to adhere to a standard that rewards, rather than simply being a decent person for one's own sake.

Atheists are moral people, so religion has nothing to do with imparting morality into the individual. If a person lacks integrity they'll not find it through holding faith in a myth that is substantively immoral.

While Altruism is a myth, and is born from self-interest.

I'd suggest if you don't approve the frame that you re-frame it so you can answer to your liking. However, the original frame exists none the less.


How the Christianity Meme Promotes Immorality
Quote this message in a reply
01-12-2010, 03:10 PM
RE: Why do christians think they are an oppressed minority?
Hey, Gassy Kitten.

They're your questions. I can't reframe them because I don't know what you are trying to ask.

Quote:I don't find that there's anything substantially moral within Christianity.

Like I said, I'm no Christian, but the idea that there is nothing moral within Christ's message is hyperbole.

Quote:If someone requires a faith to influence them to be morally upright, decent, good people, then their moral character is weak from the beginning.

The problem with this position is that every single human being has a moral schema that is taught to them, whether they be Theist or Atheist. No one is born with a fully-funtioning moral schema. So using a schema as a moral compass has nothing to do with moral character because everyone does it.

Quote:Atheists are moral people, so religion has nothing to do with imparting morality into the individual.

It doesn't have nothing to do with it. It creates a moral framework. Atheists don't have Theistic moral frameworks but they have frameworks nonetheless. Both groups of people are taught their framework.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-12-2010, 04:09 PM
 
RE: Why do christians think they are an oppressed minority?
(01-12-2010 03:10 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, Gassy Kitten.

They're your questions. I can't reframe them because I don't know what you are trying to ask.
But you read enough into the frame so as to ascertain you were not able to answer the questions. Interesting.

Quote:I don't find that there's anything substantially moral within Christianity.

Like I said, I'm no Christian, but the idea that there is nothing moral within Christ's message is hyperbole.
What we know today as Christianity is not Christ's message. Christianity has been used as a weapon to oppress and suppress for generations, in the name of Christ's message.

Quote:If someone requires a faith to influence them to be morally upright, decent, good people, then their moral character is weak from the beginning.

The problem with this position is that every single human being has a moral schema that is taught to them, whether they be Theist or Atheist. No one is born with a fully-funtioning moral schema. So using a schema as a moral compass has nothing to do with moral character because everyone does it.
I don't think you actually read my observation.
Quote this message in a reply
01-12-2010, 05:03 PM
RE: Why do christians think they are an oppressed minority?
Hey, Gassy Kitten.

Quote:But you read enough into the frame so as to ascertain you were not able to answer the questions. Interesting.

There's nothing interesting about it. I was quite clear about my objection. The question was framed in such a way that I could only answer in ways that I would never answer and confirm a position I don't agree with. I can't offer any other answer because I wouldn't be answering your question, I'd just be saying stuff. So if you're after information or clarification, which I assume you are because you asked the questions in direct response to something I said, ask another question.

Quote:What we know today as Christianity is not Christ's message. Christianity has been used as a weapon to oppress and suppress for generations, in the name of Christ's message.

That seems like a pretty broad brush stroke. I ain't calling them angels but generalisations are never fair.

Quote:Quote:
If someone requires a faith to influence them to be morally upright, decent, good people, then their moral character is weak from the beginning.

The problem with this position is that every single human being has a moral schema that is taught to them, whether they be Theist or Atheist. No one is born with a fully-funtioning moral schema. So using a schema as a moral compass has nothing to do with moral character because everyone does it.

I don't think you actually read my observation.

I took "a faith" to be a moral construct, a memeplex if you will. For example, Judaism influences the morality of Jews. My point was that everyone is influenced by such a construct, Theist or Atheist.

Was my interpretation of "a faith" different than what you meant by it? If so, could you clarify what you meant by it?

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-12-2010, 09:24 PM
RE: Why do christians think they are an oppressed minority?
I think it's far more accurate to say that there is little in Christ's message that is good morality and some of Christ's teachings are indeed vastly immoral.

It was morally more advanced then the teachings of the old testament by a few centuries but by today's standards it really is rather immoral and full of things we have worked out are by advice.

That being said we don't need to have a belief that the tortoise and the hare are real to get something from the fable. Maybe it's time we realized it's the same idea with any fictional story including Christ.

I just wish some Christians realized that you can still respect the fictional character of Christ as a person without all the religion.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-12-2010, 11:04 PM
 
RE: Why do christians think they are an oppressed minority?
(01-12-2010 05:03 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, Gassy Kitten.

There's nothing interesting about it. I was quite clear about my objection. The question was framed in such a way that I could only answer in ways that I would never answer and confirm a position I don't agree with. I can't offer any other answer because I wouldn't be answering your question, I'd just be saying stuff. So if you're after information or clarification, which I assume you are because you asked the questions in direct response to something I said, ask another question.

OK
Do religious/faithful people do good works because they're good people?

Do they do them because they believe their faith compels them to and they'll score points toward Heaven, for the effort?

Quote:What we know today as Christianity is not Christ's message. Christianity has been used as a weapon to oppress and suppress for generations, in the name of Christ's message

That seems like a pretty broad brush stroke. I ain't calling them angels but generalisations are never fair.
I have a quirky sense of humor, so you'll understand when the last part of your remark strikes me funny.

In all seriousness, I don't think it's a generalization at all. Rather I think it's a sober opinion based on a rational observation of Christianity.

An exclusivist man made myth, arrived at not by translation of a radical Jewish Rabbi's teachings, but rather after the repression and destruction of said teachings, so as to superimpose upon them new and radically different concerted manipulation of politically driven agenda's arrived at at different times, depending upon the socio-political environment and codified into New Testament doctrines that initially would have described a radical new sect of Judaism, but through various manipulations and canonization became instead an antisemitic cult ideology bent on enslavement of the rational mind, and furthering an immoral agenda to repress cultural and personal values and interject a monotheistic intolerant oppressive violent ideology bent on world domination.

This speaks to the cult faith itself, and not to an individual adhering to it's doctrine.

Quote:Quote:
If someone requires a faith to influence them to be morally upright, decent, good people, then their moral character is weak from the beginning.

The problem with this position is that every single human being has a moral schema that is taught to them, whether they be Theist or Atheist. No one is born with a fully-funtioning moral schema. So using a schema as a moral compass has nothing to do with moral character because everyone does it.

I don't think you actually read my observation.

I took "a faith" to be a moral construct, a memeplex if you will. For example, Judaism influences the morality of Jews. My point was that everyone is influenced by such a construct, Theist or Atheist.

Was my interpretation of "a faith" different than what you meant by it? If so, could you clarify what you meant by it?
Perhaps I should have phrased my observation to read, "religious doctrine" as opposed to faith.
Thus my observation would have read: "If someone requires a religious doctrine to influence them to be morally upright, decent, good people, then their moral character is weak from the beginning. "
Quote this message in a reply
02-12-2010, 02:08 AM
RE: Why do christians think they are an oppressed minority?
Is it just me, Ghost, or do you dance around anything presented to you?

[Image: sigone_zps207cf92c.png]

Leonard Nimoy
1931-2015
Live long and prosper.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-12-2010, 08:35 AM
RE: Why do christians think they are an oppressed minority?
Quote:Is it just me, Ghost, or do you dance around anything presented to you?

[Image: dancer.gif]

"Ain't got no last words to say, yellow streak right up my spine. The gun in my mouth was real and the taste blew my mind."

"We see you cry. We turn your head. Then we slap your face. We see you try. We see you fail. Some things never change."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-12-2010, 10:31 AM
RE: Why do christians think they are an oppressed minority?
Hey, Cetaceaphile.

Quote:Is it just me, Ghost, or do you dance around anything presented to you?

Allow me to retort directly then. No I do not. I find your question insulting, defamatory and, to be frank, cowardly.

Hey, Gassy Kitten.

Quote:OK
Do religious/faithful people do good works because they're good people?

Do they do them because they believe their faith compels them to and they'll score points toward Heaven, for the effort?

That is the exact same question save for the fact that you dropped the "or".

If I ask you, "Do people become Atheists because they have no souls or because they hate their parents," would you be inclined to answer it?

The question you have posed is framed in a such a way that not only are my answers pre-determined (are they good independently of Christian influence or are the good out of fear and self-interest), but either response supports a single position. Damned if I do, damned if I don't. <Admiral Ackbar voice> It's a trap <Ackbar out>.

I once watched then Canadian Prime Minsister Jean Chrétien in a debate with then Canadian Alliance leader Stockwell Day over a law that imposed serious restrictions on pedophiles. These restrictions constituted a blatant violation of their rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Chrétien was against it because it violated those Charter rights. Day kept repeating, "you're against children." Day framed the argument as "who supports children and who supports pedophiles"? His frame made the Charter violations, the true basis of Chrétien's objections, an irrelevancy. The only two options he gave Chrétien were either to agree with Day that it's right to support children, thereby proving that Day was right and that Chrétien's position was wrong, or to continue to object to the law, proving that he was against children. It was a no win situation. It was a morass that Chrétien couldn't escape from based solely on the frame. I feel that if I wade into your question that I will be caught in a similar quagmire, one I have no interest in walking into.

The hows and whys of why certain Christians do good deeds is another conversation that is irrelevant here. I said that we can't lump all Christians together because many of them do acts of good; moderates who not only act differently than their extreemist cousins but whose policies and beliefs and actions actually put them at odds with them. Why they do it is irrelevant. The fact that they do is what separates them.

I said THAT they should be separated and that it was both unfair and irresponsible to lump them into the same category. You responded with BUT, meaning that what you were now adding to the conversation possibly brings my assertion into question, depending on my answer. You then asked a question that, if answered, could only support your position and undermine my own. So to answer the two yahoos above, I'm not dancing around anything. I have been specific about why I refuse to answer that question and I have not given other answers designed to obfuscate my position. My position is clear.

Quote:In all seriousness, I don't think it's a generalization at all. Rather I think it's a sober opinion based on a rational observation of Christianity.

If I say "Africans" anything, it's a generalisation. There are 54 countries in Africa and about 2 000 languages. There are 38 000 Christian denominations. You can't treat Christians as a single group without generalising.

Quote:Perhaps I should have phrased my observation to read, "religious doctrine" as opposed to faith.
Thus my observation would have read: "If someone requires a religious doctrine to influence them to be morally upright, decent, good people, then their moral character is weak from the beginning. "

Then I renew my objection. Every single human being gets their morality from a construct that is taught to them. I fail to see why someone has weaker moral character if that construct is religious than if it is secular.

I agree with you that Atheists can be moral beings. I don't agree with the position that only the religious can be moral. But Atheists get their morality from a memeplex the same as every other human just like all humans draw oxygen from Earth's atmosphere. That's just how it works. To say that one group of people has weak moral character because they draw their direction from a memeplex is like saying that one group of humans are weak of body because they need to breathe oxygen.

Hey, Godless.

Quote:I think it's far more accurate to say that there is little in Christ's message that is good morality and some of Christ's teachings are indeed vastly immoral.

You're accusing Jesus of Nazareth of being immoral?

That's so far out that I can do nothing but accept that that is your position.

Quote:That being said we don't need to have a belief that the tortoise and the hare are real to get something from the fable. Maybe it's time we realized it's the same idea with any fictional story including Christ.

I just wish some Christians realized that you can still respect the fictional character of Christ as a person without all the religion.

This is an example of how lumping people into a single category distorts the truth.

The vast MAJORITY of Christians are NOT Biblical literalists.

There are many members of the Christian right that are avowed Biblical literalists. They are the extreeme of the belief spectrum. Biblical literalism is NOT a moderate position.

That's like saying all Muslims are Jihadists.

I must admit that I am unclear about what you mean by "without all the religion." Could you elaborate on that point?

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: