For the love of Christ

[Twentythree]

Quoting the bible is a fruitless endeavor. Proving fiction with fiction does nothing to help discover the truth. To act as if any Christians are not hypocrites is absurd. Christianity is the definition of hypocrisy. Did Jesus teach war, brainwashing, pedophilia, torture, oppression, segregation and bigotry? If so then Christians are not hypocrites. However, in my knowledge, Christianity is responsible or has condoned all of the above atrocities at some point in its history. To align yourself with Christianity means that you are guilty by association. This guilt makes you a hypocrite 100% of the time without question.

[thedport]

Quoting the bible is a fruitless endeavor. Proving fiction with fiction does nothing to help discover the truth. To act as if any Christians are not hypocrites is absurd. Christianity is the definition of hypocrisy. Did Jesus teach war, brainwashing, pedophilia, torture, oppression, segregation and bigotry? If so then Christians are not hypocrites. However, in my knowledge, Christianity is responsible or has condoned all of the above atrocities at some point in its history. To align yourself with Christianity means that you are guilty by association. This guilt makes you a hypocrite 100% of the time without question.

I have to respectfully dissagree with you. By your logic you should be imprisoned and killed for being a human being. Human beings throughout history have been evil, biggoted hypocrites. And well obviously you must be just as bad because you have aligned yourself as being a human being. Doesn't work that way bud, that pretty much sounds like discrimination, bordering on hate mongering racism. No, Chritianity is not the difinition of hypocracy, man is the deffinition of hypocracy.

[Twentythree]

Quoting the bible is a fruitless endeavor. Proving fiction with fiction does nothing to help discover the truth. To act as if any Christians are not hypocrites is absurd. Christianity is the definition of hypocrisy. Did Jesus teach war, brainwashing, pedophilia, torture, oppression, segregation and bigotry? If so then Christians are not hypocrites. However, in my knowledge, Christianity is responsible or has condoned all of the above atrocities at some point in its history. To align yourself with Christianity means that you are guilty by association. This guilt makes you a hypocrite 100% of the time without question.

I have to respectfully dissagree with you. By your logic you should be imprisoned and killed for being a human being. Human beings throughout history have been evil, biggoted hypocrites. And well obviously you must be just as bad because you have aligned yourself as being a human being. Doesn't work that way bud, that pretty much sounds like discrimination, bordering on hate mongering racism. No, Chritianity is not the difinition of hypocracy, man is the deffinition of hypocracy.

Ok, first of all, don't go dropping a condescending "bud" on me. And don't talk about flawed logic when you are comparing being born a human being which one has no choice over and  aligning yourself with a religion which you do have a choice over. I can choose to be a man or I can choose to be dead. However, I can choose which religious and societal groups I support and align myself with. So don't go dropping a "bud" on me chief until you get your own logic sorted out pal. I do not align myself or condone any religious teaching or institutions, by choice.

[thedport]

Quoting the bible is a fruitless endeavor. Proving fiction with fiction does nothing to help discover the truth. To act as if any Christians are not hypocrites is absurd. Christianity is the definition of hypocrisy. Did Jesus teach war, brainwashing, pedophilia, torture, oppression, segregation and bigotry? If so then Christians are not hypocrites. However, in my knowledge, Christianity is responsible or has condoned all of the above atrocities at some point in its history. To align yourself with Christianity means that you are guilty by association. This guilt makes you a hypocrite 100% of the time without question.

I have to respectfully dissagree with you. By your logic you should be imprisoned and killed for being a human being. Human beings throughout history have been evil, biggoted hypocrites. And well obviously you must be just as bad because you have aligned yourself as being a human being. Doesn't work that way bud, that pretty much sounds like discrimination, bordering on hate mongering racism. No, Chritianity is not the difinition of hypocracy, man is the deffinition of hypocracy.

Ok, first of all, don't go dropping a condescending "bud" on me. And don't talk about flawed logic when you are comparing being born a human being which one has no choice over and  aligning yourself with a religion which you do have a choice over. I can choose to be a man or I can choose to be dead. However, I can choose which religious and societal groups I support and align myself with. So don't go dropping a "bud" on me chief until you get your own logic sorted out pal. I do not align myself or condone any religious teaching or institutions, by choice.

Sorry, I didn't mean for the bud to be condesending. I actually call a lot of my friends, and my little brother bud. I meant it as a freindly thing. On the other parts, I was just throwing out my oppinion not attacking you personally. I hope this hasn't ruined any further interactions we may have. Also I happen to agree that proving fiction with fiction is a fruitless endevour. And I happen to agree that people use the institution of church to further their own personal agenda. But I have met many, good christians. But because the religion itself is so open to interprataion using a blanket outlook on all who beleive in god as being biggots, or hypocrits just isn't fair.

[Twentythree]

I can understand that, but clearly you have to acknowledge that the casual demeanor you take with friends and relatives can be easily misinterpreted by individuals you have just met, especially when engaging in debate. This is a happy atheist forum and I am a happy atheist. It certainly will not ruin and future interactions. With that in mind, can you now see how Christians are all hypocrites? Does it not make sense that by attending and supporting even the most fringe of Christian institutions you are supporting, bigotry, intolerance, and political brainwashing? Even if you are not buying fundamentalism you are still buying fundamentalist parts, you are helping to support the mechanism that allows these giant grandfather religious institutions to continue to push their agenda. Of course I am not saying you personally but I think you get what I mean.

[thedport]

I can understand that, but clearly you have to acknowledge that the casual demeanor you take with friends and relatives and be easily misinterpreted by individuals you have just met, especially when engaging in debate. This is a happy atheist forum and I am a hoppy atheist. It certainly will not ruin and future interactions. With that in mind, can you now see how Christians are all hypocrites? Does it not make sense that by attending and supporting even the most fringe of Christian institutions you are supporting, bigotry, intolerance, and political brainwashing? Even if you are not buying fundamentalism you are still buying fundamentalist parts, you are helping to support the mechanism that allows these giant grandfather religious institutions to continue to push their agenda. Of course I am not saying you personally but I think you get what I mean.

Oh yeah, I can see your point. I actually modified my last post to include my shared point of veiw that you had. But I feel that the biggotry and hypocracy usually go with a personal agenda. Like further a political power, or making money. I think that the basic fundementals of most religions can actually be used for good. I think that taking them as fictitious philosphy and not 100% truth would be a better aproach. All religion is just philosophy taken to an imaginitive extreme. I don't think the people who beleive in it are fundamentally bad, in fact I have met many christians who take your veiw point but subscribe to an understanding that if they can one christian at a time change to actaully being good people, slowly they can chang the rest. Not sure if that last part made sense. I just kind of put it as I thought it.

[Twentythree]

I see your point about not all Christians being bad. But they are supporting the entrenched evil in Christianity. If I like Audi cars, and I know Audi supports the slaughter of baby seals, even if i am adamantly against the slaughter of baby seals yet still purchase and proudly drive an Audi I have effectively done nothing to prevent the future slaughter of baby seals. Quite the opposite is true. I'm just saying that a person cannot be religious without subsequently supporting religion. And by supporting religion you have have to support the good and the evil that comes along with it. It's as true with religion as it is with politics. If we support the united states we have to support the good and the evil it does, we have to be accountable for the social and political climate that we create just as the faithful have to take accountability for the evil their religion has caused. I'm not saying it can't change, it certainly could but it won't until the pious can accept responsibility for all facets of the faiths they choose to endorse. Here might be an interesting way to look at it. If Pepsi was the official sponsor of Christianity, do you think that they would have pulled their sponsorship yet for character issues?

[thedport]

I see your point about not all Christians being bad. But they are supporting the entrenched evil in Christianity. If I like Audi cars, and I know Audi supports the slaughter of baby seals, even if i am adamantly against the slaughter of baby seals yet still purchase and proudly drive an Audi I have effectively done nothing to prevent the future slaughter of baby seals. Quite the opposite is true. I'm just saying that a person cannot be religious without subsequently supporting religion. And by supporting religion you have have to support the good and the evil that comes along with it. It's as true with religion as it is with politics. If we support the united states we have to support the good and the evil it does, we have to be accountable for the social and political climate that we create just as the faithful have to take accountability for the evil their religion has caused. I'm not saying it can't change, it certainly could but it won't until the pious can accept responsibility for all facets of the faiths they choose to endorse. Here might be an interesting way to look at it. If Pepsi was the official sponsor of Christianity, do you think that they would have pulled their sponsorship yet for character issues?

Wow, I had a good chuckle at the pepsi analogy, that was good. But yeah, I think they may pull their sponsorship. I think the biggest "bad" part of religion is the seperation. Chritianity, Judiaism, and Islam are all abrahamic religions and the current Monotheistic based christian religions are all started from these. Now let's back trace them some more.

I want to make a statement here and now not to twentythree, but to any theist reading this. Please do not take offense to what I am going to say, before you reply please if you do not beleive what I am about to say look into it before you reply.

The three main abrahamic religions stemmed directly from polytheistic religions such as, the Greek panthion, and paganism. If you look at the ritualistic practices and teachings of these beleif systems they are very much simalar. So I think if more people knew that their beleifs all stemmed from the same thing that there would be a lot less hostility. But as it stands now, each religion thinks they are the right ones because their books tell them so, and their sages tell them so, and their elders tell them so, from an early age they are told it is so. And because they beleive it so, the things in their lifes good and bad are then thought be because of such. It's pattern association. Again, this is just my opinnion. But I think it is rather pretentious to think your the only correct beleif system, because you were told so, by fallible human beings.

"Fear holds dominion over people when they understand little, and need storys and legends to comfort and explain."-The good book

[Davin]

That kind of reasoning is not a consistency I would apply to everything, so I don't think it's fair to apply it to Christianity. I also think this is throwing around the word hypocrite a little too loosely.

I sometimes define myself as an atheist, when I do, I'm not agreeing with, supporting or accepting everything every other atheist has said or done and I don't think it's a requirement to do so to not be a hypocrite. I'm very adamant about theists not trying to throw me into an atheist bucket where they can debate against anything ever said by any atheist ever in the entire history of the world, and expect me to defend it.

I also think the country thing you brought up is a good example for how and why one supports something: I'm a citizen of the U.S. and I support the U.S. through various means, but that doesn't mean that I support every fucking thing ever done by the government or just by citizens just because I support the U.S.. I actively struggle to fix the things I do not support. So does that make me a hypocrite because I don't support slavery but I support the U.S. which used to have legalized slavery? I don't think so, these kinds of macro against micro comparisons are useless I think.

[Twentythree]

That kind of reasoning is not a consistency I would apply to everything, so I don't think it's fair to apply it to Christianity. I also think this is throwing around the word hypocrite a little too loosely.

I sometimes define myself as an atheist, when I do, I'm not agreeing with, supporting or accepting everything every other atheist has said or done and I don't think it's a requirement to do so to not be a hypocrite. I'm very adamant about theists not trying to throw me into an atheist bucket where they can debate against anything ever said by any atheist ever in the entire history of the world, and expect me to defend it.

I also think the country thing you brought up is a good example for how and why one supports something: I'm a citizen of the U.S. and I support the U.S. through various means, but that doesn't mean that I support every fucking thing ever done by the government or just by citizens just because I support the U.S.. I actively struggle to fix the things I do not support. So does that make me a hypocrite because I don't support slavery but I support the U.S. which used to have legalized slavery? I don't think so, these kinds of macro against micro comparisons are useless I think.

Ok, I can backtrack a bit regarding the term hypocrite. The hypocrisy in Christianity specifically stems from the notion that "Christ" is a symbolic representative of peace and love, acceptance and kindness, yet Christianity...even if we disregard history, is structured in a way that promotes segregation and intolerance. If you are a modern Christian and you do not take accountability for the nature of your religion then you are being a hypocrite.

If you claim to be an atheist, do you not take accountability for atheism and thus other atheists. If a prominent atheist started a war or buried sexual indiscretion by manipulating their political and or social position, in particularly a position gained by their atheism directly, you would have to be accountable for them as a representative of atheism as a whole. You could stand contrary to the individual beliefs but you would still have to account for the activities and behaviors inherit in the belief you support. Atheism stands alone however as it is not a structured group with specific rules or tenants. It's a collective meaning system with individual interpretations. I am certainly not saying that all theists are accountable for Christianity but anyone claiming to be Christian is accountable for Christianity. If you were an atheist and also a part of the AHA you would have to be accountable for the actions and conduct of the AHA as it pertains to its tenant in debate.

[thedport]

That kind of reasoning is not a consistency I would apply to everything, so I don't think it's fair to apply it to Christianity. I also think this is throwing around the word hypocrite a little too loosely.

I sometimes define myself as an atheist, when I do, I'm not agreeing with, supporting or accepting everything every other atheist has said or done and I don't think it's a requirement to do so to not be a hypocrite. I'm very adamant about theists not trying to throw me into an atheist bucket where they can debate against anything ever said by any atheist ever in the entire history of the world, and expect me to defend it.

I also think the country thing you brought up is a good example for how and why one supports something: I'm a citizen of the U.S. and I support the U.S. through various means, but that doesn't mean that I support every fucking thing ever done by the government or just by citizens just because I support the U.S.. I actively struggle to fix the things I do not support. So does that make me a hypocrite because I don't support slavery but I support the U.S. which used to have legalized slavery? I don't think so, these kinds of macro against micro comparisons are useless I think.

Ok, I can backtrack a bit regarding the term hypocrite. The hypocrisy in Christianity specifically stems from the notion that "Christ" is a symbolic representative of peace and love, acceptance and kindness, yet Christianity...even if we disregard history, is structured in a way that promotes segregation and intolerance. If you are a modern Christian and you do not take accountability for the nature of your religion then you are being a hypocrite.

If you claim to be an atheist, do you not take accountability for atheism and thus other atheists. If a prominent atheist started a war or buried sexual indiscretion by manipulating their political and or social position, in particularly a position gained by their atheism directly, you would have to be accountable for them as a representative of atheism as a whole. You could stand contrary to the individual beliefs but you would still have to account for the activities and behaviors inherit in the belief you support. Atheism stands alone however as it is not a structured group with specific rules or tenants. It's a collective meaning system with individual interpretations. I am certainly not saying that all theists are accountable for Christianity but anyone claiming to be Christian is accountable for Christianity. If you were an atheist and also a part of the AHA you would have to be accountable for the actions and conduct of the AHA as it pertains to its tenant in debate.

Though I agree with a multitude of the points you are making, I just can't agree with the idea that we should be held acountable for the actions of others. We are acountable for our own actions, not those of others. And onother way to look at this is, yeah I am an atheist, but without prior knoledge of my beleif structure I could easily "fake" being a christian in order to acomplish my personal agenda. But that doesn't make me a christian. I can lie, cheat and steal my way into office all the time calling myself a christian. So why should the people whom I lied to have to take responsability for my actions. They shouldn't I should have to take the responsability. It's kind of like someone said on a different thread. When some one say god told them to take action that would be conceived and not in accordance with proper christian action but because god told them to do it it's ok, god is not telling them to do such a thing, the christian god wouldn't do such a thing. It's a lie being covered with a veil of christianity. And it is unfair for anyone to say that those who are already christians and think that these things are bad must take responsiblity just because they subscribe to the system that this evil person is using to further their own personal agenda.

Do you think all the cathalics should be held acountable for the hollocaust? Hitller was cathalic and used his religion among other things to defend what he was doing.

[Twentythree]

I think when we look at individuals as representatives of a religion we have to take into consideration the religious institutions regard to those individuals. The holocaust was not supported implicitly by the leaders in power in the catholic church so we can make a certain exception for that. Also I think a certain amount of flexibility has to be considered for history as we cannot expect people in the past to change their minds. What we can expect people to do is take accountability now...not necessarily bear the brunt repercussions of individuals actions but if prevailing Christian sentiment is anti gay and you are a Christian you are supporting an anti gay organization period. Even if you are part of a fringe Christian group that is accepting to homosexuality you should still be held accountable for the actions of the organization as a whole. Consider this if I pledge allegiance to an organization, but in order for me to feel comfortable as part of that organization I have rewrite the rules creating fringe branches of that organization to suit my own needs I am not taking accountability for the group, and I am not taking accountability for my own faith. I am saying that I like these parts but not the whole. To use the car analogy again...I'm not buying a Honda but I'm still buying Honda parts and services, this by extension supports Honda. So I guess in short I do feel that modern Christians should be held accountable for the atrocities of its past to a certain extent and even more so for the atrocities of its present. By not denouncing the faith you are essentially condoning it's behavior through your silent acceptance. I do not expect direct repercussions for the fact that the united stated practiced slavery but by  continuing to support the united states I am taking ownership of its past transgressions just as much as I would for it's modern successes or failures. I was not part of the system in the past but I am agreeing to keep the system alive in the future by my knowledge able participation in it.

[thedport]

I think when we look at individuals as representatives of a religion we have to take into consideration the religious institutions regard to those individuals. The holocaust was not supported implicitly by the leaders in power in the catholic church so we can make a certain exception for that. Also I think a certain amount of flexibility has to be considered for history as we cannot expect people in the past to change their minds. What we can expect people to do is take accountability now...not necessarily bear the brunt repercussions of individuals actions but if prevailing Christian sentiment is anti gay and you are a Christian you are supporting an anti gay organization period. Even if you are part of a fringe Christian group that is accepting to homosexuality you should still be held accountable for the actions of the organization as a whole. Consider this if I pledge allegiance to an organization, but in order for me to feel comfortable as part of that organization I have rewrite the rules creating fringe branches of that organization to suit my own needs I am not taking accountability for the group, and I am not taking accountability for my own faith. I am saying that I like these parts but not the whole. To use the car analogy again...I'm not buying a Honda but I'm still buying Honda parts and services, this by extension supports Honda. So I guess in short I do feel that modern Christians should be held accountable for the atrocities of its past to a certain extent and even more so for the atrocities of its present. By not denouncing the faith you are essentially condoning it's behavior through your silent acceptance. I do not expect direct repercussions for the fact that the united stated practiced slavery but by  continuing to support the united states I am taking ownership of its past transgressions just as much as I would for it's modern successes or failures. I was not part of the system in the past but I am agreeing to keep the system alive in the future by my knowledge able participation in it.

That is an exelent and well articulated point. It will give me something to look into and meditate on thank you.

[Davin]

I think when we look at individuals as representatives of a religion we have to take into consideration the religious institutions regard to those individuals. The holocaust was not supported implicitly by the leaders in power in the catholic church so we can make a certain exception for that. Also I think a certain amount of flexibility has to be considered for history as we cannot expect people in the past to change their minds. What we can expect people to do is take accountability now...not necessarily bear the brunt repercussions of individuals actions but if prevailing Christian sentiment is anti gay and you are a Christian you are supporting an anti gay organization period. Even if you are part of a fringe Christian group that is accepting to homosexuality you should still be held accountable for the actions of the organization as a whole. Consider this if I pledge allegiance to an organization, but in order for me to feel comfortable as part of that organization I have rewrite the rules creating fringe branches of that organization to suit my own needs I am not taking accountability for the group, and I am not taking accountability for my own faith. I am saying that I like these parts but not the whole. To use the car analogy again...I'm not buying a Honda but I'm still buying Honda parts and services, this by extension supports Honda. So I guess in short I do feel that modern Christians should be held accountable for the atrocities of its past to a certain extent and even more so for the atrocities of its present. By not denouncing the faith you are essentially condoning it's behavior through your silent acceptance. I do not expect direct repercussions for the fact that the united stated practiced slavery but by  continuing to support the united states I am taking ownership of its past transgressions just as much as I would for it's modern successes or failures. I was not part of the system in the past but I am agreeing to keep the system alive in the future by my knowledge able participation in it.

I don't accept any responsibility for the damage caused by Bush II because I never supported him, but I still support the country. This same kind of reasoning can be applied to Christianity in that people may support what they think the grand idea of the church is, but not even the most prominent leaders (even of the same sect they are in).

Another problem I see is that Christianity is such a diverse group that saying that every Christian must take responsibility for every Christian thing is untenable. Certaintly Catholics hold no responsibility for the Protestents, JWs, Mormons, Baptists... etc. and vice versa, no other sect holds responsibility for the what the Catholics do.

I also don't like the dichotomy of either denouncing the faith or supporting what the church had done/is doing, like in my first example in this post; I think it's entirely possible to not denounce the faith and attempt to correct the problems in the church. This would be another option: keeping the faith but not being a silent supporter of the churches immoral actions. Like the many Christians that are fighting for gay rights even in sects that are/were originally against it.

[Twentythree]

I can see your point, and perhaps as in most arguments general concepts need to bow to the pressures of individual instances or isolated exceptions. Although, it could be argued that if you paid taxes and contributed to the united states work force during the Bush Presidency that you be default supported Bush, at the very least you supported the United States, which, like it or not, supported Bush for eight years so...

All of these minor points however do not detract from my initial point though that by saying one thing but doing another you are a hypocrite. E.g. "I am a Christian, yet I don't behave or believe like a Christian when it comes to things that I don't agree with." A la carte religion is a direct statement of the fallibility, impermanence and irrationality of religion.