For the love of Christ

[The Magic Pudding]

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.

Ya think?

It doesn't sit well with me and I'm not sure what it means because it's not particularly articulate.

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.

Why? Do we regard the rep's as unreliable or excusable liars because they are likely to suffer unthinkable torture if they speak out of line?

The holocaust was not supported implicitly by the leaders in power in the catholic church so we can make a certain exception for that.

I'm not sure what exceptions I'm granting here.

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.

No I don't suppose dead people can change their minds, but I'm not allowing them any flexibility, they are dead and fixed.  Open to reinterpretation maybe.

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.

So what does that mean?  The Bible says in one bit sodomites are wrong so focus all the wrongness existence fills you with upon them.  Another bit says love your neighbour.  Christians have slaughtered each other for what seems petty reasons to me, but I don't think in a big battling power elites kind of way.  Just admit those guys holding swords while wearing a red cross, birth control, stomping on Galileo and gays were mistakes and we can talk.

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.

Oh Jesus save us from car analogies, or not.  Henry offered any colour as long as it was black. 
Shedding the car crap maybe you see some goodness, not as good as you'd like but what else is on offer?

So I guess in short I do feel that modern Christians should be held accountable for the atrocities of its past

I think they should address them, and recognise religious leaders have been wrong and may still be wrong in important matters.

By not denouncing the faith you are essentially condoning it's behavior through your silent acceptance.

Some Christians express their opposition to some purveyors of the faith loud and clear.

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'm not sure what that means, it seems the Christians are being held strictly responsible for all the evil perpetrated under it's name, why don't you reject your citizenship because of Abu Grave, Guantamamo, or the Tuskegee syphilis experiment and so many more things?

[Davin]

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...

Which is my point against your point, why would this make me a hypocrite?

Also in your example I would either have to denounce America or silently support a president I don't agree with... however, I was not silent and I did not denounce America.

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.

It does in fact show that your initial position is just as faulty as when theists try to throw me into their atheist bucket. "I am a Christian because I believe in Christ the savior" is all one needs to not be a hypocrite while being a Christian. All else is very dependent and diverse as is evidenced by the amount of sects there are. All it seems that you're doing is trying to pidgeon hole Christians into a position that they most likely don't hold (telling them what they believe) or trying to trap them into defending against a baseless accusation (starting them from the position of a hypocrite even though they themselves might not be). I'm against either of those in all versions (not just when theists attempt to do it to me), because I see them as dishonest argument tactics.

In my opinion, you should save the word hypocrite for when someone actually does something they've said shouldn't be done (like Ted Haggard). Because the more you dilute a term, the less impact it has. If you go around saying every Christian is a hypocrite by virtue of being a Christian, then a Christian that is anti-porn that attends porn conventions is on the same level as a Christian that fights for gay marriage because they see it a civil right.

[Twentythree]

That is exactly my point. I am guilty of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo and all the other things you mentioned because I pay taxes, work and live in the united states, just because I didn't pull the trigger does not mean that I am not to be held accountable. I support the system by my participation in it. You can exclude yourself from the responsibility you have as a contributor to the system. I don't reject my citizenship because I continue to want to support the united states. I am making a choice to be an American, just as people choose to be Christians.

And hey, I thought my car analogy was pretty good.

This topic kind of rabbit holed too, it's amazing the direction these discussions take sometimes.  

[Twentythree]

In my opinion, you should save the word hypocrite for when someone actually does something they've said shouldn't be done (like Ted Haggard). Because the more you dilute a term, the less impact it has. If you go around saying every Christian is a hypocrite by virtue of being a Christian, then a Christian that is anti-porn that attends porn conventions is on the same level as a Christian that fights for gay marriage because they see it a civil right.

Wow you have totally missed the point. At which point did I say anything about a persons beliefs or trying to influence them? To dumb it down as much as I possibly can I am simply saying that Christians need to be accountable for Christianity. Just as Americans need to be accountable for America. Christianity is fundamentally hypocritical in that it professes love thy neighbor but promotes bigotry. Not that every small sect or fringe group or individual within Christianity shares their beliefs but by their knowledgeable support of Christianity they have to be held accountable and by trying to isolate themselves they only make themselves more hypocritical. They are essentially saying "I as an individual support Christianity but only so far as it suits me. Many of the teachings of Christianity are false, I however am choosing only those that allow me to live and work in comfort and excluding myself from the whole." That is weak, if someone were to ask me to defend my allegiance to America you don't think that I'd have to account for both the good and the bad that America has done. If asked about the financial crisis do you think it would be acceptable for me to cop out and say "Hey, I don't work for Goldman Sachs so that aint my bad". No way, I'd have to own up to the fact that at the very least I contributed to the system and my intentional ignorance of the detailed working of the financial system in the country I support led to the meltdown. Was I directly responsible? No but do I have to take some accountability for being part of the system. Just because you are not the trigger man does not exclude you from the prosecution of murder. So I have to kindly disagree with you, I am not diluting the term hypocrite. I think it is being used precisely as intended. It is just a word anyway...a tool for the conveyance of ideas. If it has failed in conveying my point then perhaps I did use it incorrectly.

[Davin]

That is exactly my point. I am guilty of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo and all the other things you mentioned because I pay taxes, work and live in the united states, just because I didn't pull the trigger does not mean that I am not to be held accountable. I support the system by my participation in it. You can exclude yourself from the responsibility you have as a contributor to the system. I don't reject my citizenship because I continue to want to support the united states. I am making a choice to be an American, just as people choose to be Christians.

If someone is actively trying to prevent a thing, how can you hold them accountable for other people doing the things? That's like saying that Martin Luther King Jr. should be held accountable for all the racism against blacks because he was an American. You're holding people to unreasonable standards.

In my opinion, you should save the word hypocrite for when someone actually does something they've said shouldn't be done (like Ted Haggard). Because the more you dilute a term, the less impact it has. If you go around saying every Christian is a hypocrite by virtue of being a Christian, then a Christian that is anti-porn that attends porn conventions is on the same level as a Christian that fights for gay marriage because they see it a civil right.

Wow you have totally missed the point. At which point did I say anything about a persons beliefs or trying to influence them?

Right about here:

Christianity is fundamentally hypocritical in that it professes love thy neighbor but promotes bigotry.

Not all Christians and not all sects promote bigotry, and even some that do both of these things are still not hypocrites because they believe the "love thy nieghbor" bit only applies to actual neighbors and not everyone in the world. This is one the major problems with your position: you're trying to establish their beliefs for them seemingly so that you can call them hypocrites.

To dumb it down as much as I possibly can I am simply saying that Christians need to be accountable for Christianity. Just as Americans need to be accountable for America. Christianity is fundamentally hypocritical in that it professes love thy neighbor but promotes bigotry. Not that every small sect or fringe group or individual within Christianity shares their beliefs but by their knowledgeable support of Christianity they have to be held accountable and by trying to isolate themselves they only make themselves more hypocritical.

I don't agree, only the people actually doing the things should be held accountable, I might go as far as to say that those that don't speak out against the things should be pointed out and asked to take a stand on some issues, but as for every Christian being responsible for all things Christian... no, that's irrational.

They are essentially saying "I as an individual support Christianity but only so far as it suits me. Many of the teachings of Christianity are false, I however am choosing only those that allow me to live and work in comfort and excluding myself from the whole." That is weak, if someone were to ask me to defend my allegiance to America you don't think that I'd have to account for both the good and the bad that America has done.

Providing an honest account of the things ones group did/does is not the same thing as being accountable for the things a group did/does.

If asked about the financial crisis do you think it would be acceptable for me to cop out and say "Hey, I don't work for Goldman Sachs so that aint my bad". No way, I'd have to own up to the fact that at the very least I contributed to the system and my intentional ignorance of the detailed working of the financial system in the country I support led to the meltdown.

I would agree that your intentional ignorance helped out the financial crash, however my non-ignorance and attempts to inform people and to prevent it, according to you; means nothing and I'm still just as responsible for it as the people actually doing things to cause it. That's ridiculous.

Was I directly responsible? No but do I have to take some accountability for being part of the system.

Sure take responsibility for your part in it, not for what other people did. Take responsibility by voicing your opinion and attempt reform of the system or anything else, but to say that you're just as guilty as the dudes that actually did the things is unreasonable.

Just because you are not the trigger man does not exclude you from the prosecution of murder. So I have to kindly disagree with you, I am not diluting the term hypocrite. I think it is being used precisely as intended. It is just a word anyway...a tool for the conveyance of ideas. If it has failed in conveying my point then perhaps I did use it incorrectly.

The term hypocrite I think means someone doing something they told other people not to do, not someone supporting a system that sometimes does things they don't agree with. But go ahead, I'm just voicing my disagreement with it... which I guess means that even though I'm voicing my disagreement, I'm supporting your use of the word because I also support using English.

[PapistItalian16]

Quoting the bible is a fruitless endeavor. Proving fiction with fiction does nothing to help discover the truth.

But the Bible isnt fiction. It is the truth.  hahaha

Then what I'm I suposed to do when people on this forum question me about the Bible? Spit at them? Lol.

If you wish to look at the Bible as fiction, then I will say this: If I had a Phd in Liturature and ELA I could probably make a point supporting my beliefs with quotes from other pieces of liturature throughout history just as easily as I could with quotes from the Bible. I would use the basic fundimental meanings behind each word and literary element. 

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?

You are right in saying that to act as if any Christians are not hypocrites is absurd, I explained that in my last post.

Is Christianity the definition of hypocrisy? No. A person could be a hypocrite, yet still be totally against Christianity. I'm sure there are probably a few politicians who are not Christians, yet are complete hypocrites.

Does Jesus teach those things that you mentioned? No, in fact, He teaches just the opposite. But I guess I don't need to site this because apperently there is no need in quoteing the Bible in a debate.

  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.

Sure, Christianity has been responsible for those attrocities, but I don't think it's right to blame all Christians for said attrocities. Christianity is a belief not a denomination of a belief. The Catholic Church is a denomination, The Anglican Church is a denomination, the Baptist Church is a denomination, ect., ect., but Christianity in itself is the belief in Jesus Christ. The belief itself cant condone anything, but its the people who follow it who can. And most of them dont.

Do I condone any of those things that you mentioned? No. And I am a Christian, so guess what? Christianity doesnt condone those things.

[Twentythree]

Providing an honest account of the things ones group did/does is not the same thing as being accountable for the things a group did/does.

ac·count·a·bil·i·ty
   [uh-koun-tuh-bil-i-tee]
–noun
1.
the state of being accountable,  liable, or answerable.
2.
Education . a policy of holding schools and teachers accountable  for students' academic progress by linking such progress with funding for salaries, maintenance, etc.

I think you are confusing responsibility for accountability.

[Twentythree]

Sure, Christianity has been responsible for those attrocities, but I don't think it's right to blame all Christians for said attrocities. Christianity is a belief not a denomination of a belief. The Catholic Church is a denomination, The Anglican Church is a denomination, the Baptist Church is a denomination, ect., ect., but Christianity in itself is the belief in Jesus Christ. The belief itself cant condone anything, but its the people who follow it who can. And most of them dont.

Do I condone any of those things that you mentioned? No. And I am a Christian, so guess what? Christianity doesnt condone those things.

Perhaps it does not openly condone those things now, but what is happening behind the high gates of the Vatican? What are the Swiss Guards guarding?


So if I am being too broad in saying that Christians should not be held accountable for Christianity, how close in proximity does one have to be in order to be held accountable for the actions and ideals of a group. In particular a religion. Should groups and supporters of institutions be completely exempt from the ideals that their group promotes. Would I have to view each person as an individual or each congregation or each denomination. If we looked at Christianity as a living thing, a culturally evolved meaning system, who is supposed to be accountable for the evils of Christianity in general. For example in the case of Westboro Baptist, do we only hold the members of that particular church accountable, clearly we cannot expect all Baptists to share in the burden of this one rogue church and religious leader, it would be even more ridiculous to expect the Christian faith as a whole to bear any of the heavy social load that they are towing. Or maybe we can only expect each individual to be held accountable for their own individual actions, fully exonerating any and all other group members from the actions of the individual. If that is the case then we should view mother Theresa entirely on her own, as an unaffiliated member of society not contributing to or influenced by Christianity.

[PapistItalian16]

Perhaps it does not openly condone those things now, but what is happening behind the high gates of the Vatican? What are the Swiss Guards guarding?

The Swiss Guards guard the Pope. A person who, throughout history has been attacked and in danger, even now. Especially now, with all teh terrorist groups out there.

So if I am being too broad in saying that Christians should not be held accountable for Christianity, how close in proximity does one have to be in order to be held accountable for the actions and ideals of a group. In particular a religion. Should groups and supporters of institutions be completely exempt from the ideals that their group promotes. Would I have to view each person as an individual or each congregation or each denomination. If we looked at Christianity as a living thing, a culturally evolved meaning system, who is supposed to be accountable for the evils of Christianity in general. For example in the case of Westboro Baptist, do we only hold the members of that particular church accountable, clearly we cannot expect all Baptists to share in the burden of this one rogue church and religious leader, it would be even more ridiculous to expect the Christian faith as a whole to bear any of the heavy social load that they are towing. Or maybe we can only expect each individual to be held accountable for their own individual actions, fully exonerating any and all other group members from the actions of the individual. If that is the case then we should view mother Theresa entirely on her own, as an unaffiliated member of society not contributing to or influenced by Christianity.

Christians should be accountable for Christianity and all good things that happen in It's name. And if you want my opinion, their is only one person to be held responsible for the bad things; Satan.

[xSilverPhinx]

Christians should be accountable for Christianity and all good things that happen in It's name. And if you want my opinion, their is only one person to be held responsible for the bad things; Satan.

I'm going to butt in here, but only briefly...

This is one sort of thinking that I have a personal problem with (I've met a few people who place responsibility for their failures and bad acts on satan). Why is it that some people have a real problem seeing their faults as their own failures instead of placing the blame on a thrid party (satan)?

That really doesn't make sense. People say that we have free will, except when we do bad things. 

[Davin]

Providing an honest account of the things ones group did/does is not the same thing as being accountable for the things a group did/does.

ac·count·a·bil·i·ty
   [uh-koun-tuh-bil-i-tee]
–noun
1.
the state of being accountable,  liable, or answerable.
2.
Education . a policy of holding schools and teachers accountable  for students' academic progress by linking such progress with funding for salaries, maintenance, etc.

I think you are confusing responsibility for accountability.

That's a not so clever avoidance. If you reread my posts, you'll see that I'm not confusing either terms:

re·spon·si·ble
   [ri-spon-suh-buhl] Show IPA
–adjective
1.
answerable or accountable, as for something within one's power, control, or management (often followed by to  or for ): He is responsible to the president for his decisions.
2.
involving accountability or responsibility: a responsible position.
3.
chargeable with being the author, cause, or occasion of something (usually followed by for ): Termites were responsible for the damage.

[Twentythree]

Christians should be accountable for Christianity and all good things that happen in It's name. And if you want my opinion, their is only one person to be held responsible for the bad things; Satan.

This will forever be the difference between an atheist mind and a religions mind. In an atheist mind, direct responsibility (accountability) and the onus of all of ones decision fall on the person making the decisions. We don't have the option nor the mental predisposition to blame our misdeeds on any one or anything other than ourselves. Atheism is all about taking responsibility for your own actions and the repercussions each one of those actions and decisions brings along with it.

[Twentythree]

Christians should be accountable for Christianity and all good things that happen in It's name. And if you want my opinion, their is only one person to be held responsible for the bad things; Satan.

I'm going to butt in here, but only briefly...

This is one sort of thinking that I have a personal problem with (I've met a few people who place responsibility for their failures and bad acts on satan). Why is it that some people have a real problem seeing their faults as their own failures instead of placing the blame on a thrid party (satan)?

That really doesn't make sense. People say that we have free will, except when we do bad things. 

In a religious mind everything is predestined anyway, free will is an illusion.

Unless of course you read "Finding Darwin God" Where in which the creation of evolution was a tool for god to use to trick biology into creating free will so we could choose to accept or reject a god. It's amazing to me that with every scientific discovery made god seems to become more and more mischievous and elusive, he used to come right out and tell people to build;d boats or climb mountains, now he is intentionally fooling us with convincing scientific evidence so he can pull an enormous gotcha at some point.

[Twentythree]

That's a not so clever avoidance. If you reread my posts, you'll see that I'm not confusing either terms:

[/quote]
[/quote]

Not sure what i was avoiding, it seems to me that Yahoo answers thinks were both right, so FACE! 

accountability

Definition: 1. "responsibility" to someone or something;

2. liability or answerability for something

Synonyms: liability, answerability, culpability, responsibility

Antonyms:

Tips: To account for something is to take responsibility or to answer for something. When you are accountable for something, you must answer for it, account for it, or take responsibility for it.

Usage Examples:

We don't have enough accountability in the creative department; no one wants to take responsibility for unacceptable ad concepts. (answerability, responsibility)

How can we account for all the business we lost last month when we meet with the board of directors next Monday? (answer) verb

You're not my boss; I'm not accountable to you. (answerable) adjective

The consumer advocacy group demanded greater accountability from the big energy company. (liability, answerability)

[Davin]

Not sure what i was avoiding[...]

My whole post, save one sentence.

[...]it seems to me that Yahoo answers thinks were both right, so FACE! 

Yahoo answers thinks you're right for telling me that I have two similar and very often interchangeable terms confused as well as me being right that I didn't have those terms confused? That doesn't make any sense.