If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Christians are all about Jesus, but this doesn't make much sense to me. Why aren't there Godians? God impregnated Mary who gave birth to Jesus. Jesus obviously has some super powers with the resurrection, walking on water, and wine thing for example, but because part of Jesus' genes are just regular human genes (I think Mary was just a regular person), it would follow that Jesus has fewer powers than God. God created everything, if Jesus was as powerful I bet he would create his own universe rather than being delegated to human related activities.
If you want or need something, do you go to the president or the vice president? If it is a little thing, like maybe asking for some nice weather for my picnic, I would pray to Jesus, but why would I bother with Jesus for the big stuff? Christians are all about Jesus this, Jesus that, but I frankly think that Jesus is overrated compared to God.
Moreover, if Jesus has some human genes what if some of them are human emotion, and they interfere with stuff? For example, surely some of the prayers he receives are dumb, sad, make him angry, etc. Why would I trust all of my prayers with somebody who might be a little emotionally off that day? What other human qualities might he have? Does he fart? Deal with hair loss?
Finally, since humans believe in multiple gods maybe we need to come up with another name for the Christian god other than just "God". That's like calling out to a group of people "hey person!" Since, to my knowledge, I'm the first person in the course of human history to think of this, I would like to propose that God be now referred to as "besson4c". AFAIK there is no besson4c out there to create confusion.
Its not and nor is Jesus. They're all the same but different. Its a nifty trick to make people feel stupid and think the clergy are smart because they've been briefed to act like it makes perfect sense and they understand it. Keeps the flock obedient without realising or resenting it.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
And Catholics are about all 3. God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit.
99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 999999999999999999999999.......99999% of Christians believe God is three persons, one divine nature. The others believe in a form of Sabellianism.
99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 999999999999999999999999.......99999% of Christians believe God is three persons, one divine nature. The others believe in a form of Sabellianism.
I find it genuinely curious that you didn’t go with 100%. I would have assumed you would take the position that if one did not ascribe to the doctrine of the Trinity, they were not Christian.
Do you believe that one can profess that Jesus and God the Father are distinct and separate entities and still be considered Cristian?
By your reckoning, what is the list of essential dogmas that one must follow to be considered ‘Christian’?
I find it genuinely curious that you didn’t go with 100%. I would have assumed you would take the position that if one did not ascribe to the doctrine of the Trinity, they were not Christian.
You are correct. I did so to include those who call themselves Christians, but are not.
Do you believe that one can profess that Jesus and God the Father are distinct and separate entities and still be considered Christian?
No.
By your reckoning, what is the list of essential dogmas that one must follow to be considered ‘Christian’?
The very basic.
I believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible.
I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages.
God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;
Through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven,
and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate, he suffered death and was buried,
and rose again on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead and his kingdom will have no end.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son,
who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets.
I believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. I confess one baptism for the forgiveness of sins
and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come.
I explained the trinity above, its garbage. Pseudo-techno-babble. The priesthood pretends to understand it and are trained to say certain things about it that have the effect of confusing people but making them assume that it must make sense at the same time. So they nod agreement, conclude that the priest is truly wise and a worthy spokesman for the big fella and go home suitably placated that they have an imaginary friend or three looking out for them.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
There is a story that St. Augustine was walking on the beach contemplating the mystery of the Trinity. Then he saw a boy in front of him who had dug a hole in the sand and was going out to the sea again and again and bringing some water to pour into the hole. St. Augustine asked him, “What are you doing?” “I’m going to pour the entire ocean into this hole.” “That is impossible, the whole ocean will not fit in the hole you have made” said St. Augustine. The boy replied, “And you cannot fit the Trinity in your tiny little brain.” The story concludes by saying that the boy vanished because St. Augustine had been talking to an angel.
I explained the trinity above, its garbage. Pseudo-techno-babble. The priesthood pretends to understand it and are trained to say certain things about it that have the effect of confusing people but making them assume that it must make sense at the same time. So they nod agreement, conclude that the priest is truly wise and a worthy spokesman for the big fella and go home suitably placated that they have an imaginary friend or three looking out for them.
This is why we can't have nice talks about religion. Why don't you just sit this one out, eh?
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
This is why we can't have nice talks about religion. Why don't you just sit this one out, eh?
Nice religions are few and far between.
Part of me would love to indulge you all but religion has had its day, its way past useful and is counterproductive instead. It causes wars and conflict, sucks up valuable resources, makes people neglect their own kids to death or make other dumb decisions. For every shred of comfort it provides to a believer who could easily get it elsewhere or simply without the nonsense it hurts millions with its divisive rules and more divisive leaders deciding how they should be interpreted.
If you want to reduce it to sharing nice stories and some old wisdom and having an invisible friend to chat to when you're scared, sad or lonely then I'm all for that, but the science denial, the homophobia, the misogyny, and the hypocrisy we can all do without. Plus all the stuff I already mentioned above.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
Because you feel religions aren't "nice" you're incapable of having a reasonable conversation about religion? Makes sense.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Because you feel religions aren't "nice" you're incapable of having a reasonable conversation about religion? Makes sense.
I'm not going to do all the maths on all the religions here. Two of the big three have generally terrible records. The stricter versions of all three are still horribly oppressive. Very few cover themselves in glory in the long run. Even if you reduce them to recent history the best you're likely to get is a denomination or sect that operates like a corporation only corporations admit to being profit driven so theres less hypocrisy.
I know you like your version, you wouldn't stick with it if you thought it was bad, but it almost certainly involves a lot of selectivity and dissociating from other versions or instances and even if your church is perfect it still lacks any decent evidence that the human aspects aren't the best part and the religion bit could be safely done away with with no adverse effect.
It comes down to a matter of credit. I say give yourselves collective credit for the good you do for each other and other people instead of giving it to the supreme being who under your own rules must logically be either causing or letting children to be raped, murdered or to die of debilitating diseases plus all the other bad stuff for ultimately petty and nonsensical reasons.
You may not think me reasonable on the subject but thats precisely what I am. I look at religion as a reasonable, objective observer. As in I use the powers of reason to consider it. I'm not influenced by years of indoctrination or herd mentality. In other words, I'm really not the one who is incapable of having reasonable discussion about it. The truth is both our minds are set on the issue but make no mistake: Only one of us has reason on their side and I'm afraid it isn't you.
(
Last edited by Waragainstsleep; Oct 3, 2017 at 02:33 PM.
)
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
OK that was flippant and disrespectful, but thats because I have no respect for religion. We all know that. Imaginary friend is a little unfair and dismissive though, I'm sure its more like imaginary protector, mentor, guide, surrogate parent and several others and I won't pretend these things are without personal value to people.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
I'm not going to do all the maths on all the religions here. Two of the big three have generally terrible records.
Let me guess, you're going to keep holding grudges back to the Crusades, right? Aren't you supposed to be progressive, or something? Is it possible for us to weigh the pros and cons of religions based on what they've done over the last couple decades, and not delve into ancient history?
You may not think me reasonable on the subject but thats precisely what I am.
Reasonable people don't dig up 500 y/o excuses to hate something, FYI.
OK that was flippant and disrespectful, but thats because I have no respect for religion.
Which leads to you not having respect for people who are religious, and it really shows. For their own spiritual benefit, no one of faith should ever discuss their beliefs with an anti-theist, like yourself. It even says that in scripture, ex. Matthew 7:6, Jesus' infamous "cast not pearls before swine" statement, during the sermon on the mount. Because all you really want is to tear them down for your own entertainment.
TL;DR: You'll never find common ground with someone if you despise what they believe, because you'll always lack the empathy to understand their perspective.
(
Last edited by Cap'n Tightpants; Oct 3, 2017 at 06:55 AM.
)
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Speaking of invisible friends, this month marks the 100th anniversary of the final apparition and the Miracle of the Sun in Fatima. https://www.ewtn.com/fatima/index.asp
Beautiful! It's kind of a like a really nice Christmas tree ornament!! Jesus is one handsome looking son of a bitch, but I think that Christmas tree ornament thing is way cooler.
Let me guess, you're going to keep holding grudges back to the Crusades, right? Aren't you supposed to be progressive, or something? Is it possible for us to weigh the pros and cons of religions based on what they've done over the last couple decades, and not delve into ancient history?
My last post literally did exactly this and focussed on recent history instead of resorting to the classic examples. Islam in its various guises is still a mess with ISIS auctioning women as sex slaves like it was the year 99. Other less severe versions run the gamut through only just letting women drive in theory but still not letting them choose their clothes or leave the house without an escort. Even in moderate iterations their is it/isn't it mandatory wardrobe choices exist so men don't have to restrain their rapey tendencies.
We're not 10 years out from a global child rape scandal covered up by the highest echelons of the probable inventors of the word 'echelons' and the most organised religion of all time. A practice that appears to have been systematic if not systemic and stretching back well beyond the time frame I'm allowed to mention.
Meanwhile the myriad of other denominations are still bashing the gays or at least refusing them cakes and weddings, trying to hinder scientific progress, wasting public money on model Arks with ****ing dinosaurs in them and there no shortage of youth pastors getting locked up for sex crimes as well.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
Reasonable people don't dig up 500 y/o excuses to hate something, FYI.
FYI I'm using a more literal version of the word reasonable. i.e. using reason. Though I'm also honouring the less literal version by not relying on medieval evidence to make my points.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
Which leads to you not having respect for people who are religious, and it really shows. For their own spiritual benefit, no one of faith should ever discuss their beliefs with an anti-theist, like yourself. It even says that in scripture, ex. Matthew 7:6, Jesus' infamous "cast not pearls before swine" statement, during the sermon on the mount. Because all you really want is to tear them down for your own entertainment.
Its a difficult line to walk when you try to disrespect a religion but not its followers. When someone believes in a religion it understandably tends to become a very important part of their self so any criticism of it tends to be taken personally. If your moments of quiet contemplation or prayer throughout an average day only add up to ten minutes, plus two or three hours at church on a Sunday, thats a hell of a lot of time to waste on nonsense over the course of a lifetime. No-one is going to be pleased to be told that. I've said before I think most of you know deep down how wrong a lot of it is. Again I understand it, if you go around changing stuff every time humanity works out that its wrong then pretty soon there will be nothing left and there are too many of you too heavily invested in it to let that happen. Especially the guys making bank.
The fact you think I only criticise religion for entertainment is enlightening. My guess is that if you were me, thats why you'd be doing it. This I suppose is your best attempt at empathy, which I do applaud you for making. Sadly it says more about you than me. I'll remind you how many times you have mocked, dismissed or laughed at me for holding out hope for utopian ideals. Which of us sounds more like the one who is motivated by their own benefit or entertainment?
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
TL;DR: You'll never find common ground with someone if you despise what they believe, because you'll always lack the empathy to understand their perspective.
This is why the US is so partisan. Both sides hate each others beliefs and worse they doubt each others justifications for them, but theres a problem with consistency on one side and its another reason why I take the other.
We had another thread not so long ago that was astonishingly conclusive about which side had was morally superior. If your attempts at empathy tell you that the people in favour of paying higher taxes to fund welfare, socialised healthcare and affordable education are lacking in empathy, well please do keep trying.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
Beautiful! It's kind of a like a really nice Christmas tree ornament!! Jesus is one handsome looking son of a bitch, but I think that Christmas tree ornament thing is way cooler.
I agree with you on this, Chongo.
Christmas tree ornament? Too funny. No. It’s called a monstrance. It is for exposition of the Blessed Sacrament for adoration and Eucharistic processions.
We're not 10 years out from a global child rape scandal covered up by the highest echelons of the probable inventors of the word 'echelons' and the most organised religion of all time. A practice that appears to have been systematic if not systemic and stretching back well beyond the time frame I'm allowed to mention.
Meanwhile the myriad of other denominations are still bashing the gays or at least refusing them cakes and weddings, trying to hinder scientific progress, wasting public money on model Arks with ****ing dinosaurs in them and there no shortage of youth pastors getting locked up for sex crimes as well.
Meanwhile the child rape scandal in our global public schools continues, 13 years after a report was issued by the US Dept of Ed. The abuse scandal you speak of pales in comparison. https://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/researc...iew/report.pdf
Christmas tree ornament? Too funny. No. It’s called a monstrance. It is for exposition of the Blessed Sacrament for adoration and Eucharistic processions.
That's a mouthful! Do elite catholics that are close to the pope refer to this as EBSAEP?
Would it be blasphemous to wrap a condom around the thing, just for a little joke?
Meanwhile the child rape scandal in our global public schools continues, 13 years after a report was issued by the US Dept of Ed. The abuse scandal you speak of pales in comparison. https://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/researc...iew/report.pdf
I know this kind of deflection is your standard M.O. but when you do it for this subject its really pretty despicable. The fact that abuse happens elsewhere doesn't excuse the church. Even more so since any allegations of cover ups are far less substantiated in the school system. Your church not only covered up child abuse, they knowingly put children at risk in the process and they seem to have done so as a matter of deliberate policy all over the world.
Its no wonder that you'd be ashamed for them and of them but if you can't bear to criticise them even for this, then my advice would be to just let mentions of it go without comment. I don't enjoy mentioning it, but when people say that religions are great these days, its not The Crusades anymore, this is the single most powerful example of why they are utterly and horrifyingly wrong. The last thing you should ever try to do is defend it, which is what this pathetic deflection is intended to do.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
I know this kind of deflection is your standard M.O. but when you do it for this subject its really pretty despicable. The fact that abuse happens elsewhere doesn't excuse the church. Even more so since any allegations of cover ups are far less substantiated in the school system. Your church not only covered up child abuse, they knowingly put children at risk in the process and they seem to have done so as a matter of deliberate policy all over the world.
Its no wonder that you'd be ashamed for them and of them but if you can't bear to criticise them even for this, then my advice would be to just let mentions of it go without comment. I don't enjoy mentioning it, but when people say that religions are great these days, its not The Crusades anymore, this is the single most powerful example of why they are utterly and horrifyingly wrong. The last thing you should ever try to do is defend it, which is what this pathetic deflection is intended to do.
You use the abuse scandal as “go to” along with the Crusades and the Inquisition. More people died at the hands of Stalin.
Pointing out the obvious is not deflection. I do not defend what went on. I have acknowledged the abuse scandal and condemn it. What you need to do is acknowledge that the abuse of children in the public school system is far worse. Hardly a week goes by without another teacher or coach being arrested. District superintendents are far more guilty of moving abuser around than Bishops were. It’s called “passing the trash”
School officials in East Texas didn’t want Kip McFarlin around their students.
For years, he had crossed the line in conversations with teenage girls, using sexually suggestive language and even telling one student he’d date her if he were younger.
By 2005, administrators at Orangefield Independent School District, about a two-hour drive from Houston, had investigated complaints by six different students.
When it came time to deal with the Orangefield High School football coach, administrators didn’t fire McFarlin or report him to police. They didn’t even notify Texas education officials who had the power to take away his teaching license.
Instead, they let him become someone else’s problem.
They hid his behavior from state regulators, parents and coaches.
All McFarlin had to do was go teach somewhere else.
Despite decades of repeated sex abuse scandals — from the Roman Catholic Church to the Boy Scouts to scores of news media reports identifying problem teachers — America’s public schools continue to conceal the actions of dangerous educators in ways that allow them to stay in the classroom.
A year-long USA TODAY Network investigation found that education officials put children in harm’s way by covering up evidence of abuse, keeping allegations secret and making it easy for abusive teachers to find jobs elsewhere.
As a result, schoolchildren across the nation continue to be beaten, raped and harassed by their teachers while government officials at every level stand by and do nothing. The investigation uncovered more than 100 teachers who lost their licenses but are still working with children or young adults today.
From the Dept of Ed report.
11.1 Actions of teacher unions. Until recently, teacher unions in many states have actively opposed legislation that would require positive identification (e.g., finger- printing) of teachers convicted of sexual abuse of students. In most states, teachers who are already employed are exempt from regulations such as fingerprint identification.
There is no research that documents teacher union attempts to identify predators among their members
10.1 Consequences for abusers. In an early study of 225 cases of educator sexual abuse in New York, all of the accused had admitted to sexual abuse of a student but none of the abusers was reported to authorities and only 1 percent lost their license to teach (Shakeshaft and Cohan, 1994). All of the accused had admitted to physical sexual abuse of a student but only 35 percent received a negative consequence for their actions: 15 percent were terminated or, if not tenured, they were not rehired; and 20 percent received a formal reprimand or suspension. Another 25 percent received no consequence or were reprimanded informally and off-the-record. Nearly 39 percent chose to leave the district, most with positive recommendations or even retirement packages intact.
Of those who left, superintendents reported that 16 percent were teaching in other schools and that they had no idea what the other 84 percent were doing. A recent report on sexual abuse in New York City indicates that 60 percent of employees who were accused of sexual abuse were transferred to desk jobs at offices inside schools and 40 percent of these teachers were repeat offenders (Campanile and Montero, 2001). In many instances, agreements are made to avoid legal battles with the alleged abuser (Shakeshaft and Cohan, 1994)
And that’s is just NY
There’s more in the report. I can quote it if you like.
You use the abuse scandal as “go to” along with the Crusades and the Inquisition. More people died at the hands of Stalin.
Theres a reason those are all go tos. No-one is claiming Stalin to be a pillar of morality and force for good in modern society.
Originally Posted by Chongo
Pointing out the obvious is not deflection. I do not defend what went on. I have acknowledged the abuse scandal and condemn it.
I didn't imagine for a second that you didn't condemn it really and I understand your compulsion to want to move on and try to repair the churches image but its going to take some time for them to live this one down.
I'm not going to defend your pubic school system, if they are employing teachers who've been struck off then thats demented but obvious or not, its not really relevant. We aren't discussing sex abuse scandals or the public school system. CTP thinks I'm nuts because I say religions still aren't very nice and unfortunately thats the most powerful recent example. I could cite another one from yesterday with the Anglican Church sanctioning their Scottish contingent for performing gay weddings, but it doesn't really carry the same impact.
Originally Posted by Chongo
What you need to do is acknowledge that the abuse of children in the public school system is far worse. Hardly a week goes by without another teacher or coach being arrested. District superintendents are far more guilty of moving abuser around than Bishops were. It’s called “passing the trash”
I don't really need to acknowledge any such thing because its not a competition about who is worse and doing so would validate the deflection, but I'm not about to claim its any better either. I'm not sufficiently familiar with the details to say if its mass ineptitude, colleagues looking out for each other the same way you see bad cops protected by their peers or good old American privacy and rights paranoia about ID, fingerprints, background checks, free speech and goodness knows what else.
Over here I have to have a very thorough criminal record check in order to do contract IT work in school classrooms, that or I have to be supervised by someone who has such a check if children are on the premises. Failing to check on teaching licenses seems to be a gross failure of an inadequate system.
I'm not going to comment any further on that here because its off topic. Perhaps you should start a thread?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
FYI I'm using a more literal version of the word reasonable.
No, you're being the opposite of reasonable. The followers of those faiths aren't for you to abuse.
Its a difficult line to walk when you try to disrespect a religion but not its followers.
Then don't. Seriously, don't disrespect people's religious beliefs. How hard can that be?
The fact you think I only criticise religion for entertainment is enlightening. My guess is that if you were me, thats why you'd be doing it.
Whoa, now that's some Imax-level projection.
This is why the US is so partisan. Both sides hate each others beliefs and worse they doubt each others justifications for them, but theres a problem with consistency on one side and its another reason why I take the other.
The USA is now so partisan because people on the Left, since most of them have abandoned conventional religion, now treat their political ideology like a religion. If you attack their progressivism you're attacking their god.
We had another thread not so long ago that was astonishingly conclusive about which side had was morally superior. If your attempts at empathy tell you that the people in favour of paying higher taxes to fund welfare, socialised healthcare and affordable education are lacking in empathy, well please do keep trying.
What's funny is you believe it was "astonishingly conclusive". From what I've seen over the years, there is NOTHING that can sway you from your political beliefs. Why? Because they are your religion.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
No, you're being the opposite of reasonable. The followers of those faiths aren't for you to abuse.
I'm not abusing anyone and I'm free to think and say what I like about religion.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
Then don't. Seriously, don't disrespect people's religious beliefs. How hard can that be?
My beliefs are that your beliefs are illogical and detrimental to the future of humanity. Why should my beliefs be treated as less important that yours?
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
The USA is now so partisan because people on the Left, since most of them have abandoned conventional religion, now treat their political ideology like a religion. If you attack their progressivism you're attacking their god.
Its not a god or a religion, its about doing whats right for everyone instead of looking after number one. Thats why people are so passionate about it. Much of it is considerably closer to Jesus' teachings than a lot of your politics is funnily enough.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
What's funny is you believe it was "astonishingly conclusive". From what I've seen over the years, there is NOTHING that can sway you from your political beliefs. Why? Because they are your religion.
Except my political opinions are based on sense, reality, empathy, respect and understanding not just lies, so no, they aren't my religion. And that thread really was very convincing. No one had any worthy retorts at all. Liberals are held to a higher moral standard by conservatives then they hold themselves to and its because they know liberals are morally superior, theres no other reason they'd do it. Its an admission by action and as usual what they do flies in the face of what they say, which in itself is a moral standard they consistently fail at but still expect liberals to live up to. It couldn't be any more convincing if you admitted it.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
I'm not abusing anyone and I'm free to think and say what I like about religion.
and we're free to call you out on it.
My beliefs are that your beliefs are illogical and detrimental to the future of humanity. Why should my beliefs be treated as less important that yours?
What you practice is simple bigotry, you're like a racist against people of faith.
Its not a god or a religion, its about doing whats right for everyone instead of looking after number one. Thats why people are so passionate about it. Much of it is considerably closer to Jesus' teachings than a lot of your politics is funnily enough.
It IS your religion, it's what you place your most sacred belief in.
Except my political opinions are based on sense
No they aren't.
reality, empathy, respect and understanding not just lies, so no, they aren't my religion.
They are, and you believe many lies and often confuse fact with fiction, as I've shown in other threads.
And that thread really was very convincing. No one had any worthy retorts at all. Liberals are held to a higher moral standard by conservatives then they hold themselves to and its because they know liberals are morally superior, theres no other reason they'd do it. Its an admission by action and as usual what they do flies in the face of what they say, which in itself is a moral standard they consistently fail at but still expect liberals to live up to. It couldn't be any more convincing if you admitted it.
No, it wasn't, you were convinced because your politics is what you hold sacred. You speak in absolutes, ex. "liberals are morally superior", just like a Christian talking about God, and you don't even recognize it.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Except you're not, you're just telling me I shouldn't be allowed to say what I think.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
What you practice is simple bigotry, you're like a racist against people of faith.
Am I though? I'm specifically attacking the ideas. I'm not telling people they aren't allowed to believe what they want, or even that they shouldn't be allowed to believe what they want. I'm not calling for them to lose any rights or deserved privileges. Only privileges that they shouldn't really have in the first place, and not many of those.
I don't think you can be bigoted against ideas can you? If you can then I think we're all guilty of that in here.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
It IS your religion, it's what you place your most sacred belief in.
Its not sacred and its subject to change via reasoning and experience. It varies significantly from religion in many important ways. Its what I believe to be correct and fair for everyone, not just for me and since it doesn't involve discrimination or intolerance of people for aspects of their identities beyond their control, thats how I know it to be right.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
They are, and you believe many lies and often confuse fact with fiction, as I've shown in other threads.
You've claimed such many times because I dare to cite fictional examples due to the likelihood everyone will be familiar with them. You've 'shown' it no more than the rest of us have shown you still listen and believe to Alex Jones despite him admitting in court that his "news" is all an act and he knows it to be harmful to his children. :/
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
No, it wasn't, you were convinced because your politics is what you hold sacred. You speak in absolutes, ex. "liberals are morally superior", just like a Christian talking about God, and you don't even recognize it.
Liberals are morally superior is a generalisation not an absolute and I'm not saying it, I'm claiming that conservatives are saying it via their actions. If you distill liberalism and conservatism to their simplest core form you basically end up with "us" Vs. "me". Greed is one of your seven deadly sins you know so it cannot be any clearer or more generally true.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
Except you're not, you're just telling me I shouldn't be allowed to say what I think.
When? I said you're wrong and shouldn't attack people of faith, not that you can't. Point out how I've deviously planned to shut down your free speech. Go head.
Am I though? I'm specifically attacking the ideas.
No, you have a distinct problem with separating the religion from the religious, otherwise we wouldn't be talking about it.
Its not sacred and its subject to change via reasoning and experience. It varies significantly from religion in many important ways. Its what I believe to be correct and fair for everyone, not just for me and since it doesn't involve discrimination or intolerance of people for aspects of their identities beyond their control, thats how I know it to be right.
Except it's your orthodoxy and you've changed nothing in all these years. Right. As soon as you think your politics is right for everyone, even in other countries, you become an apostle. Congrats, you're as religious as anyone I've ever seen.
You've claimed such many times because I dare to cite fictional examples due to the likelihood everyone will be familiar with them. You've 'shown' it no more than the rest of us have shown you still listen and believe to Alex Jones despite him admitting in court that his "news" is all an act and he knows it to be harmful to his children. :/
Since I don't listen to Jones I can only assume this is more of your fantasy world. I've caught you spouting Hollywood/fictional crap on several occassions, believing it's real, so don't even pretend that you haven't.
Liberals are morally superior is a generalisation not an absolute and I'm not saying it
Given how often you've said and implied it in the past, we know exactly what you believe. There's no reason to lie about it now.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
I know this kind of deflection is your standard M.O. but when you do it for this subject its really pretty despicable. The fact that abuse happens elsewhere doesn't excuse the church. Even more so since any allegations of cover ups are far less substantiated in the school system. Your church not only covered up child abuse, they knowingly put children at risk in the process and they seem to have done so as a matter of deliberate policy all over the world.
Allow me to rephrase the point.
The accusation being countered is the behavior of the Church is endemic to them.
It's not. It's endemic to large institutions which deal with children, such as public schools, where the same behavior exists with a similar incidence rate.
This argument needs to be made because the disparity in reportage between the two leads most to arrive at the conclusion this is not the case.
Beautiful! It's kind of a like a really nice Christmas tree ornament!! Jesus is one handsome looking son of a bitch, but I think that Christmas tree ornament thing is way cooler.
I agree with you on this, Chongo.
The Shrine of the Most Blessed Sacrament in Hancevile Alabama. Mother Angelica, foundress of EWTN, is entombed here.
The accusation being countered is the behavior of the Church is endemic to them.
It's not. It's endemic to large institutions which deal with children, such as public schools, where the same behavior exists with a similar incidence rate.
This argument needs to be made because the disparity in reportage between the two leads most to arrive at the conclusion this is not the case.
Top