|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: 2005: Year to De-vangelize the USA |
02 Jan 2005 03:24:20 AM |
|
|
<jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1104652974.040140.270130@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Tock wrote:
This year I'm gonna take it upon myself to bring at least 12 people
back to
their senses . . .
-Tock
What do you intend to do? Find believers who are
minding their own business and take it upon
yourself to advise them that what they believe is
*****?
There's nothing wrong with that, is there?
And then what? What if your conversion
has some negative consequences for the person--or
even seriously negative consequences? Wouldn't you
bear the responsibility for that?
No, people are responsible for their actions.
When Christians evangelize, they have the rationale
that their religion calls upon them to do it. They
readily admit that the foundation of their belief is
faith--the honest ones anyway. How would an atheist
rationalize that same kind and level of certainty-
He wouldn't.
-that
he was right and believers wrong?
Logic, for one thing.
You could only
base it on faith since such certainty can't be justified.
What he wants to show them is that their certainty is not justified.
The alternative is to acknowledge that you aren't
certain. But if you aren't certain then should you really
be evangelizing?
What's wrong with teaching critical thinking skills?
To my mind there is a big difference between attacking
the religious belief of someone who is attacking you
(on religious grounds) or is advocating that religious
doctrine be made into law that will effect you and yous
and actively trying to destroy the religious belief of
someone who isn't doing anything to you.
What if all you want to do is demonstrate to them critical thinking skills
and show how their certainty is not justified?
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: 2005: Year to De-vangelize the USA |
02 Jan 2005 07:29:03 PM |
|
|
Denis Loubet wrote:
<jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1104652974.040140.270130@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Tock wrote:
This year I'm gonna take it upon myself to bring at least 12
people
back to
their senses . . .
-Tock
What do you intend to do? Find believers who are
minding their own business and take it upon
yourself to advise them that what they believe is
*****?
There's nothing wrong with that, is there?
Isn't there somethi ng wrong with it when Christians
do it in a.a.? Don't you feel that if you wanted to
hear that message you are completely capable of deciding
that for yourself and able to find such a message without
their help? I'm guessing you do. I find it insufferably
condescending to be approached by these people with all
their smug presumptions about me, that I''m going to be
left speechless and fall over the minute they "reveal"
pascals wager or some other dipshit sophistry to me.
And then what? What if your conversion
has some negative consequences for the person--or
even seriously negative consequences? Wouldn't you
bear the responsibility for that?
No, people are responsible for their actions.
There are potentially explosive consequences for the
person renouncing their religion: from family, friends,
the church etc. There are the emotional consequences
for the x-believer too, obviously. For someone to
debunk a beliver and then blythely walk away brings to
mind the anti-abortionists approach to the "unborn," vrs
their "couldn't care less" attitude once the child is born.
In any event I can't believe that you, yourself, wouldn't
feel rather sickly if someone you debunked became
depressed and committed sucide, say. Unlikely, sure, but
such things are emotionally laden and unpredictible.
When Christians evangelize, they have the rationale
that their religion calls upon them to do it. They
readily admit that the foundation of their belief is
fai th--the honest ones anyway. How would an atheist
rationalize that same kind and level of certainty-
He wouldn't.
So he would be honest and say that no, he wasn't certain?
Perhaps, but such admissions are not common around here.
-tha t
he was right and believers wrong?
Logic, for one thing.
You can't disprove the existence of god with certainty
by way of logic any more than you can prove god with
logic. Conclusions logically derived are only as good as
the premises they a re based on. You can do things like
show that presumed attributes are mutually exclusive
but that doesn't prove a god doesn't exist. A god wouldn't
be bound by human definitions of words like omnipotent
(just like animals are not bound by our definition of words
like species).
You could only
base it on faith since such certainty can't be justified.
What he wants to show them is that their certainty is not justified.
Just cast doubt, you mean? I can't see what the
point of that would be. On the other hand, if Tock
approached the believer and told him, up front, that
he wanted to talk to him about atheism and the
believer agreed that would be one thing. I had something
else pictured, perhaps erroneously. Something more along
the lines of the confrontations that go on here.
The alternative is to acknowledge that you aren't
certain. But if you aren't certain then should you really
be evangelizing?
What's wrong with teaching critical thinking skills?
Noth ing at all. And the earlier the better, I say.
To my mind there is a big difference between attacking
the religious belief of someone who is attacking you
(on religious grounds) or is advocating that religious
doctrine be made into law that will effect you and yous
and actively trying to destroy the religious belief of
someone who isn't doing anything to you.
What if all you want to do is demonstrate to them critical thinking
skills
and show how their certainty is not j ustified?
I don't think you can do that by teaching critical thinking.
I think faith might be out of reach. I think it is also
true that many believers are not that certain, at least not
all the time. Thus the constant thrust by churches to
emphisiz e faith and aim to build faith in the membership.
I also keep coming back to the question of why evangalize
believers anyway? It seems to me insufferably elitist and
controling to decide that you know what is best for someone
else and to act on that belief. A very wise statement I try to
live by is: "Don't think your limited experience represents
universal truths." It is easy. too easy, to assume otherwise.
Ciao
a
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tock" |
|
| Title: Re: 2005: Year to De-vangelize the USA |
02 Jan 2005 09:39:30 PM |
|
|
<jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote
Just cast doubt, you mean? I can't see what the
point of that would be. On the other hand, if Tock
approached the believer and told him, up front, that
he wanted to talk to him about atheism and the
believer agreed that would be one thing. I had something
else pictured, perhaps erroneously. Something more along
the lines of the confrontations that go on here.
It's plenty difficult to persuade anyone that there aren't gods & etc, BUT
it is possible to demonstrate that when they say, "The Bible says blah blah
blah," that their Bible is not a reliable source of information.
Of course, some minds are so dull that they are certain that Jesus
preached from the King James version of the Bible, and those people are
better persuaded with two-by-fours applied topically to the scalp. But
some folks, when confronted with spirited debate and well-prepared points,
will succumb to logic and reason. Takes an awful lot of effort, but, it
can be done.
--Tock
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: 2005: Year to De-vangelize the USA |
03 Jan 2005 04:50:02 PM |
|
|
Tock wrote:
<jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote
Just cast doubt, you mean? I can't see what the
point of that would be. On the other hand, if Tock
approached the believer and told him, up front, that
he wanted to talk to him about atheism and the
believer agreed that would be one thing. I had something
else pictured, perhaps erroneously. Something more along
the lines of the confrontations that go on here.
It's plenty difficult to persuade anyone that there aren't gods
Hey, I'm an atheist. Why don't you persuade me of this? That
would be great.
& etc, BUT
it is possible to demonstrate that when they say, "The Bible says
blah blah
blah," that their Bible is not a reliable source of information.
Much would seem to depend on the specific chapter and verse
of the blah blah blah in question.
Of course, some minds are so dull that they are certain that Jesus
preached from the King James version of the Bible, and those people
are
better persuaded with two-by-fours applied topically to the scalp.
But
some folks, when confronted with spirited debate and well-prepared
points,
will succumb to logic and reason.
Do you consider yourself one of those?
Takes an awful lot of effort, but, it
can be done.
Since you despise Christians it doesn't seem logical
to invest so much effort in what some would consider
improving their minds. It might be easier to convert
them to some self destructive cult. Maybe you could
get 'em hooked on drugs or something like that. Given
your previous rationale for all this, it isn't logical to
limit yourself to simply debunking them. You want payback.
If you're going to get down then get down.
--Tock
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: 2005: Year to De-vangelize the USA |
03 Jan 2005 02:48:55 PM |
|
|
<jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1104715743.252081.210270@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Denis Loubet wrote:
<jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1104652974.040140.270130@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Tock wrote:
This year I'm gonna take it upon myself to bring at least 12
people
back to
their senses . . .
-Tock
What do you intend to do? Find believers who are
minding their own business and take it upon
yourself to advise them that what they believe is
*****?
There's nothing wrong with that, is there?
Isn't there somethi ng wrong with it when Christians
do it in a.a.?
No, not at all. If their evidence is strong and their arguments are sound,
we'll listen.
But if they have no evidence, and their arguments are invalid, and they
don't shut up, then we have a problem.
Don't you feel that if you wanted to
hear that message you are completely capable of deciding
that for yourself and able to find such a message without
their help? I'm guessing you do.
No. To date I have not seen any strong evidence nor sound arguments, but I
cannot say with certainty that there won't be some tomorrow.
If a god exists, it is imperative to me that I know. If someone can
demonstrate its existence, then I will have to agree that it exists.
I find it insufferably
condescending to be approached by these people with all
their smug presumptions about me, that I''m going to be
left speechless and fall over the minute they "reveal"
pascals wager or some other dipshit sophistry to me.
I agree.
And then what? What if your conversion
has some negative consequences for the person--or
even seriously negative consequences? Wouldn't you
bear the responsibility for that?
No, people are responsible for their actions.
There are potentially explosive consequences for the
person renouncing their religion: from family, friends,
the church etc.
So?
There are the emotional consequences
for the x-believer too, obviously. For someone to
debunk a beliver and then blythely walk away brings to
mind the anti-abortionists approach to the "unborn," vrs
their "couldn't care less" attitude once the child is born.
They're adults. Do you think they are children, and that you know better
what they should hear and not hear?
In any event I can't believe that you, yourself, wouldn't
feel rather sickly if someone you debunked became
depressed and committed sucide, say.
It would be their choice.
Unlikely, sure, but
such things are emotionally laden and unpredictible.
It is irresponsible to watch those around you wallow in what you believe to
be ignorance when you can do something about it.
I don't think you realize that you are argueing that certain people should
be kept ignorant. Is that really what you're saying?
When Christians evangelize, they have the rationale
that their religion calls upon them to do it. They
readily admit that the foundation of their belief is
fai th--the honest ones anyway. How would an atheist
rationalize that same kind and level of certainty-
He wouldn't.
So he would be honest and say that no, he wasn't certain?
Yes, if the atheist was honest.
Perhaps, but such admissions are not common around here.
Really? How long have you lurked here?
-tha t
he was right and believers wrong?
Logic, for one thing.
You can't disprove the existence of god with certainty
by way of logic any more than you can prove god with
logic.
Thus, since it cannot be proved, belief in god is - by definition -
unjustified.
Conclusions logically derived are only as good as
the premises they a re based on. You can do things like
show that presumed attributes are mutually exclusive
but that doesn't prove a god doesn't exist. A god wouldn't
be bound by human definitions of words like omnipotent
(just like animals are not bound by our definition of words
like species).
Irrelevant. If the belief is not arrived at via reason, then it is - by
definition - irrational.
You could only
base it on faith since such certainty can't be justified.
What he wants to show them is that their certainty is not justified.
Just cast doubt, you mean?
Well, it's certainly a start, isn't it?
I can't see what the
point of that would be.
The first step on the way to atheism, hopefully.
On the other hand, if Tock
approached the believer and told him, up front, that
he wanted to talk to him about atheism and the
believer agreed that would be one thing. I had something
else pictured, perhaps erroneously. Something more along
the lines of the confrontations that go on here.
What, you mean where Christians deliberately come here to confront us? I
fail to see the difference. They certainly know they're talking to atheists
about atheism.
The alternative is to acknowledge that you aren't
certain. But if you aren't certain then should you really
be evangelizing?
What's wrong with teaching critical thinking skills?
Noth ing at all. And the earlier the better, I say.
Then why are we having an argument?
To my mind there is a big difference between attacking
the religious belief of someone who is attacking you
(on religious grounds) or is advocating that religious
doctrine be made into law that will effect you and yous
and actively trying to destroy the religious belief of
someone who isn't doing anything to you.
What if all you want to do is demonstrate to them critical thinking
skills
and show how their certainty is not j ustified?
I don't think you can do that by teaching critical thinking.
Why not?
I think faith might be out of reach.
There are many atheists here in aa that used to be theists. The descriptions
of their de-conversions often include the role of critical thinking as a
major influence.
I think it is also
true that many believers are not that certain, at least not
all the time.
And when they are uncertain, what do they do? They talk to their pastor, or
priest, or religious family member, all of whom seek to eliminate any doubts
and keep them within the cult.
The presence of an atheist would provide an alternative.
Thus the constant thrust by churches to
emphisiz e faith and aim to build faith in the membership.
Yes, which I view as evil because it restricts alternatives.
I also keep coming back to the question of why evangalize
believers anyway?
To provide an alternative. To strive to right what one thinks is a wrong. To
promote understanding.
It seems to me insufferably elitist and
controling to decide that you know what is best for someone
else and to act on that belief.
It seems insufferably elitist to think that an adult should not be allowed
to choose between alternatives. Evangelizing atheism is not control, it is
merely the presentation of an alternative.
You are arguing that there are people who are not capable of making a choice
between alternatives, and that we should treat them as if they are inferior
and not confuse them with choices.
A very wise statement I try to
live by is: "Don't think your limited experience represents
universal truths." It is easy. too easy, to assume otherwise.
And mine is "Give me all the alternatives, I can handle it."
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: 2005: Year to De-vangelize the USA |
02 Jan 2005 07:39:46 AM |
|
|
On 2 Jan 2005 00:02:54 -0800, wrote:
Tock wrote:
This year I'm gonna take it upon myself to bring at least 12 people
back to
their senses . . .
-Tock
What do you intend to do? Find believers who are
minding their own business and take it upon
yourself to advise them that what they believe is
*****?
No worries, there are more than enough believers who *do not* mind
their own business.
And then what? What if your conversion
has some negative consequences for the person--or
even seriously negative consequences? Wouldn't you
bear the responsibility for that?
So, it would be better to let someone addicted to intoxicating
substances continue as is rather than try to help them, because
something bad might happen if they kick their habit?
Sometimes reality sucks.
When Christians evangelize, they have the rationale
that their religion calls upon them to do it. They
readily admit that the foundation of their belief is
faith--the honest ones anyway. How would an atheist
rationalize that same kind and level of certainty--that
he was right and believers wrong? You could only
base it on faith since such certainty can't be justified.
The alternative is to acknowledge that you aren't
certain. But if you aren't certain then should you really
be evangelizing?
So, it's okay if they buzz around in our faces, tell us we are wrong
and tell us we are going to hell...because they have faith and a book
of stories fabricated by ancient goathearders that compels them
to...and we should just listen...because we don't. Check!
To my mind there is a big difference between attacking
the religious belief of someone who is attacking you
(on religious grounds) or is advocating that religious
doctrine be made into law that will effect you and yous
and actively trying to destroy the religious belief of
someone who isn't doing anything to you.
Personally, I've never knocked on someone's door to preach the joys of
atheism. I've never stood on a street corner handing out pamphlets or
shouting at the top of my lungs "Have you rejected Jesus Christ as
your personal savior?" I've never included little phrases promoting my
agenda with my greetings e.g. "Have a nice day! Just remember Jesus
doesn't exist!" I've never expected my neighbors to pay more in
property taxes because I preach atheism so I should be tax exempt.
I've never seen entire atheist television networks devoted to begging
for money to promote atheism in my community, or to third world
countries. I don't ask friends an family to bow their heads before
meals so that I can say a few words about atheism.
No, if there's one thing that the "faithful" DON'T do, at least in the
US, is "mind their own business." If they did, I'd have no problem
letting them waste their lives on whatever they wanted to believe.
(For example, I don't have any particular problem with buddhists,
taoists, hindus etc...'cos they leave me alone!)
n
--
zamboni #2139
BAAWA Assistant to the Vice-Administrator of Malevolence
EAC Tertiary Adjunct to the Dispenser of Obfuscation.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: 2005: Year to De-vangelize the USA |
02 Jan 2005 08:32:16 PM |
|
|
wrote:
On 2 Jan 2005 00:02:54 -0800, wrote:
Tock wrote:
This year I'm gonna take it upon myself to bring at least 12
people
back to
their senses . . .
-Tock
What do you intend to do? Find believers who are
minding their own business and take it upon
yourself to advise them that what they believe is
*****?
No worries, there are more than enough believers who *do not* mind
their own business.
But these are not exactly hot prospects for conversion, unfortunately.
Besides who would want those pecker-heads to be on our side?
And then what? What if your conversion
has some negative consequences for the person--or
even seriously negative consequences? Wouldn't you
bear the responsibility for that?
So, it would be better to let someone addicted to intoxicating
substances continue as is rather than try to help them, because
something bad might happen if they kick their habit?
This is an appealing analogy, in the context of
what goes on in a.a., but not really an analogous
one, I don't think. It is the concept of somone taking
it upon himself to make that decision for someone
else that I find distasteful. Who the hell am I to decide
not only that your beliefs are wrong but that I should
do something about it?
When Christians evangelize, they have the rationale
that their religion calls upon them to do it. They
readily admit that the foundation of their belief is
faith--the honest ones anyway. How would an atheist
rationalize that same kind and level of certainty--that
he was right and believers wrong? You could only
base it on faith since such certainty can't be justified.
The alternative is to acknowledge that you aren't
certain. But if you aren't certain then should you really
be evangelizing?
So, it's okay if they buzz around in our faces, tell us we are wrong
and tell us we are going to hell...because they have faith and a book
of stories fabricated by ancient goathearders that compels them
to...and we should just listen...because we don't. Check!
When they come specifically to alt.atheism--or your front door,
or they are in the public arena advocating laws that impact us, or
attacking us, then it is a different ball game entirely, as I see it.
Then it is self defense.
To my mind there is a big difference between attacking
the religious belief of someone who is attacking you
(on religious grounds) or is advocating that religious
doctrine be made into law that will effect you and yous
and actively trying to destroy the religious belief of
someone who isn't doing anything to you.
Personally, I've never knocked on someone's door to preach the joys
of
atheism.
Exactly.
I've never stood on a street corner handing out pamphlets or
shouting at the top of my lungs "Have you rejected Jesus Christ as
your personal savior?"
It would be a nice change of pace but still wierd
I've never included little phrases promoting my
agenda with my greetings e.g. "Have a nice day! Just remember Jesus
doesn't exist!"
LOL. Thank god.
I've never expected my neighbors to pay more in
property taxes because I preach atheism so I should be tax e xempt.
I've never seen entire atheist television networks devoted to begging
for money to promote atheism in my community, or to third world
countries. I don't ask friends an family to bow their heads before
meals so that I can say a few words about atheism.
No, if there's one thing that the "faithful" DON'T do, at least in
the
US, is "mind their own business."
And that is the last thing we need to do.
If they did, I'd have no problem
letting them waste their lives on whatever they wanted to believe.
Amen. And if it also happens to make them better
people than what they were before, then I say more
power to them. Live and let live. But if they want to
get in my face then they are going to be in for a big
surprise and I wouldn't have a nano-seconds worth of
regret behind it either.
(For example, I don't have any particular problem with buddhists,
taoists, hindus etc...'cos they leave me alone!)
Can I get an amen for the brother?
n
--
zamboni #2139
BAAWA Assistant to the Vice-Administrator of Malevolence
EAC Tertiary Adjunct to the Dispenser of Obfuscation.
..
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tock" |
|
| Title: Re: 2005: Year to De-vangelize the USA |
02 Jan 2005 09:29:57 PM |
|
|
<jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote
But these are not exactly hot prospects for conversion, unfortunately.
Besides who would want those pecker-heads to be on our side?
Neutralized is enough . . . besides, I can use 'em to perfect my
de-vangelizing technique . . .
-Tock
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: 2005: Year to De-vangelize the USA |
03 Jan 2005 04:25:18 PM |
|
|
Tock wrote:
<jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote
But these are not exactly hot prospects for conversion,
unfortunately.
Besides who would want those pecker-heads to be on our side?
Neutralized is enough . . . besides, I can use 'em to perfect my
de-vangelizing technique . . .
Give us a demonstration of how you intend to de-vangelize--
whatever that means, exactly.
-Tock
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tock" |
|
| Title: Re: 2005: Year to De-vangelize the USA |
02 Jan 2005 09:27:47 PM |
|
|
On 2 Jan 2005 00:02:54 -0800, wrote:
Tock wrote:
This year I'm gonna take it upon myself to bring at least 12 people
back to
their senses . . .
-Tock
What do you intend to do? Find believers who are
minding their own business and take it upon
yourself to advise them that what they believe is
*****?
It's difficult to find Christians who mind their own business. Speaking as
a gay person who can't marry the person of my choice BECAUSE of Christians
and their bible, when THEIR religion interferes with MY FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS,
it's up to me to do something about it. The way I see it, I could either
apply a stout two by four to their skull, or I could let them endure a bit
more pain and anguish, and plant some seeds of doubt in their minds, and let
those doubts crawl about and grow inside their brains like worms . . .
And then what? What if your conversion
has some negative consequences for the person--or
even seriously negative consequences? Wouldn't you
bear the responsibility for that?
Tough luck for them.
They don't give a rat's ***** what damage they do to anyone else, so if they
can't handle a few honest thoughts, screw 'em.
When Christians evangelize, they have the rationale
that their religion calls upon them to do it.
Nope, they only think they do.
And it's not so much "evangelizing" as it is shoving their dogma down
people's throats, and all too often at taxpayer expense.
To my mind there is a big difference between attacking
the religious belief of someone who is attacking you
(on religious grounds) or is advocating that religious
doctrine be made into law that will effect you and yous
and actively trying to destroy the religious belief of
someone who isn't doing anything to you.
Maybe they aren't doing anything to you. But I'm gay, and they sure are
doing things to me. Lying, misrepresenting, picketing, legislating against
me . . . some states have constitutional amendments outlawing "un-christian"
practices, and if they have their way, they'll amend the US Constitution to
deny gays the same rights everyone else takes for granted.
Screw 'em all.
-Tock
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: 2005: Year to De-vangelize the USA |
03 Jan 2005 04:21:30 PM |
|
|
Tock wrote:
On 2 Jan 2005 00:02:54 -0800, wrote:
Tock wrote:
This year I'm gonna take it upon myself to bring at least 12
people
back to
their senses . . .
-Tock
What do you intend to do? Find believers who are
minding their own business and take it upon
yourself to advise them that what they believe is
*****?
It's difficult to find Christians who mind their own business.
Maybe because they mind their own busine ss? Ya think?
Speaking as
a gay person who can't marry the person of my choice BECAUSE of
Christians
and their bible, when THEIR religion interferes with MY FUNDAMENTAL
RIGHTS,
it's up to me to do something about it.
And you think that "c onverting" Christians will mean
they will no longer oppose gay marriage? Don't count on it.
The way I see it, I could either
apply a stout two by four to their skull, or I could let them endure
a bit
more pain and anguish, and plant some seeds of doubt in their minds,
and let
those doubts crawl about and grow inside their brains like worms . .
..
Isn't assuming that Christians are collectively
responsible for this, somewhat akin to assuming
that gays are responsible for AIDs or Jews
responsible for killing "Christ?"
And then what? What if your conversion
has some n egative consequences for the person--or
even seriously negative consequences? Wouldn't you
bear the responsibility for that?
Tough luck for them.
So you have dropped any pretense of intending to convert
them for their own good? You intend to use atheism
like a weapon to attack them with. Is that it?
They don't give a rat's ***** what damage they do to anyone else,
"They" don't? I would have th ought you'd be more
sensitive to the unfairness of blanket preconceptions having
surely been a victim of it yourself. Anyway, even if true .
what you are proposing is to not give a rats ***** yourself what
damage you do to anyone else
so if they
can't handle a few honest thoughts, screw 'em.
A few honest thoughts like what?
When Christians evangelize, they have the rationale
that their religion calls upon them to do it.
Nope, they only think they do.
What are you talking abou t? Do you think Mormons,
for instance, only imagine that their religion calls
on them to do missionary work?
And it's not so much "evangelizing" as it is shoving their dogma down
people's throats
But you seem to think this is a good idea! I mea n
isn't this what you intend to do yourself? You say
" so if they can't handle a few honest thoughts,
screw 'em" Maybe that's how they rationalize what
they do. You have a choice to make here. The rule
is that you can either seek their level and mir ror their
behavior or you can stand in opposition to it on the
moral high ground. But you can't do both.
Do whatever you want but personally I would rather
shoot myself then become the mirror image of the worst
of them. Even if something could be g ained by it.
I'd have to think that maybe I never was any better
than them. I only thought I was. No thnaks.
To my mind there is a big difference between attacking
the religious belief of someone who is attacking you
(on religious grounds) or is advocating that religious
doctrine be made into law that will effect you and yous
and actively trying to destroy the religious belief of
someone who isn't doing anything to you.
Maybe they aren't doing anything to you.
But I'm gay, and they sure are
doing things to me.
I'm sure that fundies see themselves as individuals
and lump all gays together --in a mirror image
of what you do.
Lying, misrepresenting, picketing, legislating against
me . . .
And Christi ans share a collective guilt for this
in your mind. And for this you wish to seek some
individual revenge, if not the "stout two by four to
their skull," kind then the " I could let them endure
a bit more pain and anguish,and plant some seeds of
doub t in their minds, and let those doubts crawl about
and grow inside their brains like worms . . ." kind.
some states have constitutional amendments outlawing "un-christian"
practices,
By all means, fill me in on this.
and if they have their way, they'll amend the US Constitution to
deny gays the same rights everyone else takes for granted.
It will never happen. Do you know how many times
they have tried to get something as simple as God,
Christianity, and Jesus mentioned in the
Constitu tiuon? But regardless, I get the impression
that your intense prejudice against Christians isn't
due to opposition to gay marriage. I get the impression
that if gay marriage was lawful tomorrow, your
attitude toward Christians wouldn't change much, i f
at all. But it is just an impression.
Screw 'em all.
Well if you are really set on being no better than the
worst of them then I suggest you start by going after
their kids. They will be easier targets. ***** with their
heads and you ***** with t heir parents heads. (If you
think this is a good idea then I'm sure you would have
thought of it yourself sooner or later) And you are
being inconsistent by ignoring Jews. You need to go
aftter them too. The possibilities and opportunites for
revenge are endless if you are willing to become a
mirror image of what you hate.
Oh wait. How about atheists who oppose gay marriage?
Hmmmmm. Probably not, huh. That's different. =B5
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: 2005: Year to De-vangelize the USA |
03 Jan 2005 06:00:13 PM |
|
|
On 3 Jan 2005 14:21:30 -0800, said in
alt.atheism:
Isn't assuming that Christians are collectively
responsible for this, somewhat akin to assuming
that gays are responsible for AIDs or Jews
responsible for killing "Christ?"
No, since Christians ARE responsible for not allowing gays to marry.
Saying that a whole group is collectively responsible isn't wrong when
they are.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: 2005: Year to De-vangelize the USA |
05 Jan 2005 01:23:33 AM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On 3 Jan 2005 14:21:30 -0800, said in
alt.atheism:
Isn't assuming that Christians are collectively
responsible for this, somewhat akin to assuming
that gays are responsible for AIDs or Jews
responsible for killing "Christ?"
No, since Christians ARE responsible for not allowing gays to marry.
How are Christians collectively responsible for this?
Saying that a whole group is collectively responsible isn't wrong
when
they are.
For example.
.
|
|
|
| User: "XeNO" |
|
| Title: Re: 2005: Year to De-vangelize the USA |
05 Jan 2005 03:51:32 AM |
|
|
<> wrote in message
news:1104909813.747052.210190@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Al Klein wrote:
On 3 Jan 2005 14:21:30 -0800, said in
alt.atheism:
Isn't assuming that Christians are collectively
responsible for this, somewhat akin to assuming
that gays are responsible for AIDs or Jews
responsible for killing "Christ?"
No, since Christians ARE responsible for not allowing gays to marry.
How are Christians collectively responsible for this?
Well, in the United States, they just happen to make up the majority of
anti-gay hate groups.
Being gay is a choice, not a birthright, remember?
--
"For nothing is more destructive of respect for the government and the law
of the land than passing laws which cannot be enforced. It is an open secret
that the dangerous increase of crime in this country is closely connected
with this. "--Albert Einstein
XeNO
Order of the 8th dIgIt
aa# 1901
In order to email me privately, you must remove god from my email address,
and follow the links to get past my spam sheild.
Saying that a whole group is collectively responsible isn't wrong
when
they are.
For example.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: 2005: Year to De-vangelize the USA |
05 Jan 2005 10:36:11 AM |
|
|
XeNO wrote:
< > wrote in message
news:1104909813.747052.210190@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Al Klein wrote:
On 3 Jan 2005 14:21:30 -0800, said in
alt.atheism:
Isn't assuming tha t Christians are collectively
responsible for this, somewhat akin to assuming
that gays are responsible for AIDs or Jews
responsible for killing "Christ?"
No, since Christians ARE responsible for not allowing gays to
marry.
How are Christians collectively responsible for this?
Well, in the United States, they just happen to make up the majority
of
anti-gay hate groups.
Then you would have to also believe that
atheists are collectively responsible for
communism and thus the millions killed by
Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, et al. I don't think
either conclusion is justified
Being gay is a choice, not a birthright, remember?
Being gay is a birthright?
--
"For nothing is more des tructive of respect for the government and
the law
of the land than passing laws which cannot be enforced. It is an open
secret
that the dangerous increase of crime in this country is closely
connected
with this. "--Albert Einstein
XeNO
Order of the 8th dIgIt
aa# 1901
In order to email me privately, you must remove god from my email
address,
and follow the links to get past my spam sheild.
Saying that a whole group is collectively responsible isn't wrong
when
they are.
For example.
.
|
|
|
| User: "XeNO" |
|
| Title: Re: 2005: Year to De-vangelize the USA |
05 Jan 2005 02:02:53 PM |
|
|
<> wrote in message
news:1104942971.087227.315250@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
XeNO wrote:
< > wrote in message
news:1104909813.747052.210190@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Al Klein wrote:
On 3 Jan 2005 14:21:30 -0800, said in
alt.atheism:
Isn't assuming tha t Christians are collectively
responsible for this, somewhat akin to assuming
that gays are responsible for AIDs or Jews
responsible for killing "Christ?"
No, since Christians ARE responsible for not allowing gays to
marry.
How are Christians collectively responsible for this?
Well, in the United States, they just happen to make up the majority
of
anti-gay hate groups.
Then you would have to also believe that
atheists are collectively responsible for
communism and thus the millions killed by
Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, et al. I don't think
either conclusion is justified
No, I would not have to believe that. The main justification for anti-gay
activity in the United States is based on bible verses that state "a man
lying with a man as he would a woman is an abomination."
Preaching OT virtues like that is what pushes anti-gay sentiment in this
country.
Communism was responsible for establishing an "atheist" state in Russia.
"atheist" because the russian orthodoxy still practiced secretly. It was
made an "atheist" stated because the biggest threat to the government was
religion. You also forget however that the first target in stalin russia
was the educated--meaning xians and non xians alike.
Being gay is a choice, not a birthright, remember?
Being gay is a birthright?
Well, its certainly not a choice!
--
"For nothing is more destructive of respect for the government and the law
of the land than passing laws which cannot be enforced. It is an open secret
that the dangerous increase of crime in this country is closely connected
with this. "--Albert Einstein
XeNO
Order of the 8th dIgIt
aa# 1901
In order to email me privately, you must remove god from my email address,
and follow the links to get past my spam sheild.
--
"For nothing is more des tructive of respect for the government and
the law
of the land than passing laws which cannot be enforced. It is an open
secret
that the dangerous increase of crime in this country is closely
connected
with this. "--Albert Einstein
XeNO
Order of the 8th dIgIt
aa# 1901
In order to email me privately, you must remove god from my email
address,
and follow the links to get past my spam sheild.
Saying that a whole group is collectively responsible isn't wrong
when
they are.
For example.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: 2005: Year to De-vangelize the USA |
05 Jan 2005 05:10:39 PM |
|
|
XeNO wrote:
< > wrote in message
news:1104942971.087227.315250@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
XeNO wrote:
< > wrote in message
news:1104909813.747052.210190@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Al Klein wrote:
On 3 Jan 2005 14:21:30 -0800, said in
alt.atheism:
Isn't assuming tha t Christians are collectively
responsible for this, somewhat akin to assuming
that gay s are responsible for AIDs or Jews
responsible for killing "Christ?"
No, since Christians ARE responsible for not allowing gays to
marry.
How are Christians collectively responsible for this?
Well, in the United States, they just happen to make up the
majority of
anti-gay hate groups.
Then you would have to also believe that
atheists are collectively responsible for
communism and thus the millions killed by
Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, et al. I don't think
either conclusion is justified
No, I would not have to believe that. The main justification for
anti-gay
activity in the United States is based on bible verses that state "a
man
lying with a man as he would a woma n is an abomination."
LKikewise it could be postulated that
atheism is the main justification for
communism. The argument could be that it
is a necessary condition of communism Notice
that Christianity isn't a necessary condition for
opposition to gay marriage. In many cases,
it isn't even a sufficient one.
Preaching OT virtues like that is what pushes anti-gay sentiment in
this
country.
Are you sure it isn't anti-gay sentiment that's
pushing the preaching OT virtues?
Determining cause and effect regards social
conditions can be hard to do--and even harder to
prove. Regardless, even if this was _the_
thing pushing anti-gay sentiment, that would
not show that Christians are *collectively*
responsible for not allowing gays to marry.
We are responsible for what we do.
Anyway, I think anti gay sentiment is pre-
existing. I mean I don't believe that people are
anti-gay because the Bible allegedly condemns
homosexual acts. If that was the case those same
people would also be against people wearing
mixed linen marrying--and they arent!
Communism was responsible for establishing an "atheist" state in
Russia.
"atheist" because the russian orthodoxy still practiced secret ly.
It was
made an "atheist" stated because the biggest threat to the government
was
religion. You also forget however that the first target in stalin
russia
was the educated--meaning xians and non xians alike.
We can come up with lots of reasons why the:
"atheist is responsible for communist tyranny" claim
doesn't have legs. But none of them matter IF the
criteria is the same as it is for the presumed collective
Christian guilt for the inability of gays to marry, i.e.:
that it is mostly christians in anti-gay groups / that
it is mostly atheists in communist groups-- then the
above is true _by definition_.
Being gay is a choic e, not a birthright, remember?
Being gay is a birthright?
Well, its certainly not a choice!
It seemed like an odd juxtaposition of words
to me.
o
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: 2005: Year to De-vangelize the USA |
06 Jan 2005 11:05:21 AM |
|
|
On 5 Jan 2005 15:10:39 -0800, said in
alt.atheism:
LKikewise it could be postulated that
atheism is the main justification for
communism.
It could be postulated that Jell-O is.
The argument could be that it
is a necessary condition of communism
Faulty arguments are worthless.
Notice that Christianity isn't a necessary condition for
opposition to gay marriage.
Opposition to homosexuality is part and parcel of Christianity.
Communism isn't part and parcel of atheism. Atheism isn't part and
parcel of communism (or Communism).
Anyway, I think anti gay sentiment is pre-
existing. I mean I don't believe that people are
anti-gay because the Bible allegedly condemns
homosexual acts. If that was the case those same
people would also be against people wearing
mixed linen marrying--and they arent!
Because Christians don't believe that rules they consider silly
pertain to them.
We can come up with lots of reasons why the:
"atheist is responsible for communist tyranny" claim
doesn't have legs. But none of them matter IF the
criteria is the same as it is for the presumed collective
Christian guilt for the inability of gays to marry, i.e.:
that it is mostly christians in anti-gay groups / that
it is mostly atheists in communist groups--
It's not. Either one.
--
"If anyone comes to me, and does not hate his father, mother, wife, brothers, and sisters and even himself, he cannot be my disciple."
Luke 14:26
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: 2005: Year to De-vangelize the USA |
07 Jan 2005 02:33:53 AM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On 5 Jan 2005 15:10:39 -0800, said in
alt.atheism:
LKikewise it could be postulated that
atheism is the main justification for
communism.
It could be postulated that Jell-O is.
The argument could be that it
is a necessary condition of communism
Faulty arguments are worthless.
Notice that Christianity isn't a necessary condition for
opposition to gay marriage.
Opposition to homosexuality is part and parcel of Christian ity.
Communism isn't part and parcel of atheism. Atheism isn't part and
parcel of communism (or Communism).
Anyway, I think anti gay sentiment is pre-
existing. I mean I don't believe that people are
anti-gay because the Bible allegedly c ondemns
homosexual acts. If that was the case those same
people would also be against people wearing
mixed linen marrying--and they arent!
Because Christians don't believe that rules they consider silly
pertain to them.
We can come u p with lots of reasons why the:
"atheist is responsible for communist tyranny" claim
doesn't have legs. But none of them matter IF the
criteria is the same as it is for the presumed collective
Christian guilt for the inability of gays to marr y, i.e.:
that it is mostly christians in anti-gay groups / that
it is mostly atheists in communist groups--
It's not. Either one.
Fascinating:
It could be postulated that Jell-O is.
Faulty arguments are worthless.
Opposition to homosexuality is part and parcel of Christianity.
Communism isn't part and parcel of atheism. Atheism isn't part and
parcel of communism (or Communism).
Because Christians don't believe that rules they consider silly
pertain to them.
It's not. Either one.
------------------
I don't see anything in the above that looks like an
argument. And yet I assume that the above was intended
to refute my actual arguments/persuade me of the error
of my ways. Is that because you are typically persuaded
by blank as sertion yourself? One would think not since
you have on occasion remarked upon some believers
argument-free posting being argument-free. So I have to
wonder what the point was.
a_
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: 2005: Year to De-vangelize the USA |
05 Jan 2005 02:44:45 PM |
|
|
On 5 Jan 2005 08:36:11 -0800, said in
alt.atheism:
XeNO wrote:
Well, in the United States, they just happen to make up the majority of
anti-gay hate groups.
Then you would have to also believe that
atheists are collectively responsible for
communism
Care to post the logical train of thought that leads to that
conclusion? Murder is NOT a tenet of lack of theism. In fact,
there's NO tenet to a lack of belief other than the lack of belief.
Being gay is a choice, not a birthright, remember?
Being gay is a birthright?
It's there by birth. Don't conflate having homosexual sex, a choice,
with being homosexual, no more a choice than is being heterosexual.
(If being homosexual were a choice then any heterosexual is capable of
choosing to be homosexual - since "homosexuality is a choice" is
saying that one's sexual preference is a choice. And we know that's
not so.)
--
"...I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do.
When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand
why I dismiss yours."
- Stephen F. Roberts
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: 2005: Year to De-vangelize the USA |
06 Jan 2005 07:33:01 AM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On 5 Jan 2005 08:36:11 -0800, said in
alt.atheism:
XeNO wrote:
Well, in the United States, they just happen to make up the
majority of
anti-gay hate groups.
Then you would have to also bel ieve that
atheists are collectively responsible for
communism
Care to post the logical train of thought that leads to that
conclusion?
Sure, though I already have.
"Isn't assuming that Christians are collectively
responsible for this, somewhat akin to assuming
that gays are responsible for AIDs or Jews
responsible for killing'"Christ?'"
"No, since Christians ARE responsible for not allowing gays to
marry."
"How are Christians collectively responsible for this?"
"Well, in the United States, they just happen to make up the majority
of
anti-gay hate groups."
----
Note: the claim is that Christians are collectively
responsible because they (allegedly) make up the
majority of the membership in anti-gay hate groups.
_That_ is the proposed criterion for a group being
collectively responsible. *_If_* so, then the only
question is: do atheists make up the majority of
the membership in the communist parties, past
and present?
Murder is NOT a tenet of lack of theism.
Tenets are not part of the criterion for collective guilt
that was suggested here.
In fact,
there's NO tenet to a lack of belief other than the lack of belief.
So you think I'm not really arguing against any
kind of collective responsibility here but instead
am advocating it for atheists?
Being gay is a choice, not a birthright, remember?
Being gay is a birthright?
It's there by birth. Don't conflate having homosexual sex, a choice,
with being homosexual, no more a choice than is being heterosexual.
How did you infer I was doing this from my
question?
(If being homosexual were a choice then any heterosexual is capable
of
choosing to be homosexual - since "homosexuality is a choice" is
saying that one's sexual preference is a choice. And we know that's
not so.)
--
"...I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer
god than you do.
When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you
will understand
why I dismiss yours."
- Stephen F. Roberts
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: 2005: Year to De-vangelize the USA |
05 Jan 2005 11:26:31 AM |
|
|
On 5 Jan 2005 08:36:11 -0800, wrote:
XeNO wrote:
< > wrote in message
news:1104909813.747052.210190@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Al Klein wrote:
On 3 Jan 2005 14:21:30 -0800, said in
alt.atheism:
Isn't assuming tha t Christians are collectively
responsible for this, somewhat akin to assuming
that gays are responsible for AIDs or Jews
responsible for killing "Christ?"
No, since Christians ARE responsible for not allowing gays to
marry.
How are Christians collectively responsible for this?
Well, in the United States, they just happen to make up the majority
of
anti-gay hate groups.
Then you would have to also believe that
atheists are collectively responsible for
communism and thus the millions killed by
Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, et al. I don't think
The difference is that religion moulds thinking. motivates actions and
justifies bigotry.
Atheism is a non event and does none of these.
either conclusion is justified
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: 2005: Year to De-vangelize the USA |
05 Jan 2005 03:33:47 PM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On 5 Jan 2005 08:36:11 -0800, wrote:
XeNO wrote:
< > wrote in message
news:1104909813.747052.210190@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Al Klein wrote:
On 3 Jan 2005 14:21:30 -0800, said in
alt.atheism:
Isn't assuming that Christians are collectively
responsible for this, somewhat akin to assuming
that gays are responsible for AIDs or J ews
responsible for killing "Christ?"
No, since Christians ARE responsible for not allowing gays to
marry.
How are Christians collectively responsible for this?
Well, in the United States, they just happen to make up the
majority of
anti-gay hate groups.
Then you would have to also believe that
atheists are collectively responsible for
communism and thus the millions killed by
Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, et al. I don't think
either conclusion is justified
The difference is that religion moulds thinking. motivates actions
and
justifies bigotry.
I'm not saying atheism and religion are analogous.
I'm saying that the given criteria--that the majority
of the people in "anti gay hate groups" are
Christian-- does not tender the conclusion that:
Christians are collectively responsible for not
allowing gays to marry.
Atheism is a non event and does none of these.
Right. But if we decide the determining factor is that
the majority of communists were/are atheist, we do.
It's not how many anti-gay bigots are Christian,
but how many Christians are anti-gay bigots.
It's not how many communists are atheist, but
how many atheists are communist.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: 2005: Year to De-vangelize the USA |
06 Jan 2005 11:01:52 AM |
|
|
On 5 Jan 2005 13:33:47 -0800, said in
alt.atheism:
I'm not saying atheism and religion are analogous.
I'm saying that the given criteria--that the majority
of the people in "anti gay hate groups" are
Christian-- does not tender the conclusion that:
Christians are collectively responsible for not
allowing gays to marry.
Christianity is responsible for it. Christians are collectively
responsible for Christianity.
Atheism is a non event and does none of these.
Right. But if we decide the determining factor is that
the majority of communists were/are atheist
Still, atheism, being a non-event, can't be responsible for anything
more than lack of theism.
It's not how many anti-gay bigots are Christian,
but how many Christians are anti-gay bigots.
No, it's how many Christians support a religion that's anti-gay.
--
"Does it ever amaze anyone else how little faith some heterosexuals have
in heterosexuality? It's supposed to be this god-given human instinct
that only the warped and perverted ever stray from; but, it seems, if we
once tell our straight children a message even as mild as "some people
are gay, and that's all right," that'll be enough to send lil' Suzy into
the arms of women forever. It's a wonder the race has survived this
long, really..."
- Charles M Seaton (21 Dec 1994)
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: 2005: Year to De-vangelize the USA |
06 Jan 2005 11:57:56 PM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On 5 Jan 2005 13:33:47 -0800, said
in
alt.atheism:
I'm not saying atheism and religion are analogous.
I'm saying that the given criteria--that the majority
of the people in "anti gay hate groups" are
Christian-- does not tender the conclusion that:
Christians are collectively responsible for not
allowing gays to marry.
Christianity is responsible for it. Christians are collectively
responsible for Christianity.
I explained my position by way of argument. Your
assertion doesn't address that argument nor is it
itself argument.
Regardless, if the above is true one could say
with exactly the same degree of accuracy that
atheists are responsible for atheism and from
there find all sorts of things that atheists are
therefore collectively guilty of.
Look, it's very simple. There is no such thing as
"collective" guilt. If you disagree, if you wish to
blame people--including children and Christian gays-
-for something they obvious ly had nothing to do with,
then it is you who needs to support that extraordinary
claim. Show us the logical chain linking the effect: the
unavailability of gay marriage and your proposed cause:
Mary Jane Smith, 12 year old Christian. The default is
t hat people are only guilty of what they themselves
do, and possibly, at worst, those things they advocate.
Atheism is a non event and does none of these.
Right. But if we decide the determining factor is that
the majority of communist s were/are atheist it does.
Still, atheism, being a non-event, can't be responsible
for anything
more than lack of theism.
Note the words: "determining factor" in the following:
But if we decide the determining factor is that
the majority of com munists were/are atheist, it does.
And how is atheism a non-event while presumably
Christianity is an "event"? My dictionary says
that an event is 1. a. Something that takes
place. Christianity takes place but atheism
doesn't?
Furthermore, not ev eryone one agrees with your
definition of atheism being nothing more than a
lack of theism. Atheists disagree with you, and
me, on this. Chris Baba for one.
But even if it is, that only speaks to one kind
of atheism: implicit or weak atheism.
And finally what makes you think that a lack of
some belief can't be a cause of something else?
This--the above-- is the can of worms you open
up by wishing to pin a collective guilt on Christians, a
concept that you don't seem to apply to any other grou p.
It's not how many anti-gay bigots are Christian,
but how many Christians are anti-gay bigots.
No, it's how many Christians support a religion that's
anti-gay.
How does this bear on my argument that, the
hypothetical fact that the majorit y of the people
in "anti gay hate groups" are Christian does not
mean that Christians, collectively, are to blame
for gays inability to marry?
Beyond that, I point out again that you have yet
to shown any cause and effect linkage between all
Christians and the lack of gay marriage.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: 2005: Year to De-vangelize the USA |
05 Jan 2005 02:40:46 PM |
|
|
On 4 Jan 2005 23:23:33 -0800, said in
alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
On 3 Jan 2005 14:21:30 -0800, said in
alt.atheism:
Isn't assuming that Christians are collectively
responsible for this, somewhat akin to assuming
that gays are responsible for AIDs or Jews
responsible for killing "Christ?"
No, since Christians ARE responsible for not allowing gays to marry.
How are Christians collectively responsible for this?
Christianity, as a religion, condemns homosexuality. (It's bible
doesn't - that book condemns homosexual acts - kinda-sorta.)
Therefore Christianity, as a religion, is responsible for not allowing
gays to marry in the US. (There's no other logical reason. Oh, wait
- there's no logical reason.)
Saying that a whole group is collectively responsible isn't wrong when
they are.
For example.
When all of Christianity condemns homosexuality. Point me to a
Christian web site advocating allowing homosexuals to marry. Or a
doctrinal paper.
--
"I received your letter of June 10th. I have never talked to a Jesuit
priest in my life and I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies
about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and
have always been an atheist."
- Albert Einstein to Guy H. Raner Jr, July 2, 1945,
responding to a rumor that a Jesuit priest had caused Einstein
to convert from atheism. Article by Michael R. Gilmore in Skeptic
magazine, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1997
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: 2005: Year to De-vangelize the USA |
06 Jan 2005 07:08:19 AM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On 4 Jan 2005 23:23:33 -0800, said in
alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
On 3 Jan 2005 14:21:30 -0800, said in
alt.atheism:
Isn't assuming that Christians are collectively
responsible for this, somewhat akin to assuming
that gays are responsible for AIDs or Jews
responsible for killing "Christ?"
No, since Christians ARE responsible for not allowing gays to
marry.
How are Christians collectivel y responsible for this?
Christianity, as a religion, condemns homosexuality.
(It's bible
doesn't - that book condemns homosexual acts - kinda-sorta.)
You have a sharp eye. I have an interview with
Daniel A. Helminiak, assistant professor of
psychology at West Georgia College (he also
holds a Ph.D. in systematic theology from
Andover Newton Theological School and
Boston College and a Ph.D. in educational
psychology from the University of Texas at
Austin) and a Roman Catholic priest from
1967 to 1995, who is the author of several books
including "What the Bible Really Says
About Homosexuality" and who disputes
even the " kinda-sorta" part.
Therefore Christianity, as a religion, is responsible for not
allowing
gays to marry in the U S.
Maybe, but that doesn't make Christians collectively
responsible for it.
(There's no other logical reason. Oh, wait
- there's no logical reason.)
Both of the major party candidates opposed
gay marriage. So are all Americans responsible-
-or even just those who voted for Bush or Kerry?
Saying that a whole group is collectively responsible isn't wrong
when
they are.
For example.
When all of Christianity condemns homosexuality.
Does it? They (sects) can't ALL be clueless about what
the Bible doesn't say.
Point me to a
Christian web site advocating allowing homosexuals to marry. Or a
doctrinal paper.
Isn't that shifting the burden of proof? I mean
my only claim is that Christians do not
collectively share the guilt because gays can't
get married. I don't think any group, arbitarily
circumscribed by some criterion ("Christians,"
"engineers," "atheists" "people over 50")
share a collective guilt for what some--or
even most--members of the group have done.
People are responsible for their own acts, or
for what they themselves advocate. I know,
personally, Christians who don't oppose gay
marriage. Are they responsible anyway? I don't
think so.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Clayton Shot J.R.!" |
|
| Title: Re: 2005: Year to De-vangelize the USA |
02 Jan 2005 04:27:43 PM |
|
|
news:1104652974.040140.270130@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Tock wrote:
This year I'm gonna take it upon myself to bring at least 12 people
back to
their senses . . .
-Tock
Then to follow up you're going to get k.d.lang to start eating meat!
Ignorance is bliss...and the U.S.A is rolling around in fits of orgasmic
delight!!!
.
|
|
|
|
