The tragedy of religious conservatism

[Bullypulpit]

I'm sorry, but I've got to hit the "Bullshit" button on this one.

The Jews are the only people who see themselves as "Chosen" and they have a biblical basis for that claim. Whether that is still the case today is a fact known only to God.

First you fail to define your terms in any accurate manner. What exactly is "religous fundamentalism"? Is it simply an adherence to biblical teaching? Do you apply the term to all Christians? Or do you refer to cultists like the Branch Davidians or Jim Jones' misguided flock? Or perhaps you reference the folks who attempted to go comet riding a few years ago. If you refence the Moslem faith, I would have to cede your point, but you did not specify that. Instead, it appears to me that you are attempting to paint all adherents to a religion with the same broad brush.

No major Christian religion sees itself or its adherents as "chosen". As a matter of fact, the exact opposite is true. Christianity teaches that only a devotion to the teachings of Christ will please God and only the salvation given to man by the death of Christ will open the gates of heaven. The truth is that Christianity teaches quite the opposite of the "chosen" premise which you wrongfully advance in your post. Christianity teaches that man cannot become worthy to enter heaven simply as a result of his own efforts. To enter heaven, we must rely on the mercy of the Almighty and if we are allowed to enter, it will be because Christ sacrificed his life in atonement for our sins.



Again the vague and non-specific rhetoric in your post makes it difficult to address the issue with accuracy. Christians see themselves as being under attack for a very good reason - because it's true. Secularists and atheists are mounting attacks on religous freedom on an ever-widening front. But apparently you seem to feel that Christians must accept this meekly because being a secular atheist yourself, your viewpoint must the the correct one. You pervert the "separation of Church" principle to mean that religion must be excised from the public domain. The founding fathers intended that freedom of religion be guaranteed to every American. They intended that the government should be prohibited from establishing a national church. They did not intend to allow a minority of obnoxious zealots to drive Christians underground. They never intended any mention of God to be illegal in the public domain.

You accuse Christians of arrogance and hubris, yet you yourself are guilty of the very thing which you denounce. Somehow it offends your sensibilities that many in our nation worship God and want to practice their religion and you attack that armed with nothing other than an irrational opinion. We do not seek to force that religion on those not inclined to practice it. We do not seek to make the public practice of atheism illegal, yet secularists seek to make the public practice of Christianity a crime - or at least an act which violates the civil rights of non-believers.



So I suppose that, in your view anything demanded by the anti-religion element is acceptable and any resistance by Christians to the erosion of the right of freedom of religion is wrong. Somehow you have convinced yourself that "religous fundamentalists" are attacking non-adherents simply because they fail to accept the teachings of a given religion. Again, had you limited your discussion to Islam, you would be at least partially correct. But since you attacked all religions, that makes your argument so substantially in error that it is patently ridiculous. Christians may attempt to convince atheists to accept the teachings of Christ for the salvation of their souls, but that is simply presenting an argument. When did that turn into a crime? How many atheists have been attacked by Christians? How many atheists have been kidnapped and dragged to Christian churches, tied to a pew, and forced to listen to the sermon? How many atheists have been deprived of their right NOT to believe in God by the efforts of Christian zealots?

The vicious cycle to which you refer does indeed exist. But it's engine is the intolerance of the secularists and atheists who are somehow offended by their fellow citizens practicing their constitutional right to worship as they choose.

I think I know what your ultimate aim is. You want homosexuals out of the closet and Christians in it.

Forget it, Bubba. Ain't gonna happen.

Typical...knee-jerk...unreasoning response I expected. I was speaking of religious fundamentalism in a very broad context. Regardless of the religion, you see the same pattern repeated over and over...The fundamentalist practitioners see themselves as their favorite deity's chosen...They marginalize and, eventually, de-humanize non-believers...They adopt a seige mentality...

As for ultimate aims, if I have one, it is for ALL religions to coexist, peacefully. Where you got this, "<i>I think I know what your ultimate aim is. You want homosexuals out of the closet and Christians in it.</i>", I have no idea.

 

[Bullypulpit]

What a total load. Try thinking with something higher up on your body than your sphincter.

Then, you might wanna pull your head outta yours.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Also bully, the hallmark of american christianity is to abandon the personality based church hierarchies of old europe. Nearly all various american christian reform movements teach this, as well as a personal and very thorough study of the bible on a personal level, as well as a personal relationship with god, circumventing worldly hierarchies. Something to chew on.

"...Circumventing wordly heirarchies...", sounds like a plan for anarchy to me.

 

[Bullypulpit]

So much for religious tolerance, eh bully?

Religions has many good point too, ya know. But I won't get into that here.

Never said religion isn't a good thing...Just the bad apples spoil it for everyone else. All religions have something to offer their followers, sommethig their followers need. To claim, however, that the general garment of one religion is fit for all isnothing short of hubris.

 

[Bullypulpit]

LOL - well, it's been interesting and fun regardless of the couple of missteps along the way.

I'm beginning to suspect that Bully threw this out simply to stir some shit and get folks to wear out their keyboards.

No, I didn't. I genuinely wanted some discussion about the issue, get folks to think about it. It seems I succeeded.

 

[Bullypulpit]

I dont know if id agree with everything. There are some people who are honestly ignorant about God, who if being taught would accept the Gospel. But ive found the most antagonistic are those who arent ignorant but that do not put in the effort.

I spent my formative years in church and Sunday school every week. So, I really can't be labeled as, "ignorant about God". I was taught but, finally, did not accept what I was taught at face value. I took what was good and useful, and discarded what was not.

 

[Mr. P]

I understood exactly what Bully said in his first post.
From what I've read in 5 pages, I think this thread proves his post to be true.

Just my 2cents worth.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

"...Circumventing wordly heirarchies...", sounds like a plan for anarchy to me.

Spiritual anarchy. Not political. Free thought. Free spirituality.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I understood exactly what Bully said in his first post.
From what I've read in 5 pages, I think this thread proves his post to be true.

Just my 2cents worth.

How so?

 

[MrMarbles]

Problem with this is there are people who are right and people who are wrong. Ex. Someone may say that grass is purple. Thats going to be wrong. People can say 2+2=5. thats wrong. The fact is some people are right about some things and some people are wrong about some things. Religion doesnt change that.

Second, the Greateast killer in the history of the world is Communism. Communists have been responsible for more deaths in the last 100 years then in all the religious wars combined.

Besides, why is it that you guys cant tell the difference between someone to be claiming to do something in the name of God and people using religion to justify their evil? To say organized religion is somehow responsible for the actions of evil men who act contrary to their religious tenents is absurd.

With that said I think you had it right to a certain point

I don't hate religion. Organized religion can be warped to easily. "Kill this person or got to hell" is a very convincing arguement to commit evil.

When religions start out they tend to be very pure. If everyone followed the teachings of their 'savior' this world would be a very peaceful place. Unfortunatley we throw Man into the mix, put him in charge and organized religion turns into a ugly monster. Look at the reformation. Christians were killing christians in the name of the same God. But different people at the top calling the shots vied for power.

Lastly, Communism can be evil, but seriously, over all of human history, religion wieighs over communism for the highest death toll.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Never said religion isn't a good thing...Just the bad apples spoil it for everyone else. All religions have something to offer their followers, sommethig their followers need. To claim, however, that the general garment of one religion is fit for all isnothing short of hubris.

I think any religioun could be fit for all, pretty much. But fitness of the faith, and compulsory worship by force are not the same.


This is just another lefty attack on anyone who sticks to their beliefs in the face of what elitist libs want them to do.

You libs always attack christians first, you fear Bush more than real actual tyrants, why is that. How do you explain your boldfaced attacks on christianity above all others.

And bully, I swear you've at least implied that religion isn't a good thing. At least on other threads.


At least we all agree, that it is, by and large, a good thing. You agree, wade agrees; it's all good. I want to get your take again around christmas time when the yearly crusade against a jesus display begins.
.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I don't hate religion. Organized religion can be warped to easily. "Kill this person or got to hell" is a very convincing arguement to commit evil.

When religions start out they tend to be very pure. If everyone followed the teachings of their 'savior' this world would be a very peaceful place. Unfortunatley we throw Man into the mix, put him in charge and organized religion turns into a ugly monster. Look at the reformation. Christians were killing christians in the name of the same God. But different people at the top calling the shots vied for power.

Lastly, Communism can be evil, but seriously, over all of human history, religion wieighs over communism for the highest death toll.

Correction. Religion can be evil when perverted. COmmunism is always perverted and always evil.

 

[Avatar4321]

I spent my formative years in church and Sunday school every week. So, I really can't be labeled as, "ignorant about God". I was taught but, finally, did not accept what I was taught at face value. I took what was good and useful, and discarded what was not.

Sure you can. going to church and sunday school isnt the same as seeking and learning about God.

 

[MrMarbles]

Correction. Religion can be evil when perverted. COmmunism is always perverted and always evil.

Organized religion is easily perverted. And so is anything else that gives you absolute power.

 

[dmp]

Organized religion is easily perverted. And so is anything else that gives you absolute power.

Nobody gets power from Christianity...by it's nature it's known even the best of us are servants.

 

[deaddude]

There are many answers to those questions so I will keep it limited.

There have been many such savior stories in many different cultures.

Hinduism: has largely accepted the Jesus story. Jesus in some instances is an avatar of Vishnu whose crucifixion postpones the accent of Adharma (chaos).
In Hinduism most other saviors do not rise from the dead because they believe in reincarnation and such holy figures often reincarnate as gods.

Buddhism: the Buddha is a savior because he pioneered the path to nirvana which will allow all peoples to break the cycle of reincarnation.
He does not return because his goal was seeking true and permanent death (allowing for ascension into heaven) through enlightenment so rising from the dead defeats the purpose.

I think that covers the examples I used.

 

[wade]

Nobody gets power from Christianity...by it's nature it's known even the best of us are servants.

LOL - tell that to the Pope and the Archbishops!

 

[Bullypulpit]

LOL - tell that to the Pope and the Archbishops!

Careful...There are some here who don't think Catholicism has anything to do with Christianity.

 

[Merlin1047]

Typical...knee-jerk...unreasoning response I expected. I was speaking of religious fundamentalism in a very broad context. Regardless of the religion, you see the same pattern repeated over and over...The fundamentalist practitioners see themselves as their favorite deity's chosen...They marginalize and, eventually, de-humanize non-believers...They adopt a seige mentality...

As for ultimate aims, if I have one, it is for ALL religions to coexist, peacefully. Where you got this, "<i>I think I know what your ultimate aim is. You want homosexuals out of the closet and Christians in it.</i>", I have no idea.

That's funny. You chase your original unsupported rhetoric with more of the same. You post a piece of sewage that is full of assertions which you don't even try to support with factual data. Then you seek to prop up your shaky arguments simply by repeating them. Well that doesn't lend them any more credence than they had the first time out. And then of course, there is the usual and predictable - and irrational - rejection of the counter-argument along with the obligatory dismissive statements

If you felt my response was unreasoning and knee jerk perhaps you are simply attributing your own tendencies toward others. So get the hell off your condescending attitude. If you tried posting something rational . . . Never mind. If you did that, you just wouldn't be you.

You really are pathetic. Do you manage to find anyone on the planet who is worthy of being in your company? Probably not. Must be lonely up there in lib land. Only other nuts to talk to - and they won't listen.

 

[Bullypulpit]

That's funny. You chase your original unsupported rhetoric with more of the same. You post a piece of sewage that is full of assertions which you don't even try to support with factual data. Then you seek to prop up your shaky arguments simply by repeating them. Well that doesn't lend them any more credence than they had the first time out. And then of course, there is the usual and predictable - and irrational - rejection of the counter-argument along with the obligatory dismissive statements

If you felt my response was unreasoning and knee jerk perhaps you are simply attributing your own tendencies toward others. So get the hell off your condescending attitude. If you tried posting something rational . . . Never mind. If you did that, you just wouldn't be you.

You really are pathetic. Do you manage to find anyone on the planet who is worthy of being in your company? Probably not. Must be lonely up there in lib land. Only other nuts to talk to - and they won't listen.

Actually, my postings were quite rational...You seem to be the one frothing at the mouth at this point. And no, I'm not projecting my tendencies upon others. Were that the case I would have painted you in a much more favorable light.