Why I Am Not A Christian

[Cecilie1200]

Here is demonstrated another reason why I could never be Christian. The attitude that some Christians have that they are not responsible for their actions. That God made them the way they are and being his children, so they have an excuse for their immaturity.

I am absolutely responsible for my actions. Point is, I'm not responsible to MAD for them. I'm responsible to GOD, and HE is the one who gets to question and chastise me for what I do with the personality He gave me, not Mad or any other non-Christian.

Oh, and this sort of criticism is rich coming from a group of people who like to tout the belief that we're all just animals, and therefore can't be wrong in acting on our animal instincts.

When did I ever say we're all just animals and no act of ours is wrong?

BTW, why are you not responsible to others for the impact your conduct has on them? Is this another flight of fancy you have as a result of being "christian"? The rest of us are responsible to one another -- what do you claim makes you so special?

When did I ever say YOU said it? Just another example of how incredibly self-centered you are.

I am responsible for what I choose to do. I am not remotely responsible for how YOU choose to feel about it or react to it. That's all you. As for "claiming to be special", I'M not the one who presumes to lecture others on how to practice a religion I not only don't share, but disdain. So once again, you have ventured off into arrogant hypocrisy.

 

[Madeline]

You said it was a religious teaching or belief tho, which it was not. You don't think little boys try to look up little girls' dresses by whatever means possible then?

OK. If you want to defend the nun's position, go for it. I see it differently. I think the nun was ridiculous about patent leather shoes.

I'm not defending her, I'm just saying she didn't need attacked to begin with, that's all. Seems like you're making a bigger deal out of something pretty small, at least from my point of view. I'm sure the little girl's parents will put whatever shoes they want too on her, despite the nun's opinion of them. At least I would if I were her parent.

Newby, maybe you had to be there. One of our chores was to clean the church, but we were not allowed, ever, to approach the altar. Not to clean it or anything else -- our mere presence would have defiled it. Over and over and over, the same damnable message. Sex is evil. Women cause men to be tempted to have sex (and so do little girls). As if there was not a single, solitary thing worth knowing about ourselves, or any woman.

I don't believe that every other sect of christianity has rejected this motif. Where do all the gay bashers, abortion doctor murderers and "defenders of marriage" come from, if not the christian right?

 

[Cecilie1200]

OK. If you want to defend the nun's position, go for it. I see it differently. I think the nun was ridiculous about patent leather shoes.

I'm not defending her, I'm just saying she didn't need attacked to begin with, that's all. Seems like you're making a bigger deal out of something pretty small, at least from my point of view. I'm sure the little girl's parents will put whatever shoes they want too on her, despite the nun's opinion of them. At least I would if I were her parent.

Newby, maybe you had to be there. One of our chores was to clean the church, but we were not allowed, ever, to approach the altar. Not to clean it or anything else -- our mere presence would have defiled it. Over and over and over, the same damnable message. Sex is evil. Women cause men to be tempted to have sex (and so do little girls). As if there was not a single, solitary thing worth knowing about ourselves, or any woman.

I don't believe that every other sect of christianity has rejected this motif. Where do all the gay bashers, abortion doctor murderers and "defenders of marriage" come from, if not the christian right?

I'm dead serious about this. Seek some professional therapy. I know that from inside your little head, it seems perfectly normal to have this level of irrational hatred and to spread it to anyone even vaguely resembling a Catholic, but trust me, it's not. You have real, severe psychological issues.

 

[Sky Dancer]

OK. If you want to defend the nun's position, go for it. I see it differently. I think the nun was ridiculous about patent leather shoes.

I'm not defending her, I'm just saying she didn't need attacked to begin with, that's all. Seems like you're making a bigger deal out of something pretty small, at least from my point of view. I'm sure the little girl's parents will put whatever shoes they want too on her, despite the nun's opinion of them. At least I would if I were her parent.

Newby, maybe you had to be there. One of our chores was to clean the church, but we were not allowed, ever, to approach the altar. Not to clean it or anything else -- our mere presence would have defiled it. Over and over and over, the same damnable message. Sex is evil. Women cause men to be tempted to have sex (and so do little girls). As if there was not a single, solitary thing worth knowing about ourselves, or any woman.

I don't believe that every other sect of christianity has rejected this motif. Where do all the gay bashers, abortion doctor murderers and "defenders of marriage" come from, if not the christian right?

I remember that women were not allowed to approach the altar. I remember being told that girls were the 'occassion of sin' for boys. In other words, if a boy was aroused by a girl and felt lustful, the girl was at fault.

These are compelling reasons why it was necessary for you to reject those notions and find your own way spiritually.

 

[Sky Dancer]

I'm not defending her, I'm just saying she didn't need attacked to begin with, that's all. Seems like you're making a bigger deal out of something pretty small, at least from my point of view. I'm sure the little girl's parents will put whatever shoes they want too on her, despite the nun's opinion of them. At least I would if I were her parent.

Newby, maybe you had to be there. One of our chores was to clean the church, but we were not allowed, ever, to approach the altar. Not to clean it or anything else -- our mere presence would have defiled it. Over and over and over, the same damnable message. Sex is evil. Women cause men to be tempted to have sex (and so do little girls). As if there was not a single, solitary thing worth knowing about ourselves, or any woman.

I don't believe that every other sect of christianity has rejected this motif. Where do all the gay bashers, abortion doctor murderers and "defenders of marriage" come from, if not the christian right?

I'm dead serious about this. Seek some professional therapy. I know that from inside your little head, it seems perfectly normal to have this level of irrational hatred and to spread it to anyone even vaguely resembling a Catholic, but trust me, it's not. You have real, severe psychological issues.

One tactic in dismissing points of view that one cannot debate adequately is to call the other side crazy.

IMO Madeline has valid reasons for choosing to not practice the Christian faith.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I'm not defending her, I'm just saying she didn't need attacked to begin with, that's all. Seems like you're making a bigger deal out of something pretty small, at least from my point of view. I'm sure the little girl's parents will put whatever shoes they want too on her, despite the nun's opinion of them. At least I would if I were her parent.

Newby, maybe you had to be there. One of our chores was to clean the church, but we were not allowed, ever, to approach the altar. Not to clean it or anything else -- our mere presence would have defiled it. Over and over and over, the same damnable message. Sex is evil. Women cause men to be tempted to have sex (and so do little girls). As if there was not a single, solitary thing worth knowing about ourselves, or any woman.

I don't believe that every other sect of christianity has rejected this motif. Where do all the gay bashers, abortion doctor murderers and "defenders of marriage" come from, if not the christian right?

I remember that women were not allowed to approach the altar. I remember being told that girls were the 'occassion of sin' for boys. In other words, if a boy was aroused by a girl and felt lustful, the girl was at fault.

These are compelling reasons why it was necessary for you to reject those notions and find your own way spiritually.

See, I was taught that whether the girl held SOME fault (because the primary fault for the boy's lust ALWAYS lies with the boy) depended on whether she had done something to incur his lust. Which seems perfectly rational to me. Then again, my church doesn't have any holy objects that people are forbidden to go near. This was actually, if I remember correctly, a big part of why the Protestant churches originally schismed from the Catholic Church.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Newby, maybe you had to be there. One of our chores was to clean the church, but we were not allowed, ever, to approach the altar. Not to clean it or anything else -- our mere presence would have defiled it. Over and over and over, the same damnable message. Sex is evil. Women cause men to be tempted to have sex (and so do little girls). As if there was not a single, solitary thing worth knowing about ourselves, or any woman.

I don't believe that every other sect of christianity has rejected this motif. Where do all the gay bashers, abortion doctor murderers and "defenders of marriage" come from, if not the christian right?

I'm dead serious about this. Seek some professional therapy. I know that from inside your little head, it seems perfectly normal to have this level of irrational hatred and to spread it to anyone even vaguely resembling a Catholic, but trust me, it's not. You have real, severe psychological issues.

One tactic in dismissing points of view that one cannot debate adequately is to call the other side crazy.

IMO Madeline has valid reasons for choosing to not practice the Christian faith.

I'm not dismissing her or her arguments, nor am I insulting her. I'm stating a fact. While she may or may not have valid bones of contention with the Catholic Church (so far, I haven't noticed any she has with other Christian churches, since she doesn't seem to know anything about any of them), and while she may or may not have legitimate questions about the Bible and the teachings of Christianity, she DEFINITELY has serious, pathological issues with Catholics which have her bordering on an irrational paranoia.

 

[Sky Dancer]

I'm dead serious about this. Seek some professional therapy. I know that from inside your little head, it seems perfectly normal to have this level of irrational hatred and to spread it to anyone even vaguely resembling a Catholic, but trust me, it's not. You have real, severe psychological issues.

One tactic in dismissing points of view that one cannot debate adequately is to call the other side crazy.

IMO Madeline has valid reasons for choosing to not practice the Christian faith.

I'm not dismissing her or her arguments, nor am I insulting her. I'm stating a fact. While she may or may not have valid bones of contention with the Catholic Church (so far, I haven't noticed any she has with other Christian churches, since she doesn't seem to know anything about any of them), and while she may or may not have legitimate questions about the Bible and the teachings of Christianity, she DEFINITELY has serious, pathological issues with Catholics which have her bordering on an irrational paranoia.

You have no basis for this claim. Madeline has valid reasons to opt out of being a Christian.

It's insulting for you to label her with mental disorder. If you label your opponent crazy you miss an opportunity to debate the issues she raises.

 

[Cecilie1200]

One tactic in dismissing points of view that one cannot debate adequately is to call the other side crazy.

IMO Madeline has valid reasons for choosing to not practice the Christian faith.

I'm not dismissing her or her arguments, nor am I insulting her. I'm stating a fact. While she may or may not have valid bones of contention with the Catholic Church (so far, I haven't noticed any she has with other Christian churches, since she doesn't seem to know anything about any of them), and while she may or may not have legitimate questions about the Bible and the teachings of Christianity, she DEFINITELY has serious, pathological issues with Catholics which have her bordering on an irrational paranoia.

You have no basis for this claim. Madeline has valid reasons to opt out of being a Christian.

It's insulting for you to label her with mental disorder. If you label your opponent crazy you miss an opportunity to debate the issues she raises.

I have a very good basis for that claim. It's called "reading her posts". The only way you can read what Madeline has to say about Christianity and NOT come to the conclusion that she has unresolved childhood issues that impair her judgement on the subject is if you actively WANT to believe it's not true.

I didn't label her with a mental disorder. I never said, "You're a schizophrenic" or "you're a borderline personality". Everyone has issues, Sky, even you. Not everyone is impaired by them or requires counseling to deal with them, but I firmly believe Mad is and does.

And there's no "opportunity to debate the issues she raises" because she hasn't raised any. Literally the only thing she has raised is her own hatred and bigotry, and I am duly discussing it.

 

[Sky Dancer]

I'm not dismissing her or her arguments, nor am I insulting her. I'm stating a fact. While she may or may not have valid bones of contention with the Catholic Church (so far, I haven't noticed any she has with other Christian churches, since she doesn't seem to know anything about any of them), and while she may or may not have legitimate questions about the Bible and the teachings of Christianity, she DEFINITELY has serious, pathological issues with Catholics which have her bordering on an irrational paranoia.

You have no basis for this claim. Madeline has valid reasons to opt out of being a Christian.

It's insulting for you to label her with mental disorder. If you label your opponent crazy you miss an opportunity to debate the issues she raises.

I have a very good basis for that claim. It's called "reading her posts". The only way you can read what Madeline has to say about Christianity and NOT come to the conclusion that she has unresolved childhood issues that impair her judgement on the subject is if you actively WANT to believe it's not true.

I didn't label her with a mental disorder. I never said, "You're a schizophrenic" or "you're a borderline personality". Everyone has issues, Sky, even you. Not everyone is impaired by them or requires counseling to deal with them, but I firmly believe Mad is and does.

And there's no "opportunity to debate the issues she raises" because she hasn't raised any. Literally the only thing she has raised is her own hatred and bigotry, and I am duly discussing it.

Madeline has stated that Christianity is anti-female and anti-sex. Those are debateable issues.

Whether she does or doesn't have 'unresolved issues requiring counseling' is none of your business. I don't recall Madeline inviting you to diagnose her with paranoia.

It's a logical fallacy. Instead of debating the issues she raises you're impugning her character calling her a hater and a bigot. There is a vast difference between taking the Catholic Church to task on it's teachings, policies and practices and hating Catholics.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Okay. You're just too ******* dumb to understand fighting for Civil Rights doesn't mean one has "masochistic" tendencies even if it entails physical violence.

This is hilarious. You have shown yourself to have no clue about the meaning of the word since you had to go look it up in the dictionary and pick out the wrong definition. You once again are splitting this into an all-or-nothing idea, whereas you see "masochism" as a bad thing, and good causes can't possibly have bad aspects to them. FALSE! The reason is irrelevant. If someone is willingly taking on pain, either actively or passively, it is a masochistic tendency, regardless of whether the cause is sexual gratification, striving for civil rights, or winning a sports match. The cause doesn't matter. The fact that you still don't understand this fact is just laughably incredible.

Saying that 'most' Christian sects are anti-sexual is an unsupportable statement.

It's surprising anyone would contest this point. Sexuality has been condemned and suppressed by Christianity for centuries, and is still very clearly seen in today's society under the guise of "family values" and "morals". Let's look at Catholicism, and it's stance on pre-marital and life-long priest celibacy. What is the church's stance on masturbation? Which group is solely responsible for pushing abstinence only education even after it was proven to increase teen pregnancy, abortion, and STD transmission? Which group in America is largely responsible for abhorring and preventing gay marriage and other LGBT community activities?

It's clear to me that the only form of sexuality accepted widely by the leaders of Christianity is the form they deem as appropriate. You're missing a large part of sexuality if you can only experience it under someone else's rules.

As for the question regarding the large Christian families: this is a product of the sexual constrictions. Do you not realize they exist because of lack of belief in birth control? Are you unaware of the emotional and financial burden it can be to only have unprotected sex and just take the consequences? Come on, think why.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Okay. You're just too ******* dumb to understand fighting for Civil Rights doesn't mean one has "masochistic" tendencies even if it entails physical violence.

This is hilarious. You haven't shown yourself to have no clue about the meaning of the word since you had to go look it up in the dictionary and pick out the wrong definition. You once again are splitting this into an all-or-nothing idea, whereas you see "masochism" as a bad thing, and good causes can't possibly have bad aspects to them. FALSE! The reason is irrelevant. If someone is willingly taking on pain, either actively or passively, it is a masochistic tendency, regardless of whether the cause is sexual gratification, striving for civil rights, or winning a sports match. The cause doesn't matter. The fact that you still don't understand this fact is just laughably incredible.

Saying that 'most' Christian sects are anti-sexual is an unsupportable statement.

It's surprising anyone would contest this point. Sexuality has been condemned and suppressed by Christianity for centuries, and is still very clearly seen in today's society under the guise of "family values" and "morals". Let's look at Catholicism, and it's stance on pre-marital and life-long priest celibacy. What is the church's stance on masturbation? Which group is solely responsible for pushing abstinence only education even after it was proven to increase teen pregnancy, abortion, and STD transmission? Which group in America is largely responsible for abhorring and preventing gay marriage and other LGBT community activities?

It's clear to me that the only form of sexuality accepted widely by the leaders of Christianity is the form they deem as appropriate. You're missing a large part of sexuality if you can only experience it under someone else's rules.

As for the question regarding the large Christian families: this is a product of the sexual constrictions. Do you not realize they exist because of lack of belief in birth control? Are you unaware of the emotional and financial burden it can be to only have unprotected sex and just take the consequences? Come on, think why.

My point is when you argue from 'most' or 'all' it's unsupportable. I agree with you that the Catholic Church's teachings on sexuality are repressive. That's why you have the phenomena of "Cafeteria Catholics', those Catholic swho take up some but not all of the core principles of Catholicism. The Church's stance on contraception, masturbation and divorce are examples of places where individual Catholics reject the Church's teaching but still consider themselves Catholics in good standing.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You have no basis for this claim. Madeline has valid reasons to opt out of being a Christian.

It's insulting for you to label her with mental disorder. If you label your opponent crazy you miss an opportunity to debate the issues she raises.

I have a very good basis for that claim. It's called "reading her posts". The only way you can read what Madeline has to say about Christianity and NOT come to the conclusion that she has unresolved childhood issues that impair her judgement on the subject is if you actively WANT to believe it's not true.

I didn't label her with a mental disorder. I never said, "You're a schizophrenic" or "you're a borderline personality". Everyone has issues, Sky, even you. Not everyone is impaired by them or requires counseling to deal with them, but I firmly believe Mad is and does.

And there's no "opportunity to debate the issues she raises" because she hasn't raised any. Literally the only thing she has raised is her own hatred and bigotry, and I am duly discussing it.

Madeline has stated that Christianity is anti-female and anti-sex. Those are debateable issues.

No, they aren't, because she didn't say it based on any knowledge of Christianity at large. She said it based on her own personal issues with CATHOLICISM, which she then projected onto every other Christian denomination in existence. Which, by the way, bears out my statement concerning "paranoia". She attributes Catholic dogma, or what she perceives Catholic dogma to be, onto anyone who even remotely resembles a Catholic in her eyes.

I have no intention of arguing the beliefs of MY church with someone who's assuming what they are based on some OTHER church's beliefs. That's ridiculous.

Whether she does or doesn't have 'unresolved issues requiring counseling' is none of your business. I don't recall Madeline inviting you to diagnose her with paranoia.

Then you must not have read her OP, or any of her successive posts. When she hauls her ******* childhood in a ******* Catholic orphanage out for everyone's delectation and then starts spewing crazed, bigoted rants about Christianity based on it, she sure the hell HAS invited me and anyone with two brain cells to rub together to figure out that she has issues. And if she can start a whole thread to tell us how much she hates Christians, then I can sure respond with how much I think she needs therapy. She seems so proud of how "blunt" she is, so she can bloody well suck up a little blunt speaking in return.

It's a logical fallacy. Instead of debating the issues she raises you're impugning her character calling her a hater and a bigot. There is a vast difference between taking the Catholic Church to task on it's teachings, policies and practices and hating Catholics.

I'm not impugning anything. I'm making a statement of fact. She's a bigot, and she hates Christianity. Is it my fault that the character aspects I notice are flaws, or her fault that the character aspects she EXHIBITS are flaws? Am I supposed to pretend that a Klan member dressed in a white sheet and spewing against black people is not a racist jerk?

She's not taking the Catholic Church to task on its teachings. She's tarring and feathering the whole of Christianity (of which the non-Catholic members FAR outnumber the Catholic ones, thank you so very much) based on what a handful of people running an orphanage when she was a child did. And she's hating ALL OF US for it.

If you can't see that, then I can only assume you have another agenda here that makes you willfully blind, because it's as plain as the nose on my face.

 

[Sky Dancer]

I have a very good basis for that claim. It's called "reading her posts". The only way you can read what Madeline has to say about Christianity and NOT come to the conclusion that she has unresolved childhood issues that impair her judgement on the subject is if you actively WANT to believe it's not true.

I didn't label her with a mental disorder. I never said, "You're a schizophrenic" or "you're a borderline personality". Everyone has issues, Sky, even you. Not everyone is impaired by them or requires counseling to deal with them, but I firmly believe Mad is and does.

And there's no "opportunity to debate the issues she raises" because she hasn't raised any. Literally the only thing she has raised is her own hatred and bigotry, and I am duly discussing it.

Madeline has stated that Christianity is anti-female and anti-sex. Those are debateable issues.

No, they aren't, because she didn't say it based on any knowledge of Christianity at large. She said it based on her own personal issues with CATHOLICISM, which she then projected onto every other Christian denomination in existence. Which, by the way, bears out my statement concerning "paranoia". She attributes Catholic dogma, or what she perceives Catholic dogma to be, onto anyone who even remotely resembles a Catholic in her eyes.

I have no intention of arguing the beliefs of MY church with someone who's assuming what they are based on some OTHER church's beliefs. That's ridiculous.

Whether she does or doesn't have 'unresolved issues requiring counseling' is none of your business. I don't recall Madeline inviting you to diagnose her with paranoia.

Then you must not have read her OP, or any of her successive posts. When she hauls her ******* childhood in a ******* Catholic orphanage out for everyone's delectation and then starts spewing crazed, bigoted rants about Christianity based on it, she sure the hell HAS invited me and anyone with two brain cells to rub together to figure out that she has issues. And if she can start a whole thread to tell us how much she hates Christians, then I can sure respond with how much I think she needs therapy. She seems so proud of how "blunt" she is, so she can bloody well suck up a little blunt speaking in return.

It's a logical fallacy. Instead of debating the issues she raises you're impugning her character calling her a hater and a bigot. There is a vast difference between taking the Catholic Church to task on it's teachings, policies and practices and hating Catholics.

I'm not impugning anything. I'm making a statement of fact. She's a bigot, and she hates Christianity. Is it my fault that the character aspects I notice are flaws, or her fault that the character aspects she EXHIBITS are flaws? Am I supposed to pretend that a Klan member dressed in a white sheet and spewing against black people is not a racist jerk?

She's not taking the Catholic Church to task on its teachings. She's tarring and feathering the whole of Christianity (of which the non-Catholic members FAR outnumber the Catholic ones, thank you so very much) based on what a handful of people running an orphanage when she was a child did. And she's hating ALL OF US for it.

If you can't see that, then I can only assume you have another agenda here that makes you willfully blind, because it's as plain as the nose on my face.

I give up Cecile. We may have come to an impasse. If I don't agree with your view of Madeline then I have an agenda that makes me 'willfully blind'?

 

[SmarterThanHick]

My point is when you argue from 'most' or 'all' it's unsupportable. I agree with you that the Catholic Church's teachings on sexuality are repressive. That's why you have the phenomena of "Cafeteria Catholics', those Catholic swho take up some but not all of the core principles of Catholicism. The Church's stance on contraception, masturbation and divorce are examples of places where individual Catholics reject the Church's teaching but still consider themselves Catholics in good standing.

I'm aware of the underlying idea, but I've never heard it called "Cafeteria Catholic" before. I'll have to remember that one. It sounds like we are generally in agreement on this topic. Making gross generalizations of "most" or "all" doesn't quite work, but it's clear where she's getting the stereotypes from.

It's a logical fallacy. Instead of debating the issues she raises you're impugning her character calling her a hater and a bigot. There is a vast difference between taking the Catholic Church to task on it's teachings, policies and practices and hating Catholics.

I'm not impugning anything. I'm making a statement of fact. She's a bigot, and she hates Christianity. Is it my fault that the character aspects I notice are flaws, or her fault that the character aspects she EXHIBITS are flaws? Am I supposed to pretend that a Klan member dressed in a white sheet and spewing against black people is not a racist jerk?

She's not taking the Catholic Church to task on its teachings. She's tarring and feathering the whole of Christianity (of which the non-Catholic members FAR outnumber the Catholic ones, thank you so very much) based on what a handful of people running an orphanage when she was a child did. And she's hating ALL OF US for it.

If you can't see that, then I can only assume you have another agenda here that makes you willfully blind, because it's as plain as the nose on my face.

Her posts are blunt, but I see no bigotry in them. Sky Dancer is right in that you are not actually pointing out and shooting down bigoted remarks, but are instead just attacking Madeline personality. No one really cares that you're crying "bigot". Point out where, point out why, and refute it with evidence. Otherwise, no one wants to listen to your whining.

 

[Cecilie1200]

My point is when you argue from 'most' or 'all' it's unsupportable. I agree with you that the Catholic Church's teachings on sexuality are repressive. That's why you have the phenomena of "Cafeteria Catholics', those Catholic swho take up some but not all of the core principles of Catholicism. The Church's stance on contraception, masturbation and divorce are examples of places where individual Catholics reject the Church's teaching but still consider themselves Catholics in good standing.

I'm aware of the underlying idea, but I've never heard it called "Cafeteria Catholic" before. I'll have to remember that one. It sounds like we are generally in agreement on this topic. Making gross generalizations of "most" or "all" doesn't quite work, but it's clear where she's getting the stereotypes from.

It's a logical fallacy. Instead of debating the issues she raises you're impugning her character calling her a hater and a bigot. There is a vast difference between taking the Catholic Church to task on it's teachings, policies and practices and hating Catholics.

I'm not impugning anything. I'm making a statement of fact. She's a bigot, and she hates Christianity. Is it my fault that the character aspects I notice are flaws, or her fault that the character aspects she EXHIBITS are flaws? Am I supposed to pretend that a Klan member dressed in a white sheet and spewing against black people is not a racist jerk?

She's not taking the Catholic Church to task on its teachings. She's tarring and feathering the whole of Christianity (of which the non-Catholic members FAR outnumber the Catholic ones, thank you so very much) based on what a handful of people running an orphanage when she was a child did. And she's hating ALL OF US for it.

If you can't see that, then I can only assume you have another agenda here that makes you willfully blind, because it's as plain as the nose on my face.

Her posts are blunt, but I see no bigotry in them. Sky Dancer is right in that you are not actually pointing out and shooting down bigoted remarks, but are instead just attacking Madeline personality. No one really cares that you're crying "bigot". Point out where, point out why, and refute it with evidence. Otherwise, no one wants to listen to your whining.

I have no idea where you've been this entire time that you're unaware of all the time I ALREADY spent pointing out her bigotry and shooting it down, although I seem to vaguely remember an utterly boring and pointless debate concerning masochism in which neither party knew squat about the subject. I skipped it. Meanwhile, perhaps you could make the effort to go back and find out what was going on while your head was up your ass before accusing me of not doing something I spent several pages doing.

I'm glad to know that you accept that you're no one, but it's really unnecessary for you to go to so much trouble to tell me you're interested in my posts.

 

[Anguille]

Okay, give us a demonstration of how a non Christian should, according to your rules, express their honest reaction of repugnance at the veneration of crucifixes.

I think you can express your repugnance at crucifixes and your own honest reaction without implying that your reaction is the truth of how things are. It's just a reaction, Ang. The cross means different things to different people.

I personally wouldn't even express it as a "repugnance". It's entirely possible to express confusion as to its usage without ever mentioning THAT reaction at all.

Except that would be entirely dishonest of me to pretend I was not revolted by the practice. It's not your place to tell me how I feel. I'm sure nothing will stop you from doing so, however.

 

[Anguille]

From my own perspective, Newby (as if I could borrow anyone else's) most christian sects are anti-sexual. I don't happen to recall Jesus saying women were defective or that sex was evil, etc.

I do recall him saying that wealth is so corrupting, almost everyone who experiences it will suffer a spiritual death. That does not happen to seem to be a guiding principle in the lives of many christians, IMO. Maybe because it is not a guiding tenet of many sects.

I could go on, but those two at least give us something to discuss, if you are willing.

Saying that 'most' Christian sects are anti-sexual is an unsupportable statement. It puts all the Christians here on the defensive to prove that they are sexual and spiritual beings.

If Christians are anti-sexual, then how come so many Christian sects are famous - or even infamous - for having enormous families with huge numbers of children? Are we finding them under cabbage patches, or being invaded by swarms of storks?

Maybe something to do with not using birth control?

 

[Anguille]

OK. If you want to defend the nun's position, go for it. I see it differently. I think the nun was ridiculous about patent leather shoes.

I'm not defending her, I'm just saying she didn't need attacked to begin with, that's all. Seems like you're making a bigger deal out of something pretty small, at least from my point of view. I'm sure the little girl's parents will put whatever shoes they want too on her, despite the nun's opinion of them. At least I would if I were her parent.

Let's see if I follow. You think I attacked the nun who taught that patent leather shoes were bad?

I'm making an example of something that I was taught by a nun that I think is ridiculous. I'm not attacking the nun. As an adult, I'm calling her belief to task for teaching a child something so silly and misguided.

It was the first step in teaching a little girl that boys are unable to control their sexual urges and it's the little girl's responsibility not to wear patent leather shoes which might make the little boy lose control and make a sexual attack on her. In which it would be all her fault for tempting the little boy.

 

[Anguille]

One step forward three steps backward.