What should we do with these people? I almost hate them!! They always think they are right.
For example, at my school we were debating about abortion. Most of said that it should be up the woman to chose, but this one christian girl kept trying to push her bible laws on the country. I said “we can’t have laws based on the bible.” She said, “why not.” I finally had to yell, “cuz not everyone beleives in the bible!” She was kinda shocked at that, and didn’t say anything.
But anyways, these people really annoy me. They don’t listen, and only preach. Their minds are under lock and key. Me thinks them facists.
I’m not quite sure how this is a debate, but i know it is one, cuz someone will point-counterpoint. So argue on!
Perhaps the Pit would be a better choice of a forum. When it gets moved there in a few hours, I’ll check in again.
I disagree, I think it is debatable. This is my take on religious groups, it’s a Ponzi Scheme. You give the preacher some money, the preacher promises you a huge payoff in the future for recruiting new members and doing a few good deeds in the name of Jesus, or God. Since the big payoff is after death, there must be a small payoff before death. This small payoff is identical to a support group, the members feel good because they belong to a group with a common mission, that being to recruit new members. The top recruiters feel the emotion of pride, because they feel and think they are doing the right thing, unaware that they have been memetically programmed. The Ponzi Scheme will continue as long as there is new money coming in from new members. If everyone stops giving the preacher money, then the whole thing falls apart, as seen with a couple of the Television preachers. Always being right, is part of the memetic programming, and they have the bible to back it up.
Well, the problem isn’t the “Christian” so much as the “Arrogant” part. The Arrogant people who happen to also be Christian are just predictable in what they’re going to say, is all.
Arrogance in general, I think, should be discouraged. It can lead one to become stuck in his/her way of thinking, and as such is a very useful means of spreading Ignorance.
I suspect, given your initial tone, ssj, that this is also headed for the Pit, but before it does, let me add my two cents, since I am a devout Christian.
ssj
I agree with you about people like the young woman you mentioned and to my mind, they do harm to my religion my putting people like you and others off it. In her defense, I’d argue that most people have a hard time understanding that other people aren’t like them and don’t share their beliefs. Here’s an example When I go out with friends for an evening, we spend the evening sitting in someone’s living room talking about everything under the sun; my co-workers go out drinking. They can’t understand the pleasure of company without alcohol; I can understand some of what they’re enjoying, but it’s not worth the expense, etc. The young woman you referred to probably can’t imagine life without the Bible or anyone disagreeing with it. Me, I’ve been so far out in left field for most of my life, I find it wonderful when someone does agree with me.
jesse said
You’re right about the televangelists you mentioned, but, like most things it’s a matter of finding the good ones and bad. In my case, several years ago when I wound up in a financial crisis because an employer refused to pay me for my time and money, the Episcopal church gave me enough money to cover rent and groceries until paychecks came in from the new job. Note I said “gave”; there was no expectation of repayment. I’ve worked with programs where we’ve asked people to donate school supplies and taken them myself to a place where they would be given to kids who can’t afford them.
More to the point, the Episcopal church has given me one thing I really don’t think money can’t buy – a place to belong. When I was a teenager and a pretty constant target of insults, the church was the one place I could go and not be insulted. That’s one reason it annoys me when it fails, as it did ssg but it’s one reason why, despite friendships with wiccans, etc., I won’t leave.
It’s the “arrogance” and aggressiveness of the Christian meme that helped it spread throughout Europe and the New World. If Christianity behaved culturally as Jesus instructed his followers to live individually, then Christianity might have died a long time ago. So that arrogance could simply be a matter of memetic survival.
So she was wrong because she didn’t bend to the will of the majority of those present? Do you not believe in the right to hold and argue a different position?
And there is a difference between those who are arrogant and those who are aggressive in proselytization. Pride often leads to Sin, but it can also lead away from Sin.
What should we do with these people? I almost hate them!! They always think they are right.**
Every religion has its share of jerks. I’ve run into a fair share of “in your face” Atheists. They’re hardly representative of the faith (or NON-faith as the case may be).
Unfortunately for your argument television preachers |= religion. In MOST Christian churches, there is no obligation to give money. Nor will it buy you access to heaven. Nor will a few good works. Nor will “recruiting” new members.
However, it IS a good idea to give money, otherwise the building you are saying mass in tends to get the electricity shut off, the building falls down because of lack of maintenance, the preist starves, charities don’t get funded (well, the Church funded ones, anyway) and things generally become a mess. So in that respect, yes, I guess that religion is like a Ponzi scheme. Your claim that religion is like a Ponzi scheme and the reasons behind it are like claiming that all business and the government are like Ponzi schemes. After all, if you stop giving THEM money then they fall down.
I’m not sure exactly what “behaved culturally as Jesus instructed his followers to live individually” is suppposed to mean. On the face of the grammar, it seems that you mean that Christians don’t set up cultures that are reflective of the individual attitudes they were instructed to have. This argument has been made very effectively all over these boards, many times by me. I don’t think you’ll get much argument from people about this one.
However: the conclusion that follows that statement leads me to believe that what you meant was that Christians have gone out and been aggressive in the spreading of their message instead of living quietly as they were instructed. This would be a pretty shallow reading of the Bible. Not only did ALL of the church founders engage in evangelism, many times it was on the direct orders of Jesus.
Then there’s the famous “Great Commission”, as it’s come to be called. It’s reported (with different phrasing - let’s not get into that argument right now) in a couple places:
Matthew 28:18-20 Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.
Mark 16:14-15 Later Jesus appeared to the Eleven as they were eating; he rebuked them for their lack of faith and their stubborn refusal to believe those who had seen him after he had risen. He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation.
Actually, there’s another one that’s the more famous one, but these should do.
Actually, even if you DON’T believe in the validity of any religion, no major church can be described as a Ponzi scheme.
The whole point of any pyramid/Ponzi scheme is that the earliest people to join up are rewarded, while the last people to join up get nothing. But the reality is, the Church offers the same reward, sternal life in Heaven, to EVERYONE who joins. If Heaven exists, every Christian will go there, regardless of when he joined. If it doesn’t, the people who joined the Church early on have gained NO benefit whatsoever!
In short, the Ponzi analogy is just plain stupid. It’s also utterly unoriginal.
But that doesn’t stop loads of non-religious folk on these boards from parroting that ridiculous analogy as if they’d thought it up on their own… all the while, congratulating themselves for being “independent thinkers,” unlike those silly Christians who just repeat whatever nonsense they hear.
Is this based on any sort of real-world experience; Chain letters are like that, Amway is a bit like it, but I don’t think I’ve ever been asked to give a preacher money with the promise of rewards for ‘recruiting’ others; where did you see that happen?
No, she was trying to impose her will. Those who disagreed with her were arguing that nobody’s will be imposed with regards to this issue.
This is indicitive of an attitude that’s becoming increasingly popular among conservative Christians: By not being allowed to impose their will on society and stamp out abortion, homosexuality, etc. their rights are being violated because they’re being “forced to accept” these things.
If you can find other places to make the distinction you draw as clearly as you did here, you will do much more than your fair share of what it takes to bring this country back together.
I suppose anyone who stands by a contrary position to you would merit that charge.
She isn’t in Congress is she?
Yelling does have a way to shut people up. An effective debating tactic. But your answer is meaningless to me. We have laws based on all sorts of ideas. Just because everyone doesn’t believe in recycling is no reason we can’t have conservation laws.
On the surface, that charge could be leveled at everyone here on the sdmb. Except for the fascist part. A scurilous accusation usually to condemn those of a contrary position.
Well, then anyone who wants to make any law that you/we don’t agree with is a fascist.
I know how you feel, but let’s look for a moment at another way that feeling/argument could be used (and I’ve done it many times):
“Freakin’ liberal pansy tree-huggers! Take my tax dollars and make carpool lanes that I can’t use 98% of the time! Go and make seperate raised freeway transition ramps for these people who are the special few! They just want to control how I drive, regardless of whether it’s at all reasonable for me, or else they just want to reward those who think like they do! It doesn’t matter if it actually decreases pollution or traffic snarls; it only matters that it’s the ‘green’ thing to do! Fascists!!!”
(Actually, I personally agree with a lot of the argument made in that paragraph, but not everyone who disagrees with me or makes a law that I don’t like is a fascist.)
There seems to be a sentiment around now that anyone who wants to impinge on anyone’s freedom to do anything other than molest kids is a fascist.
Everything’s not going to always benifit you directly since there are other people that exist besides you. It’s called a society. Anyway, you’re perfectly free to use the lane, all you have to do is carpool.
Huh? It’s the ‘green’ thing to do BECAUSE it decreases pollution and traffic snarls.
Maybe calling her a facist was a bit rash, but i think it’s true. Trying to control anyone’s feelings in any way, when they aren’t hurting anyone, is facist.
But it’s the way she imposed her beleifs that made me call her a facist. She wasn’t willing to listen, she was only willing to try and make us beleive in what she does, and then act like she’s superior cuz we don’t.
