Freethinkers don’t. Many non-religious philophies have. And the wheel goes round and round…
It ain’t religion, it’s humanity.
And we know the atrocities done by those famouse christians: Manson, Mao, Stalin, etc. :rolleyes:
And thanks for demonstrating my point. You have to wildly mischaracterize criticism as “vile hatred” because you can’t make a useful counterargument. I don’t hate your faith; I laugh at it. Indignant? You bet; I’m tired of people who believe in the supernatural running the country. Bull-headed? Yep, I admit it. Ignorant? Hardly. The people who pray to an invisible person who lives in the sky and think that that the mind survives the death of the brain–those folks are ignorant. Folks who believe that a tome that recommends incest, genocide, and murder is the Good Book–that’s ignorant. I oppose religion for the same reasons that I oppose the lottery and three-card monte–it takes advantage of the gullible.
I oppose religion because it teaches people to see the universe as unknowable instead of merely unknown.
Bwahahaha! If someone says they’re a Christian but their behavior embarrasses you, you just say, “whoopps, he’s not really a Christian.” To quote the Church Lady, “How conveeeeeeenient!”
They weren’t Christians, but they were certainly religious in their way. Communism is as toxic an ideology as Christianity or Islam. Abvandon ideologies, and think for yourselves.
Now you’ve got me thinking, are there any atheists who killed people, that we would know about. Communism isn’t a religion.
No, it’s vile hatred because you repeat your constant intolerant refrain over and over whenever anything remotely concerning Christianity comes up. Criticism is done with a level head. This isn’t.
Then put a viable candidate up who doesn’t. It’s a free country.
No, I say “The actions he’s taken don’t fit with my personal beliefs of what Christ taught. I don’t agree with what he’s done and I wouldn’t do the same.”
That’s all I can say, really.
Out of idle curiousity, how much do you know about history?
Sure, it is. It has its holy writings, its unquestionable dogma, its prophets, and an object of veneration (Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Jong Il).
At what point can we no longer say that a person who does something bad is not a Christian? If the Pope himself does something bad is he no longer a christian either?
Do churches generally throw out murderers? If not, how can they justify doing this to Greer? I mean, he didn’t even really have a choice: it was, in his mind, his duty to rule as he did, according to the law.
He would still be a Christian, just an asshole. I’m skeptical of religion as well, but why must you all paint with such a large brush? I’m sure you’ve been members of some sort of community with imperfect members of which is want no association with, so why single out religion in this case? Probably the very intolerance with which you decry.
It seems like half the Christians I meet run around saying that Catholics aren’t Christians, so, sure. He isn’t to BEGIN WITH, according to many. ::rolleyes::
Let an agnostic take a stab? Some people like to pretend that they are better people and wear the cloak of Christianity. I think the bible called them Pharisees, or something like that. Besides that, good people can still be assholes from time to time.
Good people cannot, however, send death threats. I feel we have to seperate the issue. Criminals sent death threats, and a man who may or not actually subscribe to the Christian Ideal asked the Judge to leave his flock, a decision he may or may not regret in the near future.
Now, the Judge can tell the minister to stick it and keep showing up. Or he can find another church in which to practice his faith. There’s lots of Christian churches in put-near every city, so surely one will welcome him.
You seem to think that “tolerance” means unquestioning acceptance. I insist on using my reason to examine the flaws of an overarching system of thought that wields influence far in excess of its desert. “Tolerance” does not demand the silencing of criticism; instead it allows belief and disbelief to live together in a state of wary caution.
Can’t disagree with that at all, but I get the feeling that many in the thread have a harsher attitude than that.
I have no problem with your opinions. I respect that other people have beliefs and opinions that don’t agree with my own. I suspect that the reason people get so upset with you has more to do with the way you go about stating your beliefs rather than what you are stating as your belief.
But what do I know? I’m just another one of those Christians and I don’t know what I’m talking about most of the time. 
I am not trying to paint anyone with a brush here but the fact is that he is the head of a self-identified group. They are the ones calling themselves Southern Baptists not me. When one of them does something as egregious as this the orginization needs to formally denounce it. Otherwise it is a black mark against the entire orginization and all those that belong to it.
Could the minister be defrocked for not upholding the same Christian values he claims to espouse?
I’m grouping my way through this one, so no promises for shattering insights, much less firm answers. (deep breath) Okay…
Comparing bad behavior on the basis of belief or nonbelief really isn’t very useful, assuming that all humans are capable of doing horrible things. Juggling atrocities/hypocrisy along believer/nonbeliever lines doesn’t hold water even with communism etc. tossed into the mix, because that amounted to an enforced coopting of belief from the sacred to the state, so to speak. Different basis but the same mechanics: X is The Answer, with full bureaurcracy to rationalize away obvious problems.
That was an unusual blip in the time old avowed believer/nonbeliever dichotomy though. The main thing that sets believers apart–or should–is standing by, and representing, a set of beliefs. Under most circumstances, atheists, agnostics and undecideds don’t find comfort in that group support or bear responsibilty for what that group does in name of the faith.
I don’t extend blame to individual Christians of any flavor, shading, description or persuasion for what’s done by any denomination or individual. Any group, even the most heartfelt and commited, will have a fair share of hopeless flakes. But this action was taken by a church leader. Someone entrusted, empowered, to represent the group. That elevation wasn’t by chance. Like it or not, action was taken to forcibly eject an individual–a Christian, a walker along the path–from the group because of actions forged from complex, difficult outside necessities.
That’s loathesome, IMO, not the least because it’s such a flagrant violation of the humility and charity that should be central to Christianity. I’m not a church goer or even a Christian anymore, though I retain much of what I learned in my youth, mainly because the politics of churches became an end in themselves. The self-imposed–and group approved–bureaucracy became the religion.
Applied–lived–Christianity doesn’t eject people because their actions don’t hew along party lines. That makes a mockery of very fundamental concepts: personal responsiblity, trying and sometimes failing but going on with the assurance of understanding and forgiveness.
This judge’s forcible ejection from the chuch is newsworthy because the church offical made a big, public point of it. The action was blatant political hotdogging because the church official chose to play it on that level. It’s a particularly ugly mockery of what Christ taught, but that’s what happens when religious groups choose grandstanding over individual souls.
And yes, I do hold individual Christians reponsible for exerting whatever force and voice they have against this sort of nonsense. Like it or not, organized Christianity has morphed into a nasty political force in the US. If you don’t agree with what’s being done in your name, or Christ’s, then apply your brakes. Your bureacracy, your responsibilty. Can’t have it both ways.
Underline and bolding mine - this bears emphasis. Thank you, TVeblen. Very well said.
Now, if this minister’s congregation really lived/practised what their Bible teaches them, they would renounce and condemn the preacher’s actions.
I would be very surprised if they did.