I'm not baptized. My MIL prays for my soul. Not sure I'm comfy with that

[thelabdude]

@hoopified

There would seem to be some smart people, smarter than I, and maybe even smarter than you, who would disagree. So it’s not so cut and dried as you propose.

Still, if creationism is such a sham, why not take two days, teach it, and let the facts fall where they may? What are you so afraid of?

2 days? It isn’t that complex of a subject. It could easily be covered in the time spent in unconstitutional attacks on the existence of God common in the teaching of evolution. If God choose to work within natural laws to create the world, that is no proof he doesn’t exist. Any teacher insisting on teaching that it does should be removed from the classroom.

Most of what I read about evolution goes into long winded proof of the obvious fact that selective breeding works. That is Biblical, look how well Jacob managed his striped sheep. Then having proved selective breeding, they jump the chasm to creating species that can no longer interbreed. Frankly I am confused and don’t feel I have enough data to make a sound decision. There does seem to be a great fear of the idea of creationism.

[Saintly_Loser]

[QUOTE=Blake]
The fact that she is attempting to produce an effect is offensive, whether the effect occurs or not. It is telling the recipient of the “prayer” that they an errant child, unable to think for themselves and in need of correction from teacher. Whether the teacher actually exists is rather irrelevant.
[/QUOTE]

It’s not telling the recipient (well, the subject) of the prayer anything of the kind. It’s praying for grace, understanding, wisdom, whatever, for the subject. It doesn’t imply anything along the lines of the subject being an “errant child” or unable to think, or in need of correction. Religious people quite often pray for themselves – does that mean they think of themselves as errant children, etc.?

[QUOTE=rat avatar]
In many sects you can kill a young boy, have sex and ejaculate on his body and eat/collect little bits or real cannibalism. And a short time later through the magic of wishful thinking mixed with a little bit of wine and toast all’s good for you.
[/QUOTE]

WTF? I’m guessing you’re particularly excercised about Catholicism, but still, WTF?

[QUOTE=rat avatar]
“Does faith matter? Absolutely,” Gingrich said. “How can you have judgment if you have no faith? How can I trust you with power if you don’t pray?” He continued, “the notion that you are endowed by your creator sets a certain boundary of what we mean by America.” Gingrich said that Americans should value religion first, above morality and knowledge.

“a secular atheist country potentially one dominated by radical Islamists”

"I’m not ashamed to admit that I’m a Christian, but you don’t need to be in the pew every Sunday to know there’s something wrong in this country when gays can serve openly in the military but our kids can’t openly celebrate Christmas or pray in school. As president, I’ll end Obama’s war on religion. And I’ll fight against liberal attacks on our religious heritage. Faith made America strong. It can make her strong again.” —Rick Perry
“I am a firm believer in intelligent design as a matter of faith and intellect, and I believe it should be presented in schools alongside the theories of evolution.” —Rick Perry

“One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country… Many of the Christian faith have said, well, that’s okay, contraception is okay. It’s not okay. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.” - Santoum

Do I need to keep going?
[/QUOTE]

It’s worth nothing that the people you quote have either already been rejected by their own party, or are going to be rejected by that same party shortly.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@hoopified

[QUOTE=Me]
In a traditional marriage, the male was the head of the household and the female had few or no rights. Traditional marriage was effectively abolished in the US by the Married Womens’ Property Acts in the late nineteenth century and marital rape laws in the 1970s.

No. You’re comparing the expression of marriage with its definition. Two different things.
[/QUOTE]

What is the “expression” of marriage?

One of the defining features of marriage as traditionally practiced is that the wife owned no property and was in many respects effectively the property of her husband.

Another redefinition of marriage that has largely taken root in the past 50 years is the no-fault divorce. I would say that one of the defining features of any practice is how it ends. Wouldn’t you?

[QUOTE=Saintly Loser]
It’s worth nothing that the people you quote have either already been rejected by their own party, or are going to be rejected by that same party shortly.
[/QUOTE]

Not really, since hoopified specifically asked for examples from Gingrich. Goalpost moving aside, will this do?

[rat_avatar]

@Saintly_Loser

WTF? I’m guessing you’re particularly excercised about Catholicism, but still, WTF?

Why do you assume I was speaking of the Catholic Church? I was talking about how Jeffrey L. Dahmer was “saved” by the Church of Christ. I actually kept it clean but the idea you were not appalled by churches action by my sanitized description of the christian concept of vicarious redemption is sad.

It also demonstrates why I am justified in finding the concept repulsive.

[hoopified]

@rat_avatar

Jeffrey L. Dahmer was “saved” by the Church of Christ. .

I doubt Dahmer or CoC claims this. Try to get some sense of theology before criticizing it.

[Kimstu]

@hoopified

One is left to wonder what about this makes you so angry?

Mostly the stupidity of the people who think that creationism is a scientifically valid construct that deserves to be treated as science. Sometimes their dishonesty too, though.

Seriously, you’re not going to get anywhere trying to paint opposition to teaching creationism in science classes as some kind of irrationally hyper-emotional overreaction. People who understand science and respect education oppose the teaching of creationism in science classes not because they hate religion or find it frightening, but simply because creationism is not science.

As I said, if you advocate the teaching of creationism in science classes then you have no rational reason to oppose the teaching of things like astrology and witchcraft there too. But I can just imagine the pants-wetting hysteria that would afflict the advocates of teaching creationism if somebody proposed that.

@hoopified

I’m not insinuating it. I’m stating it. Scientists, legitimate or not, wouldn’t touch creationism with a ten foot, magnetized pole because other scientists will ostracize them.

Not if there were any actual scientific evidence for creationism, they wouldn’t. The reason scientists look down on claims that creationism is scientifically legitimate is that creationists haven’t managed to come up with any actual scientific evidence to justify such claims.

And it’s not as though they haven’t had the chance, either. Creationists have had every opportunity they could possibly wish for to construct scientifically valid theories based on creationism, starting back in the early modern period when practically every scientist in the Western world already was a convinced creationist.

Despite the best efforts of many of the best minds in the history of modern science, the creationist worldview simply failed to produce anything that could stand up against competing hypotheses when evaluated in the light of the accumulated evidence. It wasn’t prejudice that killed creationism in scientific circles: it was knowledge.

@thelabdude

2 days? It isn’t that complex of a subject. It could easily be covered in the time spent in unconstitutional attacks on the existence of God common in the teaching of evolution. If God choose to work within natural laws to create the world, that is no proof he doesn’t exist. Any teacher insisting on teaching that it does should be removed from the classroom.

There’s no question that assertions about the existence or nonexistence of God definitely don’t belong in a science classroom. Evolution is a scientific theory that, like all scientific theories, explains natural phenomena by means of natural laws, and thus has no bearing on whether or not supernatural beings exist or how they behave if they do.

And AFAICT, most science teachers are well aware of this. Do you have a cite for the claim that science teachers actually do “commonly” assert the nonexistence of God in the process of teaching evolution? Because that really sounds like bullshit to me.

[rat_avatar]

@hoopified

I doubt Dahmer or CoC claims this. Try to get some sense of theology before criticizing it.

Funny, how you keep saying I’m ignorant but the facts are on my side.

http://www.christianchronicle.org/article2159116~Did_%27jailhouse_religion%27_save_Jeffrey_Dahmer%3F

[hoopified]

@rat_avatar

Funny, how you keep saying I’m ignorant but the facts are on my side.

http://www.christianchronicle.org/article2159116~Did_%27jailhouse_religion%27_save_Jeffrey_Dahmer%3F

The fact that you think this article supports your point only bolsters my original criticism. I’ll let you figure it out since you like to pass yourself off as so brilliant.

[Kimstu]

@hoopified

I doubt Dahmer or CoC claims this. Try to get some sense of theology before criticizing it.

Try to get some information about facts before casually and ignorantly contradicting them. As a matter of fact, the Reverend Roy Ratcliff of the Madison (WI) Church of Christ makes no secret of the fact that he gave Dahmer religious instruction culminating in his baptism:

[Crescent (OK) Church of Christ member Curt] Booth usually ministered to inmates at prisons closer to home. But in April 1994, he caught a glimpse of Dahmer on television. Dahmer mentioned that he wished he could “find a little peace,” Booth said.

The Oklahoma church member sensed what he considered the hurt in Dahmer’s voice and eyes. Booth said he thought: “I know somebody who can give you that peace. His name is Jesus Christ.”

Booth sent Dahmer a Bible correspondence course teaching the steps to salvation. Dahmer mailed the answers back and thanked Booth for the course.
“But I still have one problem,” Dahmer wrote. “This prison does not have a baptismal tank and Mr. Burkum the prison chaplain is not sure if he can find someone to bring a tank in and baptize me? I’ve taken all the other steps.”

Booth contacted Roy Ratcliff, minister of the Madison Church of Christ in Wisconsin. Ratcliff set up weekly Bible lessons with Dahmer and baptized him on May 10, 1994. Ratcliff later shared that Dahmer told him he had been fearful of the minister’s visit.

“He dreaded that I might say, ‘No, you’re too evil. You’re too sinful. I can’t baptize someone like you,’” Ratcliff said.

I would think that a sincere Christian would be proud at the notion that his chosen faith had converted and welcomed someone as formerly wicked as Jeffrey Dahmer, not shamefacedly trying to pretend it didn’t happen.

@hoopified

The fact that you think this article supports your point only bolsters my original criticism. I’ll let you figure it out since you like to pass yourself off as so brilliant.

There’s nothing to figure out: the article in question, as my quote above plainly shows, does support the claim about Dahmer having been saved in the Church of Christ while in prison.

Why are you so embarrassed about that?

[Saintly_Loser]

@rat_avatar

Why do you assume I was speaking of the Catholic Church? I was talking about how Jeffrey L. Dahmer was “saved” by the Church of Christ. I actually kept it clean but the idea you were not appalled by churches action by my sanitized description of the christian concept of vicarious redemption is sad.

It also demonstrates why I am justified in finding the concept repulsive.

I assumed, apparently wrongly, that you were speaking of Catholicism because often people, either antitheists (an excellent word) or extremist Protestants who don’t consider Catholics to be truly Christian call the Eucharist “cannibalism.”

I don’t know anything about the Church of Christ “saving” Jeffrey Dahmer vicariously. Vicarious salvation is not a Christian concept, generally speaking. I suppose it’s possible that some sect may believe that it’s possible, but if that’s true, it would definitely be a minority position. A tiny minority, at that.

[hoopified]

@Kimstu

Try to get some information about facts before casually and ignorantly contradicting them. As a matter of fact, the Reverend Roy Ratcliff of the Madison (WI) Church of Christ makes no secret of the fact that he gave Dahmer religious instruction culminating in his baptism:

I would think that a sincere Christian would be proud at the notion that his chosen faith had converted and welcomed someone as formerly wicked as Jeffrey Dahmer, not shamefacedly trying to pretend it didn’t happen.

There’s nothing to figure out: the article in question, as my quote above plainly shows, does support the claim about Dahmer having been saved in the Church of Christ while in prison.

Why are you so embarrassed about that?

I realize that your secular dogmatism has your eyes spinning in your zeal to criticize anything religious, but you might try reading the post that I criticized and the article used to support it.

[Saintly_Loser]

@rat_avatar

Funny, how you keep saying I’m ignorant but the facts are on my side.

http://www.christianchronicle.org/article2159116~Did_%27jailhouse_religion%27_save_Jeffrey_Dahmer%3F

Huh? The story you cite doesn’t say anything about “vicarious salvation.” It says that Dahmer came to accept Christ and was baptized in while in prison.

You may doubt the sincerity of Dahmer’s conversion, or the possiblity of his salvation. Or you may doubt his sanity (as I do), and thus his responsibility for his actions. You can doubt anything you want.

But this story doesn’t say what you think it does.

[Kimstu]

@Saintly_Loser

I don’t know anything about the Church of Christ “saving” Jeffrey Dahmer vicariously. Vicarious salvation is not a Christian concept, generally speaking. I suppose it’s possible that some sect may believe that it’s possible, but if that’s true, it would definitely be a minority position. A tiny minority, at that.

I think you’re mixing up rat avatar’s reference to “vicarious redemption”—i.e., the Christian doctrine that the martyrdom of Christ redeems the sins of human beings, which is the cornerstone of the Christian concept of salvation—with the idea of “vicarious salvation” of one ordinary human sinner by the virtuous deeds of another.

You’re right that most Christians don’t believe that, say, a pious wife can vicariously atone for or cancel out the sins of a wicked husband. But most Christians do believe, and Christian doctrine prescribes, that it is the sacrifice of Christ that ultimately atones for the sins of wicked humanity, which AFAICT is what rat avatar was talking about.

[Kimstu]

@hoopified

I realize that your secular dogmatism has your eyes spinning in your zeal to criticize anything religious, but you might try reading the post that I criticized and the article used to support it.

I not only read the article used to support the post in question (which I also read), but I even quoted the relevant portion of that article in my most recent post but one.

You are really in no position to be criticizing anybody else’s reading comprehension here. You don’t seem to understand what’s being claimed or what evidence is being adduced for the claims even when it’s explicitly spelled out for you.

[rat_avatar]

@hoopified

I realize that your secular dogmatism has your eyes spinning in your zeal to criticize anything religious, but you might try reading the post that I criticized and the article used to support it.

I don’t know what type of christian you are but you may want to ask someone at your church if your sect believes in “Penal substitutionary atonement”

Most sects in the US believe that Jesus died for your sins, and due to that you can receive forgiveness through him.

It was at the core of the Reformation, the one with Martin Luther and John Calvin.

[Saintly_Loser]

@Kimstu

I think you’re mixing up rat avatar’s reference to “vicarious redemption”—i.e., the Christian doctrine that the martyrdom of Christ redeems the sins of human beings, which is the cornerstone of the Christian concept of salvation—with the idea of “vicarious salvation” of one ordinary human sinner by the virtuous deeds of another.

You’re right that most Christians don’t believe that, say, a pious wife can vicariously atone for or cancel out the sins of a wicked husband. But most Christians do believe, and Christian doctrine prescribes, that it is the sacrifice of Christ that ultimately atones for the sins of wicked humanity, which AFAICT is what rat avatar was talking about.

Then I stand corrected. If that’s what rat avatar meant, OK. It’s late – maybe I read things too fast.

I still don’t see what’s so repulsive about the idea that a sinner can be saved.

[hoopified]

Mr. Rat wrote this:

I was talking about how Jeffrey L. Dahmer was “saved” by the Church of Christ.

I know of no Christian denomination that would make this claim or that would support this claim. In fact, this claim is so egregious to Christian thinking that any support of this would be automatically and categorically rejected as “non” or “un” Christian. If you can’t spot this most basic of Christian doctrine, then I am dubious of your ability to discuss anything that requires anything more than rudimentary Christian awareness.
Clear enough for you?

[PandaBear77]

@diggerwam

I feel like she feels that we aren’t equals. Or else why pray.

If you were laying in a hospital bed seriously ill and someone came to pray for you, would you be thinking “they’re praying for me. What an asshole, they think they’re better than me!” or would you think “hmm … ok well I think they’re wasting their time, but they mean well, so whatever?”

You seem like a fairly reasonable guy, so I’m going to assume it’s the latter.

To her, in a sense, you ARE seriously ill. Spiritually, anyway. She doesn’t want you to be, so she prays for you. It’s not about her going “God please make my son in law as good as I am,” it’s more like “God please do for my son in law what you’ve done for me.”

Since you don’t believe anyone’s hearing her prayers anyway, there’s really no reason for it to bother you. Accept it for what it is … goodwill. If there IS an actual place called Hell … how on earth could her desire for you to NOT end up there be a bad thing considering all she’s doing is praying for you?
ETA: Would you get mad if you lost your job and she told you she was praying for God to open doors for you as you searched for another job, or would that too be considered an indication that she thinks you aren’t her equal?

[rat_avatar]

@Saintly_Loser

Then I stand corrected. If that’s what rat avatar meant, OK. It’s late – maybe I read things too fast.

I still don’t see what’s so repulsive about the idea that a sinner can be saved.

Well let’s see how the Jews do it.

For sins against god they have a process Teshuvah which may have many steps.

For sins against a person atonement is earned by getting those you sinned against to forgive you.

Some things, such as murder cannot ever be fully forgiven, because it cannot be entirely fixed.

What makes vicarious redemption evil is that it allows a person to wash away a sin, made against another person without actually righting the wrong.

I know you view it as a wonderful thing, and I didn’t mention my objection to make any christian feel bad, I was just saying that as a non-christian I the right to be offended which was dismissed earlier in the thread.

[Kimstu]

@Saintly_Loser

Then I stand corrected. If that’s what rat avatar meant, OK. It’s late – maybe I read things too fast.

I still don’t see what’s so repulsive about the idea that a sinner can be saved.

I don’t either, to be honest. Even as an atheist, I have no problem with the idea that someone who’s done very bad things can sincerely repent of them and wish to atone for them, although in the case of really vicious sociopaths I think it’s rather unlikely to be sincere repentance.

I don’t know that I’m as comfortable, ethically speaking, with the doctrine that sincere repentance and change of heart are all it takes to ensure even the most previously heinous of evildoers an eternity of bliss in heaven. But then, as an atheist I don’t believe in heaven for anybody, so I don’t really have grounds for objecting to the redemption of mass murderers in particular.

So, if someone who believes in Jesus really does awaken some particular evildoer to sincere repentance by consensually talking with him about Jesus, then more power to them, say I.

Which is why I’m so puzzled that hoopified seems to be committed to denying, against all the factual evidence, that Dahmer was saved in the Church of Christ. If his conversion and repentance were genuine—and we’ll never know for sure, but AFAIK there’s no evidence about Dahmer’s post-conversion behavior contradicting that supposition—then I would think that would be something that Christians would be very proud of.