Weren’t the ones who actually decided to use the bomb, um, Christians?
What does science have to do with the evils of Christianity? Do Christians shun science? Not any that I have ever met? Are you saying that Christians are incapable of using science to harm others?
The problem is, the only “christians” you hear about are the nutty ones - young earth, flat earth, anti-everything ones. They make all the noise. You never hear about the millions who mind their own business and just live their own lives without bothering anyone.
As for the evils of christianity, nobody yet mentioned an oldy but goody. I guess you didn’t expect TA DA! The Spanish Inquisition!
No one expects the Spanish Inquisition! :eek:
Not necessarily in this life, however.
I have to agree that the impulse to convert the world is the Achilles heel of Xianity.
But although Jesus is reported to have said that none comes to God but by him, this statement can be viewed in light of other reported statements regarding Judgment, when even as yet unrepentant sinners will be offered a choice.
In other words, Jesus doesn’t say that one must accept him as the Christ in this life. In fact, he explicitly states that many who never said his name will be found righteous at the final judgment, and enter into the kingdom of heaven.
To me, this is the most profound misunderstanding of many – though not all – modern Xians, and the one that does the most harm in this world.
I would also like to give a hearty second to what Thudlow and The Peter Files have said above:
TPF has taken some undeserved abuse for his statements here. He’s not saying that it’s good to turn a blind eye to evil. He’s just saying that our acknowledgement of evil can be tempered by the better angels of our nature.
He’s not imposing his will on anyone, but saying that he wishes everyone here to experience hope and love (and who among us can argue with that?) and, yes, faith. But not a fire and brimstone conversion. Rather, a faith that comes in a still, small voice, in a dark hour.
To attack him for that is mere spite. And, speaking as an atheist, it makes me indignant toward those who would give non-theists a reputation for closed-mindedness, hard-heartedness, and ingratitude.
Thus endeth the rant.
I preface this with the fact that I have been smiling sweetly to “real life” friends and relatives who offer “happy Easter” wishes all week and invite me to church. I don’t want to lash out at individuals with my wellbeing at heart – and I know that that’s all these good friends intend. Having said that…
What appalls me about Christianity is the brainwashing of people (particularly children) to think they are fundamentally flawed from birth thanks to original sin. It makes me ill to remember chanting every week “if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves… we have sinned against you in thought, word and deed, by what we have done and by what we have left undone.” I hate the whole bait and switch concept of sin. God creates everything. Including the snake, the tree, and that fruit. Creates a big set up so that Adam and Eve will fall – I mean, he created them, down to the last cell, right? He knew darn well exactly what temptation they could or could not withstand. He kicks them out of the garden and then offers the oh so loving chance to get back in his graces, sending Jesus to rectify a “problem” that didn’t even need fixing if he hadn’t set them up for a fall in the first place.
Oh, and I love the part about being “hard hearted” and “stiff necked” – so that if you don’t believe or manage to develop a personal relationship with God it’s your fault because you are shutting him out. Whatever.
Christians do charity. But I can live without the weekly guilt trip for not giving enough in time and money and effort. And I can live without all the self-righteousness, too. Non-christians do charity. And without a book telling them to do it.
Christians feel the call to be involved. Yeah, involved with my life, poking around in my eyes for motes while nursing that big old beam of their own. The Christian mission to convert and extend their own morality to cover others is screwing with my ability to live my life according to my own beliefs.
Gotta love the whole submission thing too. Especially when it leads to the subjegation of women. Or how about submitting unquestioningly to mythology and expecting others to do the same because it’s “true”? Submitting to authority because “it says so” rather than making the effort to reason things out. Using this “authority” in a political context to influence others and pass legislation that interferes with people’s lives.
Repentance and confession are useful concepts, but the idea of sin can insinuate itself so deeply into the fabric of person as to generate into a neverending snowball of guilt and self-loathing that cannot be relieved by repentance. Of course, not being able to repent is because of my own heard-heartedness. Gee thanks, that helps a lot.
Christians can be upbeat. This can often function as a cover for conflict and anguish, creating a superficial sense of goodwill and unity that masks the backstabbing-with-a-smile that deceives the unwary until they become victims. But, hey, everyone’s happy here.
I guess that counts as my witness about the Christian faith that I was brought up in.
That was a response to “Neitzsche is dead, God is alive.” If after I am dead I find myself face to face with God, that sure as heck would be shocking to me. 
Of course, the is presuming something like a Jewish/Christian/Islamic conception of God. If say the Hindus are right, I may die and be reincarnated without ever being aware that God exists. (And if some Buddhists are right, I will come back reincarnated, even though there is no God.)
Good point. I dunno what the religious beliefs of the designers of the bomb were.
http://www.nuclearfiles.org/rebios/oppenheimerjulius.html
"The staff grew from 30 scientists to 5,000, all trying to finish work on the bomb before the Germans did. On the day of the test, Oppenheimer fully realized the enormity of what he had just accomplished. As he stood watching the mushroom cloud, he recalled later, a phrase from the Baghavad Gita, the Hindu scripture, floated through his mind, “I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.” This responsibility weighed heavily on his shoulders, and when he met with President Harry Truman in 1946, he exclaimed, “Mr. President, I have blood on my hands.”
However, the politicians who decided to use the bomb at least claimed to be Christians.
I did in the OP:
“I am amazed by the ethos common in more conservative forms of Christianity to resist change. And even persecute those throughout history who tried to advocate change. Remember the Inquisition?”
Then where were all those “other Christians” when it came time to vote on the referenda in Ohio and Oregon and those other states? I am still very angry and will not stop being angry about that one for a very long time. (And my state’s working on it even as we speak.)
I don’t live in Ohio and Oregon. What refereda do you speak of?
I think most Christians have not had an opportunity to vote one way or the other. As for me, I support the right of gays to marry.
Were you referring to the bigotry of some Christians or of rfgdxm’s bigotry** against Christians?
Unless you are a minor, the responsibility lies with you.
I live in Michigan. I voted against a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. That amendment passed easily.
I desire to force agnosticism on Christians?
The ones against gay marriage. I doubt the only self-described Christians in those states were Fundamentalists. All of these referenda, if you recall, passed by a landslide.
I doubt they were all Christians or belonged to any religion. Agnostics and atheists, at least some of them, probably voted against it also. Oh, yes, don’t forget skeptics may have also.
The point is, would not a true Christian make it a point to go vote against it? Would not a true Christian speak out against hate in the church, in the streets, in the voting booth? Some did, I’m sure. More didn’t.
What does witnessing have to do with it? In the linked thread you felt it was inappropriate to argue with the OP. Here you find no such restraint necessary. What distiguishes the two?
If you’re looking for weasel room, the above statement doesn’t cut it.
Obviously, due to the inherent lack of dogma in the atheist/agnostic/skeptic position, it’s rather difficult to assign across the board moral stands to members of that community – so yes, strictly speaking, you’re correct, no doubt some of them reflect the overall homophibic cultural bias present in our society. However, should you care to dig a little deeper, you may want to ask yourself from whence comes this irrational bias? Not hard to conclude, that in Western society, it stems mostly from the pulpits. As an example of same, take the current change in legislation in Spain which will shortly allow same-sex marriage. Guess exactly where the dividing lines were drawn?
If you guessed Church and its adherents VS the largely secular rest of the country, you’d get an “A”. No reason to think said dividing line is any different in the US…only that you have many more True Believers.
Now, that’s not to say that homophobia magically disappears in a secular society, it doesn’t – Cuba is an interesting case. But that is a topic for a different thread.
I have many Christian friends - LIBERAL Christian friends - who are against gay marriage, but have no problem w/civil unions. They have stated that it is the word ‘marriage’ that ticks them off. They feel that ‘marriage’ is a religious ritual. If the states would offer up civil unions as an alternative, they would vote for it in a heartbeat.
Yep. I object to the idea of a gay marriage. I have no problems with civil unions.
Wouldn’t you have stood up to the very real litany of hate in the churches in, say, Ohio, though? Would it have been more important to you to vote for the anti-gay-marriage amendment or against the very nasty, vitriolic, not-very-Christian poison that was spewing from the pulpits? Sometimes I think you have to make your decisions based on the company you’d keep.