It occurred to me that my question earlier might be summed up this way:
Given that:
The vast majority of the nation is Christian,
Poll after poll has stated that the majority of citizens believe homosexuality is a sin, are against gay marriage, and are only for civil unions by slim margins, demonstrating that being for gay rights is still a minority position in America (pointed out all the time by many conservative federal politicians),
The majority of states have (overwhelmingly in many cases) voted in DOMA-type laws, demonstrating that these polls are not merely lip service and that the electorate is willing to put their beliefs into action,
These positions are in exact accordance with those held by radical social conservatives,
would it or would it not be fair to say that radical social conservative views are very much aligned with the majority of mainstream Christians? Why or why not? And, more importantly for this discussion, would a gay person, seeing all these things happen and being personally involved in these events, be reasonable in assuming such? Why or why not?
You know what’s really funny? Catching gobear in a lie.
Let’s review, shall we?
gobear makes this statement There’s a reason why Christians are called “sheep”; "baaa, tell me what to think, baaaa
I accuse him of using broad brush strokes to mis-categorize ALL Christians. The careful reader will note I’m NOT referring to stands on homosexuality or gay marriages or other social policy…but that all Christians have to be told what to think (i.e, they can’t “independently think”)
Self righteous gobear says Did I say “each and every Christian without exception”? No, I didn’t, did I?…DENYING that he thinks all Christians can’t indepently think.
He later says Hey, if those folks were capable of independent thinking in the first place, they wouldn’t buy into that pernicious mythology …which of course is referring to theism…a belief that ALL Christians (and religious Jews, etc…) have (oops this seems to contradict point # 3 above)
I follow up by asking “Do we have you on the record as saying that all of the above dopers are incapable of independent thought?” (referring to several self identified Christians on the board who often seem to handle themselves just fine in debates)
He replies To the degree that you unquestioningly swallow mythology and legends as reality, then yes
So indeed anyone who “swallows myths and legends as reality” are “incapable of independent though”. This, of course, describes ALL theists.
So gobear ADMITS that ALL Christians, without exception, are “incapable of independent thought”…which of course means he was lying in point 3. Which means that my original accusation of broad brush strokes regarding Christians was indeed accurtae…he just chooses to deny it.
I can argue dispassionately up to a point. . but when you call me a liar. . .
No, it doesn’t, you tool. Some Christians believe in a literally true Bible; others believe in a distant Watchmaker god; some accept the ethical teachings of Jesus and deny his Godhood. As I said, to the degree one swallows superstition then one is incapable of rational thought, which does not, by the way mean I’m calling theists stupid, as you accused me of a couple of posts back. Heck, the churchmen who tried Galileo were brilliant men, but they were still blinkered by the prejudices of their time. They could not break free of the intellectual straitjacket to accept a universe that did not conform to Ptolemaic principles.
You repeatedly accuse me of saying “ALL Christians” when I have repeatedly disavowed any such thing.
You are a liar. Nice defense of the the teachings of Jesus, shithead.
Dude, they are the same people who made Jerry Jenkins and Tim LaHaye multimillionaires, the same folks who write hate mail to NBC for showing “Queer Eye,” the same folks who are adamant against gay rights, and they are everywhere. Have you never spent time among fundies?
Fool yoruself all you want, but I’ve heard what they say when they think there’s no gays in the room, I’ve read Homebrew’s cites, I reead what Christian ministers say about gays. Sure, there are some gay-tolerant Christians, but there are far more who hate us.
Look, this attempt to slur mainstream Christians with the beliefs of Christianity’s more radical elements simply because they share some common ground on the issue of homosexuality is incorrect because it carries with it a lot more baggage than just discomfort with gay sex and a belief that marriage should be exclusively heterosexual. The kind of folks that populate those websites hold opinions about gay people that go well beyond discomfort, right into the Fred Phelps zone, and they also hold a lot of other beliefs not held by mainstream Christians on topics like evolution, prayer in school, and the like.
Doubtlessly, the KKK is a big proponent of free speech. That doesn’t mean that the KKK should be deemed representative of the viewpoint of most free speech advocates. To make that comparison would be offensive in the extreme. Gobear’s comparison is no less so.
Spare me. Homosexuality is a divisive issue in the church right now, so much so that it threatens to rip many denominations in two. Just who the fuck do you think is on the pro-gay side of that divide, if not ordinary Christians?
And that’s just on issues like ordination and marriage, where there is a question as to which there should be institutional recognition of homosexuality. I suspect that on the more basic issue of simple tolerance for gays, you’d find wide acceptance among non-fundamentalist sects of Christianity.
When the fundies and evangelicals are the largest growing segment of Christianity in the US, they become the mainstream. After the Roman Catholic Church, itself no friend to gay people, Pentacostalism (aka, a fundie denomination) is the largest segment of Christianity in the US.
Oh please…I even used the word THEIST several times you twit…
“the·ism PPronunciation Key(thzm)
n.
Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world.”
You were taking about believing in myths and legends…that the very belief in a God is to believe in a myth. I don’t know ANYONE (certainly none of the people I listed as examples) that self identifes as Christian (or religious Jew etc…) that does NOT have theistic beliefs.
Huh? If you say that Joe Blow is “incapable of rational thought”, you’re NOT saying he’s stupid?
Wow.
Sure you did. You’ve said that all Christians (of course we could add other faith believers as well) who “swallow superstition” are incapable of independent thinking. Since ALL Christians (certainly the ones I listed for example when asking your opinion) have “some” theistic beliefs (which you would consider to be superstition…right?)…then they are ALL incapable of independent thinking.
What the hell though, I’ll play your game.
Bricker is a self identified practicing Roman Catholic. He has theistic beliefs. Is he capable of rationale thought? Can he think independently?
Polycarp is a self identified practicing Episcopalian . He has theistic beliefs. Is he capable of rational thought? Can he think independently?
tomndebb is a self identified practicing Roman Catholic. He has theistic beliefs. Is he capable of rationale thought? Can he think independently?
Jodi is a self identified practicing Methodist. She has theistic beliefs. Is she capable of rationale thought? Can she think independently?
RTFirefly is a self identified born again Christian (maybe evangelical protestant? I’m not sure). He has theistic beliefs. IS he capable of rationale thoughts? Can he think independently?
Zev is a self identified believing Jew. He has theistic beliefs. Is he capable of rationale thought? Can he think independently?
(I don’t mean to imply anything by names NOT included in the list…these are just several names of posters who I’ve seen self identify as having theistic beliefs)
These should be easy to answer. All of the above posters believe in a God. This belief would qualify as superstitios beliefs for you. This would make all of the above posters incapable of having independent thoughts, correct?
I do wonder where they get that figure. Data compiled by CUNY in a comprehensive study of the topic, places Pentacostalism a distant sixth behind Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans and Presbyterians. US Census data (warning: PDF; see p.61) seems to suggest they are even smaller, at 1.5 million members, which puts them behind the aforementioned sects as well as numerous others, including Episcopalianism.
And being “fastest growing” is meaningless – if I have a church with one member, then add nine more, I’ve grown by 900%. It’s much easier to establish large growth rates at a small organization than a large one. And even that claim is false; the statistics above show the Church of Christ growing at a faster pace than, well, everybody, followed by Assemblies of God.
And all that to the side, I again return to the point that gay issues are a major dividing point in the church, as the ordination of women was decades ago. The church is wrestling with the issue in a very real way. It is decidedly unfair to tar the beliefs of millions of ordinary Christians, a very great number of whom fall on the pro-gay side of that debate, with the beliefs of an extreme and noisy minority.
That’s right. One can be perfectly intelligent, even highly so, yet still be unable to reject religious conditioning. There are clever creationists who are skilled debaters, and they’re capable of arguing their point well, but without opening their minds sufficiently to question the very concept they’re defending. Heck, I used to be a member of Mensa, and there is no belief so silly, from astrology to reincarnation, that there wouldn’t be a special interest group for it.
And, yes, I am certain that there is no God and that religious people are fooling themselves. If that offends you, too fucking bad.
I can certainly see the grace and peace of the Holy Spirit working in you. :rolleyes:
First of all, sorry if it sounded like I was trying to smear.
Secondly, I don’t think that for the purposes of this discussion, the “lot of other beliefs not held by mainstream Christians” is relevant.
Thirdly, and I’m genuinely asking this, because I really don’t know, what is the difference between what mainstream Christianity and radical Christianity think about the subject of homosexuality? I mean, if you think homosexuality is a choice, and a sin, then you MUST think gay people are going to Hell, but that can’t be all there is with the radicals, right? Is it the presence or absence of loony conspiracy theories about the power gays hold over the media or whatever? Is it the belief, or absence thereof, of the belief that gays are deliberately, and with malicious Satanic intent, trying to pervert the social mores of the country? The presence or absence of Phelpsian glee in the death of gay people? All of the above?
I noticed that you punted on the last portion of my previous post. The part where I asked if the people who BELIEVE in that myth are incapable of “independent thought” That was the claim you made earlier.
Gee golly gobear…that sounds like you’re saying something about all religious people…and gee whiz you got your panties in a wad earlier when I said that that was EXACTLY what you were doing…
Oh no you huffed and puffed…I’m only talking about “some” Christians…although you never did say which Christians your initial jabs did NOT apply to. You said it only applied to those folks who had superstitious beliefs. But a belief in “a” God (no matter what kind of God or how many “Gods”) is a belief ALL Christians (and Jews etc…) have.
I guess I thought you might at least be honest and admit that you felt that way about ALL Christians…hell ALL theists…
Sure they are. Gobear said his listed websites were indicative of mainstream Christian thought in general.
It varies. Radical sects of Christianity are themselves diverse in the specific radical beliefs they hold.
I think mainstream Christianity could be fairly characterized as holding two distinct positions on homosexuality: one, that homosexual practices are to some extent inconsistent with certain parts of Scripture, and two, that marriage is a heterosexual institution (I think there is much more acceptance for civil unions – I’ve even heard Bill Donohue of the Catholic League essentially endorse that concept). I think the kinds of websites that gobear lists go well beyond those fairly mainstream positions, and I think it’s pretty unfair to the mainstream to tar them with radical beliefs they do not hold.
I also note, yet again, for the umpteenth time, that this is an issue of major debate within the Christian community. That community is grappling with the issue of how to reconcile scripture and acceptance of homosexuals. Yes, there is a major divide. What gobear and others refuse to admit is that a substantial number of Christians rest on the pro-gay side of that divide, that they consider themselves to be mainstream, and that they would be gravely insulted by being connected to the denizens of extremist fundie websites.
For some reason, these people are invisible to gobear. They simply don’t exist in his worldview; he’s only willing to acknowledge the handful he’s dealt with personally, like Polycarp, and then write those few off as aberrations. What he utterly refuses to see is that this issue would not be a point of major division if there weren’t a substantial body of believers on the pro-gay side. If Christianity was as monolithically anti-gay as gobear suggests, there wouldn’t be a debate at all.
To which I can only say: grow up. The church is slow to change, as it should be. And it has its share of lunatics and outright assholes. But it also has many, many good and decent people trying to live as God wants them to – and these people far outnumber the loonies and assholes, even if they aren’t quite as vocal as their nutty counterparts.
Dude, are you mentally retarded? I just wrote my thoughts on theists, to wit, they are fooling themselves, that is to the degree that they believe in the supernatural, they are deluded. That degree will vary from individual to individual, from the woman who thinks her taco contains a picture of the Virgin Mary to the Deist who follows Christs teachings but not his full divinity. They are both Christians, but who do not share the same degree of supernatural belief. I am firmly convinced that there is no such thing as a supernatural entity, and so it follows that people who believe in those entities are mistaken, IMO. No doubt they think the same about me in my atheism.
If you think that I’m not being “honest” by refusing to make any more general a condemnation of theism than that, that’s your problem, not mine.
Dewey
The debate is being led largely by gay Christians, not by straight people. More tot he point, this debate is only happening in moderate denominations, which I have already demonstrated have lost their share of the market to the radical sects. The Methodists and the Episcopalians are debating; the Assembly of God and the Southern Baptists are not.
[quote]
To which I can only say: grow up. The church is slow to change, as it should be. And it has its share of lunatics and outright assholes. But it also has many, many good and decent people trying to live as God wants them to – and these people far outnumber the loonies and assholes, even if they aren’t quite as vocal as their nutty counterparts.
[quote]
And this is where we differ, for I am convinced that the fundies outnumber the moderates.
And instead of just retorting, “Grow up yourself!”, I ask you to imagine if the tables were turned and heteros were the despised minority. Would you accept being told to be patient and accept your marginal status, but in the meantime stop being so vocal and resign yourself to your lack of equality and be grateful you are just tolerated?
Nope. That’s not the honesty issue. The honesty issue you denying that you said (earlier) that ALL Christians have problems (to one degree or another) with acting sheeplike…or lacking rationale thought.
I GET the point that you think some Christians are more deluded than others. That some Christians lack more rationale thought than others.
The point remains you think that ALL Christians are sheeplike, lack rationale thought, lack independent thinking. Some more than others.
It’s real simple.
In gobear’s viewpoint, people who have theistic viewpoints are, to one degree or other, “incapable of thinking indepently” or “…to the degree one swallows superstition then one is incapable of rational thought”
Correct?
ALL Christians have theistic viewpoints. Each and everyone. Their viewpoints may vary, but they none-the-less ALL subscribe to a belief system that qualifies as superstition/mythology/legends in gobear’s world?
Correct?
THEREFORE
Here you go…pay attention. It follows from Points 1 & 2 that ALL Christians (to one degree or another) are “incapable of independent thinking” or “incapable of rarionale thought”…since they ALL have some form of superstitious belief(s).
Correct?
Ergo…when you said that you were not talking about “each and every Christian”…you were not being honest. EACH AND EVERY Christian, according to your criteria, is incapable of rationale thought/independent thinking…to one degree or another.
You got your panties in a snit for pointing out that you had such an opinion about ALL Christians. Yet your own criteria frames your opinion exactly as I stated it in my first reply to your “sheep” post.
To disprove my point…all you need to do right now, is name ONE self identified Christian who is not in any way deluded, sheeplike, having troubles with independent thinking/rationale thought. (and remember, you said ALL theists have such problems to one degree or another).
If you can’t come up with ONE self identified Christian who is free of those attributes (and of course explain WHY)…then my initial claim that you were applying broad brush strokes to ALL Christians has been easily demonstrated.
I’ll be waiting for you to name that self identified Christian.
But you have mentioned the disproof to your “broad brush” accusation several times without understanding it. . . “to one degree or another.” I have. . . REPEATEDLY. . pointed out that I don’t regard ALL Christians as having identical viewpoints or degrees of belief in the supernatural, yet you persist in accusing me of doing that over and over and over. Either you are monumentally stupid or purposefully dishonest in your constant accusation of points I keep fucking refuting.
YES, I’m an atheist, and I think that people who believe in a god are deluded. That goes for Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and any other believers in God or gods. Remember “atheist,” that means “no God.” But no, I don’t think every Christian (Jew, Hindu, Muslim. . . ) has the same amount of supernatural belief. One can be a Christian and accept the findings of science in regard to the origin of the universe and of humanity. That makes him considerably more rational than a fundie creationist. But to the degree that he accepts the supernatural at all, then he is deluded by that much.
So your syllogism fails because you are making an argument with false premises. I am not accusing ALL Christians of having the same beliefs because they DON’T, you pinhead!
I’ve never denied that I think theists are deluded, I’ve said it many times and I reiterate it here. But what I object to is your repeated skipping over my qualifiers to accuse me of applying broad brush strokes to Christians, that is, thinking they are all identical or share the same characteristics.
I repeat, I . . am. . an. . atheist. That means I think you people are mistaken in your theistic beliefs. That DOES NOT mean that you are all deluded to the same amount or same degree. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, for example, was a brilliant thinker and sophisticated theologian whose belief system was considerably deeper than, say, that of a housewife who prays to St. Anthony to find her keys. They are not the same, they do not share identical beliefs, and to accuse me of painting them with a broad brush is a lie.
But, yes, ultimately they are both mistaken in their embrace of the supernatural. If you want to call that a broad brush, have at it.
Nice strawman. I never said you accused all Christians of having the “same” beliefs.
Umm no, again. I never said that you think all Christians have the same beliefs or same inability to rationally think…just that they ALL, by virtue of their Christianity, have some inability to think rationally and independently.
If I say…
Mexicans are lazy.
Is that a broad brush? Of course it is, even though I never said “EACH AND EVERY ONE”
Notice that I never claimed that all Mexicans were equally lazy…Perhaps Jose is a harder worker than Rico…, perhaps Fernando got some education and works even harder than Jose… but in general they are lazy, especially when compared to non-Mexicans.
Thats essentially what you said…by virtue of their theistic beliefs, we know that ALL Christians are different than atheists when it comes to rational and independent thinking abilities.
Actually you said much more than that. I think atheists are “mistaken” in their beliefs. I think that Hindus are “mistaken” in their beliefs. I do NOT believe that Hindus and atheists are automatically lacking in rational or independent thought…“to one degree or another”
See above for more straw.
No…it’s not that they have mistaken beliefs…it’s that their entire ability to have rational, independent thoughts is lesser (than atheists, right?) because of those beliefs.
Yes, you did. You accused me of using a broad brush and saying that I was slamming ALL Christians.
Liar.
In addition, “Mexicans are lazy” is not analogous to “Theists are irrational.” The former is an unfair stereotype that is demonstrably untrue. The latter is a tautology, that is, theists are irrational because they believe in statements that contradict reason. I repeat, I’m not using “irrational” to mean they are crazy or stuoid, so if you accuse me of saying that, you’re a liar. I use it in the sense that their faith is derived from a source that is outside reason or logic.
Well, you wouldn’t, would you? You think as magically as any other theist, so it would not make sense for you to accuse them of lacking rational or independent thought.
As I’ve said before, yes, to the degree that they rely on the supernatural. How many times do I have to repeat myself? Prayer, miracle stories, “laying of hands,” transubstantiation, and so forth may or may not be valid, but they in no way derive from reason.
Highly unlikely. If this debate were being driven principally by gay people, we would not see schisms in major denominations over the issue.
You have? Really? All I saw you post was a self-serving, unsubtantiated description of the relative position of Pentecostalism from a evangelical seminary. I countered with statistics derived from studies at CUNY and from the US Census. I leave it as an exercise for the reader as to which set of data is more credible.
Indeed, your assertion is disproven solely by reference to Roman Catholicism, which dwarfs by a wide margin other Christian denoiminations in the US. Roman Catholicism is many things, but a radical fundamentalist sect is not one of them.
The Assemblies of God, according to the CUNY data I provided earlier, represent one half of one percent of the US population (by way of comparison, Roman Catholics acount for one quarter). They are not a significant factor.
Southern Baptists, by comparison, are a significant factor. Baptists generally make up the second-largest Christian denomination, comprising 16.3% of the population. Of course, that figure includes many moderate and even liberal Baptists sects. Since the CUNY data doesn’t break Baptists down by type, we turn to the Census data. It shows 15.7 million Southern Baptists. By way of comparison, Roman Catholics number 62 million, Methodists 8.4 million, Lutherans at 5.1 million (excluding the conservative Missouri synod splinter group) and Episcopalians at 2.3 million.
And it is true that Southern Baptists are generally a conservative sect. However, unlike many denominations, Southern Baptist churches do not owe any particular allegiance to the Southern Baptist Convention; they are, by and large, free to disregard dogmatic proclamations made at those meetings. Theologically, every Southern Baptist church is an island unto itself. And much has been written about the political machinations of conservative fundamentalists who have taken over the Convention over the past decade and a half. Suffice it to say there are many moderate Southern Baptist churches who are highly dissatisfied with the way the national body has moved as of late, and preach as much from their pulpits on Sunday morning.
And, more to the point, one would expect the debate to begin in the more moderate sects. If history is our guide, that’s the way these things have always happened.
And I would ask you to point out where I said you should do any of those things. By all means, join the debate, address the theological issues, and make persuasive arguments for change.
What I take exception to is your unfair tarring of good-hearted Christians with the beliefs of the extremists in their midst. I am not suggesting that you take your status lying down, or that you cease to be vocal, or that you resign yourself to mere toleration. I am instead suggesting that you not be an asshole while working for the changes you seek.