No, nor did I say so. But plenty do do those things and similar things, and I’m not interested in pretending someone who commits atrocities is a moral person just because they do it in the name of religion.
[true story] I sometimes wonder if Der Trihs is hot. Especially when I learned he was on the shorter side (tend to be more muscular). (Although 5’6’’ might be a little too short. Then I thought, “Maybe he is of Mexican extraction?”) Is he super fat? Or super old? Could he secretly be a sexpot? But he doesn’t seem to have much luck with women, so it’s all so unclear…[/true story]
Just another round of idle speculation inspired by our Der Trihs!
Even so, metaphorically or literally, the notion that taking God inside your body brings you closer to Him does seem rather primitive.
Difficult as this may be for you to believe, disagreeing with Der Trihs about certain abstract epistemological or moral assumptions is not necessarily equivalent to lying and oppressing and abusing and engaging in bigotry and committing murder.
Your problem is that you simply don’t seem to be able to detect any difference between those two categories. If somebody disagrees with any of your personal premises concerning religion and/or morality, then according to you they’re automatically evil lying oppressive bastards, case closed.
“Primitive” is a vague word which judges the aesthetic, not the function. If you do not believe in it, then you believe it serves no function. If you do believe in it, the method is only a means to a greater end. To call something Primitive, Advanced, Outmoded, or Progressive, is a judgement based on cultural ideas or one’s personal state of digestion, if you will.
Yeah, but He meant, “Get drunk!”
When what they disagree with me on is “being a dishonest bigoted tyrant is bad” then yes, I think it’s fair to assume that they are indeed inclined toward bigotry, dishonesty and tyranny.
The problem is that you just as readily make the same assumption when they disagree with you on pretty much anything else involving religion or morality.
Well? Aren’t esthetic standards relevant to judging religious practices?
Except, some people don’t all religion as “bigotry, dishonesty, and tyranny.” We see shades of grey. Some of us don’t see things in such extreme terms. It’s not question of “you’re either with us or against us. This side good, this side bad. There’s no middle ground, it’s all black and white. Period.”
You come off as a bad parody of how right wingers portray atheists and leftists.
From here.
Make some bloody holy vinegar.
If you could make atheism (somehow) be shown to endorse literal torture and literal cannibalism, and absolve Christianity of any such tendencies, Guin, you’d be on the streetcorner in rags preaching this truth to passerbys 24/7.
Nuts like you have a little checkbox in all these dialogues, asking “Christian?”–anyone who checks it off, gets a pass from you. “Oh, he couldn’t possibly be an obnoxious empty-headed idiot, he’s a member of our tribe, let’s look the other way at any transgressions and get his good fellow into shape as a better Christian. Oh, this one is marked ‘atheist,’ a filthy rabble-rouser. Let’s be completely intolerant of him, and his thoroughly offensive ideas.”
Your concept of a gray area is strange–you tolerate and make excuses for and justify any insane Christian beliefs, and you’re very quick to dismiss and deride sensible, sound, logical atheistic posters, insisting that you’re looking at the gray area dispassionately. As someone once may have said, “Look at the log jammed into your your own eye before you criticize the piece of dust that’s in mine.” You’re a total hypocrite in not going after the nutty and offensive beliefs and acts of your fellow Christians, whom you might be able to persuade, rather than the beliefs and acts of atheists that you don’t care for.
If they do not believe one of the major beliefs of the faith, then I don’t understand why they still call themselves Catholic.
Didn’t someone recently, either Donohoe or someone from the Vatican, say the church needs to start throwing out people who do not believe these fairly important matters of faith?
On the part of pchaos there has been no progress-in fact, he just lied* again* in the “Atheist Church” thread about accepting the dictionary definition of “atheist”.
I’m not now nor have ever been catholic, but I went to uncountable services with my ex wife over 20 years. In every service I ever attended, the priest would drink the leftover wine, then pour water into the chalice, swish it around and drink it, then wipe out the chalice with a cloth.
Episcopal Church-same thing.
Lots of folks are “culturally Catholic.” You’re Catholic because you were born Catholic and grew up Catholic. Most people don’t really think about it that deeply. It’s no mystery.
I had a thread a while ago about what it would take belief-wise for a Catholic to leave the church and found out that, for most Catholic posters, it just wasn’t going to happen.
pseudotriton ruber ruber, apparently you’ve never paid attention, because I’m not a Christian. I simply hate generalizations, and black and white thinking.
Atheists have formed churches, the atheist churches were probably not formed by Christians.