Subject:
|
Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 9 Jul 2002 16:51:06 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
4875 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> > Well, it would seem to me that a professed Xtian would have to believe, at
> > least nominally, in the divinity of Christ as the Son o' God. Lots of
> > people accept that Jesus the man existed. I do--I mean, why not? Muslims
> > generally accept it, and so do Jews, if I recall correctly. But was he
> > divine? That's another matter. Belief in the divinity of Jesus would
> > appear central, but if I'm wrong, please correct me.
>
> You are wrong. Maybe more on that later.
Please do clarify. In the absence of a unifying belief, we're back to the
point of saying "Xtians are those who say they're Xtians." Are you
comfortable with that categorization? You and Mr. Koresh and Ms. Yates and
Mr. Buchannan and Mr. Robertson and Mr. Falwell etc. etc. etc.?
> > Parenthetically, I seem to remember someone fairly highly placed in the
> > history of the faith (Paul, perhaps?) acknowledging that if the Resurrection
> > were false, then Xtianity on the whole would collapse. Ring a bell for anyone?
>
> At this point it wouldn't matter. The resurrection is a faith-based event.
I think it should matter! You're saying that if the Resurrection were
somehow proven false, you'd still believe it based on faith. Even if you
don't care to articulate it that way, it would be entirely consistent with
your belief in Creationism, which likewise sticks to its dogmatic guns
despite any and all evidence to the contrary.
> *I* am the one who ironically brought the atheists into the fray. *He* is a
> hypocritical troll.
Actually, "they" were brought into the fray in
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=16684.
Anyway, your use certainly didn't appear ironic, and it was directly in
step with your previously-established habit of referring to any group you
dislike as explicitly and completely represented by any member of that
group. Witness your generically disparaging references to "lefties"
"I thought lefties were supposed to be the tolerant ones..."
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=16897
to "athiests"
"Interesting that you would omit the biggest butchers of all-time..."
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=16942
to "liberals"
"Typical Liberal-- hypocrisy and double standards"
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=16158
Not to mention a tendency to dismiss as inherently perverted or wrong
anything you happen to find personally distasteful:
"That person is by definition a pervert; they have perverted the act of sex.
Plain and simple. In the same way, some people are bad people; some people are
evil, and that is regardless of what you or I think of them."
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=15293
It is repeatedly clear that you have appointed yourself as some sort of
moral guardian entitled and able to pass judgment on all you survey, and
what is ultimately comical (and tragic) about it is that you fail to see it,
and you fail to realize that your proud and wanton bigotry (religious and
otherwise) is exactly the issue in this entire debate.
> > Of course it's objectionable to homogenize a body of different
> > people; that's the whole point! Richard's post also pointed out the problem
> > of praying in glass churches: if one sees no problem in castingating a
> > group on the basis of a tiny minority of its members, then one must be
> > willing to condemn one's own group on the basis of a few of it's own members.
>
> There is some serious disconnect here. I have been condemning a part of a
> group, not the whole of a group (Islam).
I haven't mentioned much of the terrorist:Islam issue; my discussion has
primarily been about your unavoidable tendency to segregate those groups you
do not like. I suppose in your world, "atheists(1)" would have to ride in
the back of the bus and drink from separate fountains.
> But in return I am getting my *whole*
> group (Christianity) condemned for the actions of a few.
>
> Everything regarding atheists is superfluous-- it is not even a part of the
> discussion. I don't know why it's even a focus.
The discussion, if you'll remember, began about the State establishment of
religion by the canonization of "under God" in The Pledge of Allegiance.
*THAT* is why atheists are part of the discussion. Further, since this has
also become a discussion of your religious bigotry, I think its appropriate
that Muslims, athiests, Jews, Zoroastrians, Hindus, et al continue to be
represented here.
> > The point, simply put, is to demonstrate that it's shockingly bigoted to
> > accuse athiests in general of greater violence or bloodshed than their
> > spiritually enlightened peers.
>
> This was never my intention. I'm not talking about atheists. I only
> tossed them into the fray because of RM's blanket group characterizations.
They were in the fray from the first post in this thread and have been
here throughout it. I have no doubt whatsoever that you'd prefer atheists to
go away, but tough.
> > Even if we lump Pol Pot and Hitler(1) and
> > Stalin among "athiests," the number of dead at athiests' hands is still tiny
> > compared to those killed by "theists(2)," since I flatly don't believe that
> > every murder commited at those dictators' commands were carried out by
> > athiests, even if they were carried out in the name of The State. The
> > theists who committed those murders may have done so under duress, but they
> > are then hardly innocent of the killings.
>
> Even if it were possible to show ballpark body counts (which is impossible,
> and therefore moot), and besides the fact that the number of deists through
> history far outnumbered the atheists which skews statistics horribly, and
> besides the fact that I couldn't care less about the issue, I'm not really
> sure what point it would make.
You mean like the deists who founded this country? The point it would
make is that, for all your condemnation of atheists as amoral monsters
guilty of unparalleled bloodshed, the simple truth is that you're wrong.
*THAT'S" the point.
Anyway, it's not quite moot. Even if we can't get an expressly detailed
list of who killed whom, we can, based on a simple examination of who's been
in charge throughout history (and it generally hasn't been atheists), we get
a sense of who've been the most accomplished killers.
> > But I think that you are wrong WRT your facetious religion statement. Many
> > of mankind's greatest literary (or whichever category you choose)
> > achievements were done in the name of religion.
> >
> > Speaking as a liberal arts major with a vested interest in this particular
> > topic, I say "so what?"
>
> Merely to point out that some of man's noblest endeavors *were* based on
> religion. What was the point of your statement (which I've noticed you've
> snipped)?
Well, no reason to quote myself. My point was that, regardless of the
number of lovely paintings or sculptures or buildings, religion (ie, theism)
can't make any real claim of moral superiority over atheism. If you hadn't
carefully snipped my post, you'd have to articulate the moral calculus by
which you excuse bloodshed if it's committed by the same group that makes
nifty art.
Dave!
(1) How many times were you people going to let me misspell "atheist" before
you called me on it?!?
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
395 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
