Christianity is a religion of tolerance and other assorted myths

[Achilles]

Fallacious straw man rhetoric. You are making a claim based on your opinion, and not on facts. You are making claims regarding a small portion of a population, and claiming it is representative of the whole.

Well, yes and no. I am only applying it to the people that it applies to, but obviously I'm not being very clear with my distinction in my writing. I appreciate the correction and shall endeavor to do better in the future. Thanks!

 

I gotta say that's pretty closed minded and intolerant of you.

First, I'm not quite sure how you got to this conclusion (except by generalization). Second, my comments aren't intolerant at all. I'm not calling for religious persecution or the hampering of anyone's rights to free religious expression. Apparently I'm not the only guilty of fallacious straw man rhetoric in this thread

 

Your argument is fallacious in another way too. <snip>

 

What you are claiming is that those who exegetically interpret biblical scripture are "unloving, intolerant, unaccepting, non-peaceful, etc, etc, etc." This is of course a fallacy.

Not when the argument is applied to those that actually do exegetically interpret the biblical scripture in an unloving, intolerant, unaccepting, non-peaceful, etc, etc, etc way. Are you arguing that these people do not exist? If they do not, then yes, my argument would indeed be fallacious.

 

I postulate to you that the REAL Christians are highly tolerant, caring, and charitable people. (I'm talking about born-again, believing individuals with transformed lives, who not only read the Word but desperately cling to Christ's teachings of love, compassion, charity, sacrifice, etc.... What I am not talking about are people who just go to church regularly and have a dusty bible somewhere in their house, who do things that they think are right because some legalistic religious leader tells them that's how things have to be). I guarantee you that Westboro Baptist Church does not represent me, and the Jesus Christ I know does not condone their hypocrisy. Real Christians care for widows and orphans. Real Christians provide for the sick and the homeless. Real Christians are not perfect. Yes we sin. Yes we are capable of things like intolerance, hatred, deceit, prejudice, etc..., just like everyone else in the whole world. Although we are capable of such things, real Christians, though still sinful due to a fallen human nature, desire to do what is right, to have a Christ-like attitude toward life and our fellow human race.

Well, that's all great, but you haven't presented an argument for why your interpretation of what it is to be "real christian" is any more valid or true than any other. It's certainly nice and promotes lots of admirable characteristics, but again, it's only one interpretation among many.

 

Regarding your arguments:

Look, I could write volumes about my perception of proper professional body building technique, or how only unintelligent troglodytes would get into such an occupation. However since I am not a professional body builder (I'm not even an amateur one), what I would be writing would be nothing more than fallacious theory based on my presupposed opinions. Now if I were to make such claims, how useful would my testimony be? That is exactly what your testimony is of Christianity.

No, not "exactly" at all. You seem to be presuming that my comments are not based on (and cannot be based on) observation. In other words, you seem to think that "fundies" are some sort of boogie man that I've invented in my head and can't be found anywhere outside of my imagination. The reality is quite different. While you are correct in pointing out that I need to be more cautious about distinguishing between fundamentalists that cherry-pick for good and those that cherry-pick for everything else, this doesn't mean that my comments regarding the latter do not apply to those that deserve them.

 

Thanks again for the great post.

[Tinny]

Ofcourse those types of people exist, there are people that will pervert anything. Christ's (the founder of this religion) commandments are pretty much clear and override any other vague rules that others may "interpret". I think Jedispy and I had a problem with this statement.

 

The purpose of this post was to show that this is not the case. Those that interpret the bible literally (aka "Fundamentalists") are clearly unloving, intolerant, unaccepting, non-peaceful, etc, etc, etc people around.

 

Not sure how you arrived at this conclusion and people like Jedispy and I do interpret those commandments literally and still consider ourselves peaceful, loving etc.

[Achilles]

Ofcourse those types of people exist, there are people that will pervert anything.

Book ABC makes statement X. Book ABC also makes statement Y. How do we determine which statement (X or Y) is a "perversion"? Certainly we can't rest on the (artificial) authority of the text itself, since it makes both statements.

 

Christ's (the founder of this religion) commandments are pretty much clear and override any other vague rules that others may "interpret".

Without knowing which of "jesus'" (not really his, since everything he says is someone else quoting him in third person) commandments you're referring to, I can't address this argument directly. I will state in a very general way that much of "jesus" does "say" is contradicted elsewhere in the new testament (sermon on the mount is pretty cut and dry, but then again so is the book of revelations). Either by him or someone speaking on his behalf. People that make statements such as yours typically do so at the expense of showing just how unfamiliar they are with the bible.

 

I think Jedispy and I had a problem with this statement.

<snip quote>

Yes, I've already thanked Jedispy for reminding me that not all Fundamentalists are blatantly hateful. Some are merely judgmental and disapproving (to varying degrees). I accept that by using the term "Fundamentalist" in that post in such a general way, I made the mistake of grouping everyone into one category. I personally have never met or heard from a Fundamentalist that said that homosexuality (to use an example) was ok in the eyes of god, but Jedispy did make me realize that people like these may exist nonetheless.

 

Not sure how you arrived at this conclusion and people like Jedispy and I do interpret those commandments literally and still consider ourselves peaceful, loving etc.

Which commandments are you referring to? Going with the homosexuality example (used in the first post and above), you accept the bible's statement that homosexuality is sin, correct? But you do not hate homosexuals right? You don't commit hate crimes, etc, against them right? In fact, you would probably pray that god would take their affliction away from them so that they might be saved, etc, correct? Well that's intolerance. You might be able to keep your "peaceful" label and your "loving" label (but not really since loving something means accepting it as it is), but you certainly don't get to keep your "tolerant" label. I hope that helps to clarify.

 

One last thing: My apologies in advance for the assumptions made in the argument above. Regardless of whether or not they apply to you directly, I do hope that they can stand on their own as an argument against Fundamentalist thinking and behavior. Thanks for reading!

[Tinny]

I think we have different labels of what love and tolerance is then. I could have a son that was a terrorist and not accept what he was doing yet still love him and wish he would return to a moral life. I think you might also define your terms differently from how the Bible would define them, hence take differing passages as contradictory.

[Achilles]

I think we have different labels of what love and tolerance is then. I could have a son that was a terrorist and not accept what he was doing yet still love him and wish he would return to a moral life without accepting what he was doing.

Poor analogy, as terrorism is a choice. A more accurate analogy would be to ask if your son was left handed rather than right handed. Homosexuality isn't wrong, it is merely different. I know that the bible says differently, but unfortunately I am not persuaded.

 

I do have a son (whom I love very much) and if he one day grew up to become a terrorist, I would still love him, even though it would pain me greatly to know that my sweet little boy grew up to become an immoral killer. But there is no denying that acts of terrorism are immoral. Big difference between something that is clearly immoral by every objective test for morality available and something that is consider to be immoral based on nothing more than popular value judgments.

 

I think you might also define your terms differently from how the Bible would define them, hence take differing passages as contradictory.

Like "love thy neighbor as you would love yourself" as compared to "stone your neighbor to death with stones at the edge of town for picking up sticks on the sabbath". Yes, clearly this misunderstanding is based entirely upon my failing to "accurately" define the terms as they were intended to be taken. Thank you for clearing that up.

[Tinny]

Now I think others have pointed out the rules of the Old Testament were meant for a different purpose, the Church in general have a different purpose on this Earth than what the nation of Israel was intended to accomplish. You pointed out earlier that I think you also understood this (I think?) and therefore was trying to avoid rules from the Old Testament. Now as to the analogy, the point wasn't whether or not homosexuality is wrong (we have our own defense of this which is whole another debate), but how I could not accept certain things of a person's actions and or character yet still love them. Hope this clarifies some of the things a bit.

[Achilles]

Now I think others have pointed out the rules of the Old Testament were meant for a different purpose, the Church in general have a different purpose on this Earth than what the nation of Israel was intended to accomplish.

I understand that this argument has been raised, but jesus himself is quoted as saying that the old laws still apply. Can't have it both ways. Regardless, the word of god is the word of god. If you wish to argue that he changed his mind, you are certainly welcome to do so, however we will then have to determine why an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient being would need to do so.

 

You pointed out earlier that I think you also understood this (I think?) and therefore was trying to avoid rules from the Old Testament.

I would need to see the post in order to comment.

 

Now as to the analogy, the point wasn't whether or not homosexuality is wrong (we have our own defense of this which is whole another debate), but how I could not accept certain things of a person's actions and or character yet still love them. Hope this clarifies some of the things a bit.

Unfortunately, I think that is puts us back right were we were a few posts ago. There's a difference between not liking someone's behavior and not liking them (part of being a good boss is addressing someone's behavior without making any judgments about them as a person). In this example though, we're not talking about behavior. Terrorism is behavior. Wanting your children to have good table manners is about behavior. Not wanting them to be blond, or right handed, or homosexual is another animal altogether. If you cannot accept someone as they are, then you don't love them (again, not talking about behavior). I hope this helps to clarify. Thanks for reading.

[RobQel-Droma]

There's a difference between not liking someone's behavior and not liking them (part of being a good boss is addressing someone's behavior without making any judgments about them as a person). In this example though, we're not talking about behavior. Terrorism is behavior. Wanting your children to have good table manners is about behavior.

 

Of course, there is a difference between dealing with behavior and hating someone. Simply because there is a point of conflict between you and a person doesn't mean you don't love them. You may not love the behavior, but you love the person. Its something Jesus taught.

 

Not wanting them to be blond, or right handed, or homosexual is another animal altogether.

 

I would actually classify homosexuality as a behavior, though.

 

If you cannot accept someone as they are, then you don't love them (again, not talking about behavior).

 

If you go and look up love in the dictionary, there is no "accepting everything they do." It usually says something like "feelings of affection for someone." It doesn't say that, in this case, we have feelings of affection for their homosexuality (hope you know what I mean by this), but feelings of affection for *them*, as their person. I don't see the two interconnected - I guess I just don't view a person's sexuality like you do, maybe.

 

However, would you disagree that someone could feel affectionate for their brother after he committed a crime, even though they know he did wrong?

[Achilles]

Of course, there is a difference between dealing with behavior and hating someone.

I think "hating someone" is taking the point to the extreme. I don't think you have to bear hatred toward someone to be intolerant of their beliefs.

 

Simply because there is a point of conflict between you and a person doesn't mean you don't love them.

*shrugs* I don't know how one says that they love someone without accepting who they are. What they do is something completely different, but I think that we're probably going to end up going round and round on that one.

 

You may not love the behavior, but you love the person. Its something Jesus taught.

He and many others, both before and after his alleged life and death

 

I would actually classify homosexuality as a behavior, though.

As would many other participants in this thread I presume. Would you classify heterosexuality as behavior also? If so, why? Also, if sexuality is a matter of behavior, what makes one behavior "moral" and another "immoral".

 

Note to moderator: Could we split this tangent out into a new thread please (or merge it with an existing homosexuality thread)? TIA.

 

If you go and look up love in the dictionary, there is no "accepting everything they do."

Before we get too far on this point, please realize that we're talking about behavior again (i.e. "everything they do").

 

It usually says something like "feelings of affection for someone." It doesn't say that, in this case, we have feelings of affection for their homosexuality (hope you know what I mean by this), but feelings of affection for *them*, as their person. I don't see the two interconnected - I guess I just don't view a person's sexuality like you do, maybe.

Probably not. I view a person's sexuality as their business and not mine

 

However, would you disagree that someone could feel affectionate for their brother after he committed a crime, even though they know he did wrong?

This is a behavior.

 

The brother can be disappointed by the behavior and still love his sibling. If the brother did the crime because he was criminally insane and the other brother chose not to love him, then his love is clearly a conditional thing and therefore, not genuine.

[Tinny]

I believe the definitions you've used for behavior and love are not necessarily universal, maybe to you it isn't love, but many others would still conclude it is but I won't debate this point anymore as it seems heavily subjective.

 

You are right, Jesus did say He did not come to abolish the law but He also said He came to fulfill it and whatever the purpose of the law was was gratified. Now you've brought up a good question of the Omniscience of God and why He would need to change His mind about the rules. I should have mentioned this earlier as it would have cleared up many things. One thing to keep in mind is that in the Bible there are many ages or even stages of history. From the creation of man till the law was handed, there was little guidance, I can speak a bit for the different sections of the Bible after that:

 

First there was the law handed down by Moses --> during this time the Hebrews fled out of Israel, they were a struggling nation as they were mostly slaves and they were almost a paramilitary organization due to the harsh conditions and harsh cultures around them. They were given extreme measures and penalties to meet the law as things such as promiscuity, over working yourself, touching carcasses, and diet would greatly influence the survival of this struggling group of people.

 

Then came the time when Israel was a kingdom --> Now survival was not as paramount as keeping society together, penalties for breaking the law were not as harsh as even God Himself would deal out less than what Moses had recommended. Remember King David was forgiven for his adultery (an act punishable by death under Moses), he repented but he still had to face the consequences of his actions.

 

From the period the law was handed down to the birth of Christ, the purpose of the law was to help the nation of Israel. For what reason this kingdom was built i'm not very clear about, some purposes I do know is that it helped bring about the the prophecies and lineage of the Messiah Christ.

 

Next we have the coming of Christ and the age of the Church --> The Old Testament law was fulfilled and the job of the Church to to help heal the world of its many problems and to bring many people to God ultimately via Christ. This is why in Christianity we are called to love, be compassionate, yet also stand on certain issues and the importance of these ideals help us bring many people to Him.

 

Way after this comes the antichrist and then the revealing of God to all of humanity --> Mankind divides into two camps, one that unites under God and the rest who follow Satan for whatever reasons. Since God has revealed Himself openly to humanity, people are now without excuse and the time for compassion and such ideals are over for those who choose to separate themselves from Him.

 

 

Its not so much that the Bible contradicts itself on rules or that God changes His mind on them because He feels He initially messed up. He has a set plan for all of humanity which are composed of stages and different allowances. Hope I clarified some stuff up.

[Achilles]

Well that certainly is one possible explanation. Another is that as parts were added, edited, or removed, zeitgeist influenced the decision. The first explanation doesn't do much to address attitudes toward women, slavery, human sexuality, etc, etc. Nor does it do much to explain why such decisions were made by men (and not god himself). Or why there hasn't been an update in ~1800 years (translations don't count). If I make a policy change at work, I draft memos, hold meetings, talk about it in one-on-ones, etc. Surely god's capable of at least shooting off an email.

 

Think about it: roughly 986,000 years with no word at all. Then a book which took about 10,000 years to put together. Then nothing for 2,000 more years. Then another book. Then nothing again for 2,000 years.

 

God didn't love the cavemen, or the Romans, or the Greeks, or the Japanese, or the Mesopotamians (etc, etc, etc, etc, ad nauseum)? He only loved the Jews? Kept his mouth shut until they came around (couldn't "omnipotence" them into existence sooner?)? Then decided he love the christians more several thousand years later? Really?

 

Sorry. I'm not buyin' it.

 

But thanks for your post!

[Tinny]

I don't think anyone knows fully what He's up to or why He does things the way He does. Most of is just faith when He says that He loves the world that He works out things for the best for all of humanity.

[Achilles]

I fully understand that this is good enough for you and millions of others. It still sounds like a cop-out to me. I have just as much justification for putting my faith into invisible pink unicorns as I do god. If forced to make a choice, I'll go with the unicorns because none of them have ever instructed me to murder my children for any reason.

[Tinny]

I understand, I told you in another thread exactly how I feel about this and I mentioned the dream I had that initiated my faith. I see without any shred of evidence why its hard to believe, don't get me wrong. I just hope everyone here receives the evidence they need eventually . By the "commandment" about killing children are you referring to Abraham's test?

[RobQel-Droma]

*shrugs* I don't know how one says that they love someone without accepting who they are. What they do is something completely different, but I think that we're probably going to end up going round and round on that one.

 

Yea - I think our difference of opinions on what is behavior, and what that person is, are probably just going to hold back the discussion going in circles.

 

I'm going to let this one go, unless you want to pursue this part of the discussion.

 

Probably not. I view a person's sexuality as their business and not mine

 

I would hope so.

[Achilles]

I understand, I told you in another thread exactly how I feel about this and I mentioned the dream I had that initiated my faith. I see without any shred of evidence why its hard to believe, don't get me wrong. I just hope everyone here receives the evidence they need eventually . By the "commandment" about killing children are you referring to Abraham's test?

Abraham's test, Exodus 21:17, Leviticus 20:9, Deuteronomy 21:18-21, (all of which Jesus endorses by showing that the pharisees are hypocrites for not killing their disobedient children in accordance with god's commandments in Mark 7:9-10 and Matthew 15:4-7).

 

I would hope so.

Indeed so would I. Too bad that many Fundamentalists do not share this view and instead arbitrarily decide that it is their business and not that of the individuals.