i mean it seems evangelical christians thrive on hate. i always thought jesus thaught love.

i mean it seems evangelical christians thrive on hate. i always thought jesus thaught love.
Do you hate anyone enough to have them tortured for all eternity...no?

God does...and not just anyone. Almost everyone is destined for the chasm of fire.

Why would you expect his son to be any different?

Or his followers?

i mean it seems evangelical christians thrive on hate.

Why do you say that? I mean, on what evidence are you basing that opinion?

Baron Max

Why do you say that? I mean, on what evidence are you basing that opinion?

Baron Max

um the evangelical christian hate sites, the abortian clinic bombings, having heard evangelical preachers, having gone to evangelical churches, and from meeting evangelical christians

um the evangelical christian hate sites, the abortian clinic bombings, having heard evangelical preachers, having gone to evangelical churches, and from meeting evangelical christians
Oh, and then theres the gospels!

`
I think it's because they presume they alone know the mind and will of God, and consider themselves his chosen ones. They therefore presume themselves sufficiently "Holy" to judge as they believe God would.

Largely, PJdude, because they don't trust God. That's why so many of the evangelicals have to go through the process of being "born again", so that they can remind everyone of their piety, just like Jesus said (http://bible.oremus.org/?passage=Matthew+6) ... er ... um ... yeah.

just like Jesus said (http://bible.oremus.org/?passage=Matthew+6) ... er ... um ... yeah.
That may be what Jesus said...but what did he do???

um the evangelical christian hate sites, the abortian clinic bombings, having heard evangelical preachers, having gone to evangelical churches, and from meeting evangelical christians

No, those are fanatics. Every religion has them.

It separates "us" from "them". I don't see how that can lead to anything but hate.

That may be what Jesus said...but what did he do???

Well, according to legend, he went and got his ass tacked to a tree.

You know, like, for showing his piety in front of men.

The wrong men, of course.

He got what he was after.

Well, you need to remember that 'Christianity' is only nominally about Christ. If one refers to the Gospels, then one sees that Christ's teachings were presented in The Sermon of the Mount, in Mathew, and then scattered in and amongst a small number of parables.

But Christian Doctrine comes mostly out of the Letters of Paul. And Paul, in all of his vast works NEVER quoted Jesus, even in passing, not even once. Indeed, the Book of Acts and the Letters of Paul tell us that Paul even made it a point to ignore the Apostles who TRIED to tell Paul what Jesus had actually taught.

So it should come as no surprise that there is a serious disconnect between "Christainity" and Christ. "Christianity" is actually Paulism.

And the Message in Paulism is that Jesus was a Human-Divine Sacrifice offered to the point of an Eternal Forgiveness of Sins. So, really, why would anybody suppose that 'Christians' would think it necessary to refrain from Sin, especially if the whole Point of Christianity is FORGIVENESS of Sin.

So we see in practically every newspaper that Christians -- especially the Christians who know MOST about their Doctrine, make little effort to avoid Sin. Why should they. The more FAITH they have in their Doctrines, the more they Believe they can get away with anything.

i mean it seems evangelical christians thrive on hate.

This is a phenomeon that can be found across the board, and it's not limited to religious proselytizing. Think of angry and hostile peace activists; beatniks promoting tolerance while being extremely intolerant; also the doctor who himself smokes, but tells you that it is bad to smoke.

Why this happens? There are probably several reasons for this.

One reason is that even though these people might have initially started acting our of goodwill and compassion, their goodwil and compassion waned because they were taking them for granted and didn't nurture them.

Another reason I can think of is that they act out of anger - ie. they are angry at the world not being a better place, the people not being better people. So this anger shows in the way they seek to make the world and the people better.

It separates "us" from "them". I don't see how that can lead to anything but hate.

Not necessarily. To distinguish between "us" and "them" is not bad in and of itself, it's a simple matter of fact. There's I, you, Americans, Britons, men, women, plants, rocks, etc. There's nothing inherently bad in this.

It's the importance, the meaning one ascribes to this distinction that makes all the difference.

i mean it seems evangelical christians thrive on hate. i always thought jesus thaught love.

I think one very important thing to consider when thinking of evangelical christians is they believe

Sin is a Contagion.

This means that two gay men in the privacy of their own home having sex are not merely putting their own souls at risk are the source of something that can spread like disease.

These Christians see themselves as having a bestial nature which only by the grace of God and Jesus can be kept in check. Every sinner add to the amount of sin germs in the air and challenges the immune systems of everyone, including Christians and especially children who are seen as still developing their immune systems.

Even more people who hate homosexuals are not afraid of two men in the privacy of their own home having sex. But for evangelical Christians those two men are putting everyone at risk.

At any moment any community, not to speak of any soul, can slide towards Sodom and God's wrath.

And of course this does not have to do just with sexual issues. So their anger gets stirred by anyone who does not live according to their morals because they fear the disease will spread to them.

So their anger gets stirred by anyone who does not live according to their morals because they fear the disease will spread to them.

However, such a stance is not completely irrational. I think all humans maintain it to some extent, it is necessary for survival.

Some people just put a particular and strong spin on it.

These Christians see themselves as having a bestial nature which only by the grace of God and Jesus can be kept in check. Every sinner add to the amount of sin germs in the air and challenges the immune systems of everyone, including Christians and especially children who are seen as still developing their immune systems.

Brilliant! :)

Generally a person's capacity for hate is determined by their capacity for love.

If you love something you will automatically hate its opposite by the same degree.

However, such a stance is not completely irrational. I think all humans maintain it to some extent, it is necessary for survival.


I don't think it is necessary for their survival, but I do think the stance is rather common. Certainly a lot of teacher's have this philosophy, especially gym teachers.

...And Paul, in all of his vast works NEVER quoted Jesus, even in passing, not even once.

Quoting Paul from 1 Corinthians:

For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread; and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, "Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me."

In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me."

Quoting Paul from 1 Corinthians:
Yes, but in Pauls case it was not a recollection, but a revelation.

I don't think it is necessary for their survival, but I do think the stance is rather common. Certainly a lot of teacher's have this philosophy, especially gym teachers.

It is necessary for their survival as Christians.

It is necessary for their survival as Christians.
It seems like a lot of other Christians manage a much more live and let live relativistic philosophy, leaving it to God to sort out the judgement of other people's souls. The sin as contagion metaphor running not so strongly, sometimes on the same level as secular people.

I suppose you could argue that they think it is a matter of their survival, but I am not sure the Bible supports the contagion metaphor more than other more tolerant ones.

If you think Jesus was only talking about adulteresses, the first stone scenario might not carry much weight in relation to other kinds of sin. But at least some Christians seem aware it was not limited to stoning and adultery.

Yes, but in Pauls case it was not a recollection, but a revelation.

In every case it is revelation. What would anyone know about what Jesus said or did without the New Testament accounts?

In every case it is revelation. What would anyone know about what Jesus said or did without the New Testament accounts?The gospel accounts are recollections of happenings on earth and in the flesh. At least thats how they are presented.

Paul's supposed knowledge of Jesus is entirely spiritual. He is not recalling the life of Jesus, but the eternal presence as it revealed itself to his inner vision.

The gospel accounts are recollections of happenings on earth and in the flesh. At least thats how they are presented.

Paul's supposed knowledge of Jesus is entirely spiritual. He is not recalling the life of Jesus, but the eternal presence as it revealed itself to his inner vision.

The NT accounts--whether Gospel or Epistle--are revelation. Paul's knowledge both of Jesus and His Gospel came by way of face to face encounters with Jesus Himself.

Paul's knowledge both of Jesus and His Gospel came by way of face to face encounters with Jesus Himself.
No, Paul only enters the picture long after the death of Jesus.

No, Paul only enters the picture long after the death of Jesus.

No, Paul was in "the picture" from the very beginning.

No, Paul was in "the picture" from the very beginning.Not according to the new testament.

Not according to the new testament.

Yes, according to the New Testament.

Yes, according to the New Testament.
Ok, post some passages from the gospels demonstrating Paul's involvement with Jesus while Jesus was alive and preaching.

Do you hate anyone enough to have them tortured for all eternity...no?

God does...and not just anyone. Almost everyone is destined for the chasm of fire.

Why would you expect his son to be any different?

Or his followers?

Actually God did send Jesus to Hell for three nights and three days.

I've heard this was to pay for our sins, as Jesus had become Sin Itself on the cross. Whilst this theologically true, i think he rather went to Hell to preach the gospal of victory to the saints.

Actually God did send Jesus to Hell for three nights and three days.
Yeah, I started a thread about that called 'descendit ad infernos'.

MedicineWomen swooped down and stated that the trip to hell was actually an allegory for the path of the sun through hades at night.

Ok, post some passages from the gospels demonstrating Paul's involvement with Jesus while Jesus was alive and preaching.

Re-read the exchange...you said "Not according to the new testament."

I said "yes, according to the New Testament."

If you wish, I will post some passges from the New Testament.

Yeah, I started a thread about that called 'descendit ad infernos'.

MedicineWomen swooped down and stated that the trip to hell was actually an allegory for the path of the sun through hades at night.


Well, i am 100% sure the Bible never intended that interpretation. I've seen some of medicineW arguements, and she is far too presumptious on many occasions, such as linking paul as being the same as apollo... rubbish.

Yes their names were identical, but so is Jesus and Joshua, as both are really called ''YESHUA.''

Oh.. and i noticed your avatar.

The wicka man was one creepy and fucked up film !!! LOL

My personal belief is that religion in general can produce much hatred and violence in its followers if the followers take scripture literally. Too many people try to "follow in God's footsteps" and when scripture tells us that God killed many people and hates certain groups, many followers senses of right and wrong are deluted. They feel that if God does this or God does that, than it automatically is right because "God is never wrong".

So, that can explain alot of religious hatred toward various peoples; gays, jews, etc etc etc.

For a good example, take a look at the Westborough Baptist Church, my personal mortal enemy. They take parts from the Christian bible and excercise them. But they don't take the postive parts about loving thy neighbors etc etc.

One of my favorite bumper stickers says

"Christianity: Killing millions in the name of God for over 2000 years."

But the same can be said for many other religions.

It seems like a lot of other Christians manage a much more live and let live relativistic philosophy, leaving it to God to sort out the judgement of other people's souls. The sin as contagion metaphor running not so strongly, sometimes on the same level as secular people.

I suppose you could argue that they think it is a matter of their survival, but I am not sure the Bible supports the contagion metaphor more than other more tolerant ones.

If you think Jesus was only talking about adulteresses, the first stone scenario might not carry much weight in relation to other kinds of sin. But at least some Christians seem aware it was not limited to stoning and adultery.

Like they say, "Bad company corrupts good character". The application of this principle can be taken to various extents. From "Don't be firends with drunkards" to "We should get rid of everyone who doesn't practice our religion".

As for what is supported by the Bible - that is a very, very wide range, depending on which passages one cites, or in combination with which other passages one cites them. I dare say that this way, pretty much anything has "Biblical support".

Like they say, "Bad company corrupts good character". The application of this principle can be taken to various extents. From "Don't be firends with drunkards" to "We should get rid of everyone who doesn't practice our religion".

But in these examples of course the believer can pull back. They don't have to fix the other person or make them disappear - not that withdrawel is something I am advocating. I think love can make one confront one's alcholic brother, for example. But because of the love and not the contagion. In relation to the contagion one can protect oneself. (not that I think navigating this is easy) This areas seems fruitful to me. I am glad we got to it. The moving away as opposed to the need to eliminate. The contagion metaphor. This region seems ripe for assumptions - in me also - about the options and what I think/feel is happening. Good!
I
As for what is supported by the Bible - that is a very, very wide range, depending on which passages one cites, or in combination with which other passages one cites them. I dare say that this way, pretty much anything has "Biblical support".

yes, Christian aboliltionists vs. Christian slaveowners for example.

But in these examples of course the believer can pull back. They don't have to fix the other person or make them disappear - not that withdrawel is something I am advocating. I think love can make one confront one's alcholic brother, for example. But because of the love and not the contagion. In relation to the contagion one can protect oneself. (not that I think navigating this is easy) This areas seems fruitful to me. I am glad we got to it. The moving away as opposed to the need to eliminate. The contagion metaphor. This region seems ripe for assumptions - in me also - about the options and what I think/feel is happening. Good!


The way I see it, the major problem with a religion like Christianity is that people are not taught how to nurture love, they are not taught how to nurture compassion. For them, love, goodwill, compassion are often things or traits that a person either has or doesn't have. Something that is called up at will, or not at all. Something God either bestows upon a person, or doesn't.

One can of course will oneself to feel love, goodwill, compassion for someone - but I think the common Christian understanding only goes so far. And this is not limited to Christians, either, it's common across the board.
But will only gets you so far; sooner or later it wanes, or turns into brute force.

In contrast, in a religion like Buddhism, there is an enormous emphasis on how to develop and nurture love, goodwill, compassion. They have special exercises and practices for this.

Many people frown upon this because they think that such a love, goodwill or compassion simply are not genuine then and one had done better to refrain from such exercises and practices and keep to whatever little or much "genuine" love, goodwill or compassion one has.

The way I see it, the major problem with a religion like Christianity is that people are not taught how to nurture love, they are not taught how to nurture compassion.

Just to add they are not taught to really go into themselves. They can with great confidence say they hate homosexuality but not the homosexual with a straight face. I am not ruling out the possibility of such things but I have found little in my contacts with fundamentalists that gave me the impression they would notice any internal contradictions. They are trained to confuse behavior and words with feelings. They are trained to present as certain. None of which allows one to actually do the kinds of processing necessary to find out what one really feels and why, what one really thinks and why, and to work through to a loving position. (none of this being easy for any of us, but something I feel they are almost trained to avoid. I think they, along with many people, confuse noticing certain feelings as giving them power or being evil. It does not help to pretend we are already monads.)

A recognition of and a willingness to explore internal 'areas' that do not seem aligned with the official position seems fundamental to me.

Tied in with this is if you cannot accept an internal diversity, you will not accept an external one. Self-love and self-compassion is a necessary foundation.

They are trained to confuse behavior and words with feelings. They are trained to present as certain.

To wit - I've been told once by a Christian:
Is there no room in your life for friendship and love that aren't based on emotion?!

i mean it seems evangelical christians thrive on hate. i always thought jesus thaught love.

I share thi concern aswell.

If you wish, I will post some passges from the New Testament.
Ok...shoot!

Oh.. and i noticed your avatar.

The wicka man was one creepy and fucked up film !!! LOL
Yes, thats IceAgeCivilizations behind the wicker bars in the background there...

"You shall all die...acurrrrrrrsed!!!"

To wit - I've been told once by a Christian:
Is there no room in your life for friendship and love that aren't based on emotion?!

That seems rather horrifying, especially given some of the possible contexts that was said to you.

That seems rather horrifying, especially given some of the possible contexts that was said to you.

Yes ...
But after my initial upset eased down a bit, I started listening more carefully to my Christian firends and teachers. Sentences like that or to that effect were pretty common. I could probably make a compilation of standardized Christian responses.

This "religious standardization" always filled me both with repulsion, as well as awe. Repulsion because it was so cold and so impersonal; awe because I suspected they must know something I don't.

I don't think all that many evangelical Christians are filled with hate. I think the vast majority of them are filled with love, they go about their daily lives quietly loving other. There is a perception that so many are filled with hate because as with any group they are the most vocal and are the ones most reported on.

Phelps makes the news. The group of evangelicals quietly praying for others does not.

...Phelps makes the news. The group of evangelicals quietly praying for others does not.

do they pray for Phelps?

In every case it is revelation. What would anyone know about what Jesus said or did without the New Testament accounts?

The new testament accounts, Gospels, letters etc are not revelations, they are accounts.
The Apocalypse is a revelation.


Hate is used by politicians, who find religion useful.
Christ preached the opposite.

do they pray for Phelps?

I don';t know about others but I pray for everyone, even those with whom I vehemently disagree. That means I pray for Phelps. I don't pray that he continues in his hateful ways but I do pray for him.

This "religious standardization" always filled me both with repulsion, as well as awe. Repulsion because it was so cold and so impersonal; awe because I suspected they must know something I don't.

And it has seemed to me the options at that point are to trust the repulsion and move back or align the mind with what repulses us and aim the new mind at the 'bad' feelings.

I don';t know about others but I pray for everyone, even those with whom I vehemently disagree. That means I pray for Phelps. I don't pray that he continues in his hateful ways but I do pray for him.

I think she was wondering if they notice how off he is and pray that he finally notices.

And it has seemed to me the options at that point are to trust the repulsion and move back or align the mind with what repulses us and aim the new mind at the 'bad' feelings.

Yes. Of course, trusting the repulsion means putting up with the voice in my head, accusing me of selfishness, insisting how my repulsion only proves that the Gospel is true and so on. I susppose this is why many people don't leave Christianity - dealing with that accusatory voice can take up all the time and energy a person has.
A strange way for Christians to claim success in proselytizing.

And yet how much better to have only a tiny bit of the mind taken over, that to have given over your entire body and mind to that voice. Here, I am yours.

In the process of removing yourself you hear the voice more clearly because you are no longer aligned with it. Of course it was there all along hating you into every step you took along the path it made for you.

And yet how much better to have only a tiny bit of the mind taken over, that to have given over your entire body and mind to that voice. Here, I am yours.

This is very important - to know it to be only a tiny bit of the mind.

Frustration makes myopic, so people focus only on a small portion of their mind and their experience. And then that portion appears to be all there is.

The mind is so much bigger, there is so much more to a person than the Christian teacher wants you to believe.

I don';t know about others but I pray for everyone, even those with whom I vehemently disagree. That means I pray for Phelps. I don't pray that he continues in his hateful ways but I do pray for him.

Yeah, when I was a Christian, I would have prayed that he got hit by a bus. I wasn't a very good Christian. :D But I guess I was as good a one and he is.

My grandma prayed like you do.

This is very important - to know it to be only a tiny bit of the mind.

Frustration makes myopic, so people focus only on a small portion of their mind and their experience. And then that portion appears to be all there is.

The mind is so much bigger, there is so much more to a person than the Christian teacher wants you to believe.

That really hit me. And of course it is not restricted to Christian or even religious pedagogy. How truly sad.

Perhaps it has something to do with their religous beliefs being proven wrong/impossible on, what may seem to them, a daily basis.

i don't see these issues restricted to evangelical Christians or even just to the religious. They present a rather pure form of it that is easy to see. Sometimes the less easy to see forms of hate or mean pedagogy are much harder to extricate oneself from.

....so people focus only on a small portion of their mind and their experience. And then that portion appears to be all there is.

My pulling one piece of Greenberg's post out for my own use.

Snake River Rufus,
I think that rationalists like to use evangelical Christians as a kind of reassurance.

'I am not like that.'

Some come here - some from a science based position, others more as rational humanists - and mock the religious.

Certainly I can share much of the anger at monotheists and anyone who uses religion to bolster vicious child rearing practices, the mistreatment of women, war, homophobia, etc. (I do notice that many people seem to manage these things without religion)

But each of us is complicated. We have built up a life based on assumptions some of which we cannot prove and others we never really made an effort. So we can come and mock the more cartoonish of the religious. They are they, they are the ones that base their decisions in irrational ways. I am the one pointing this out. I am not like that.

Really?

They are they, they are the ones that base their decisions in irrational ways. I am the one pointing this out. I am not like that.


It seems you are exactly like that since you feel it is your duty to constantly point out the error of their ways. You seem like one of those 'superior' types who just has to go around telling people how wrong they are. You are filled with your own form of hate and distain.

It seems you are exactly like that since you feel it is your duty to constantly point out the error of their ways. You seem like one of those 'superior' types who just has to go around telling people how wrong they are. You are filled with your own form of hate and distain.

Yes, I feel hatred and disdain.
I am not pointing out their hatred and disdain in some abstract way. I am primarily responding to someone who has suffered their hate and disdain. In conversation with him I am learning about the pattern which I see as vastly more widespread that rationalists/scientists might have us believe.
I do not feel this is my duty.
You seem to have joined the ranks of the 'superior people'.

And I am not sure you understood what you quoted from my post. I was basically admitting that we all participate in the patterns that are sometimes easier to see in fundamentalists.

It seems you are exactly like that since you feel it is your duty to constantly point out the error of their ways.

I think there is a very, very common misunderstanding going on in these discussions.

Namely, if I say "I find Christianity bad because following its precepts leads to great suffering for me" - am I thereby pointing out the flaws of Christianity or Christians? Am I thereby telling anyone how wrong they are?

If I work out an argument why any belief in a creator god leads to passivity and bewilderment - am I thereby pointing out the flaws of Christianity or Christians? Am I thereby telling anyone how wrong they are?

There is a difference between telling people that in your opinion X is happening and Y is the cause and telling people they are stupid, evil or delusional. The former is expressing your opinion the latter is a form of hate speech.

It seems that some atheists and non-Christians feel compelled to insult Christians. They claim they are doing it in the name of honesty but it seems to be done more in the name of disrespect.

I disagree with the views of atheists but I don't go out of my way to insult them. I realize their views are different from mine but I still try to treat them with respect. All I ask is the same respect in return.

There is a difference between telling people that in your opinion X is happening and Y is the cause and telling people they are stupid, evil or delusional. The former is expressing your opinion the latter is a form of hate speech.

It seems that some atheists and non-Christians feel compelled to insult Christians. They claim they are doing it in the name of honesty but it seems to be done more in the name of disrespect.

I disagree with the views of atheists but I don't go out of my way to insult them. I realize their views are different from mine but I still try to treat them with respect. All I ask is the same respect in return.

I do not think my posts were intended as insults or were insults. I made an effort several times to point out that these patterns that I consider abusive are not restricted to the evangelicals nor even the religious. I think we can see the pattern quite clearly there. I would, however, be very frightened if evangelicals came to power in the US, which is certainly the agenda of some of them. This does not mean that all evangelicals are bad, at all. On the other hand I think that a sizable % of them would go along with the propaganda of the few in relation to non-Christians. Because, in part, they do not want or have a pedagogy that includes a great deal of directed questioning, especially of authority.

If I saw that the evangelicals had really had come to terms with the history of the Church in relation to non-christians I would not feel afraid of them in the same ways.

It seems that some atheists and non-Christians feel compelled to insult Christians. They claim they are doing it in the name of honesty but it seems to be done more in the name of disrespect.

I disagree with the views of atheists but I don't go out of my way to insult them. I realize their views are different from mine but I still try to treat them with respect. All I ask is the same respect in return.

Do you think that your position and the positions of the atheists are of equal worth, equally valid?

I disagree with the views of atheists but I don't go out of my way to insult them. I realize their views are different from mine but I still try to treat them with respect.

I have confronted scientists and 'humanists' on occasions when I thought their smugness in relation to monotheists showed a lack of introspection. Here you have taken us to task for 'insulting' certain Christians. Have you taken Christians to task for the rage and blame they hurl as secular citizens, homosexuals, independent women, people who take child abuse seriously, the 60's hippies, Wiccans and so on?

Do you think that your position and the positions of the atheists are of equal worth, equally valid?

I consider my position to be the more valid of the two. If I didn't feel that way I wouldn't hold it. That you even ask the question shows how little you respect my position and in turn, me.

I have confronted scientists and 'humanists' on occasions when I thought their smugness in relation to monotheists showed a lack of introspection. Here you have taken us to task for 'insulting' certain Christians. Have you taken Christians to task for the rage and blame they hurl as secular citizens, homosexuals, independent women, people who take child abuse seriously, the 60's hippies, Wiccans and so on?

Yes I have and I wll continue to do so. I have no truck with people on either side of the religious debate who either cannot or will not admit the humanity of those who believe differently than they do. There are Christians who insult non-christians, who refuse to admit that they have a right to their opinion(s). In my view they are just as wrong, if not more wrong than the atheists who insult Christians. I say more wrong because they profess to be followers of a religion of love and ye they exhibit hatred.

It seems that some atheists and non-Christians feel compelled to insult Christians. Atheists hear this complaint a lot, sometimes justified but in practice mostly derived from two circumstances:

- - a remarkable ability of theists - some of them, present company excluded for lack of evidence - to find insult in almost any observation or criticism that crosses their particular dogma.

In particular, the habit theists have of claiming sincerity of some belief as adequate grounds for respect - not only of the believer, but also of the belief - in matters of physical and historical fact, keeps running them into insult from people who are simply observing that the belief is nonsense.

- - and the fact that theists do not live in a world of atheists talking freely, and are not accustomed to hearing their own beliefs described in the same language they use for others' beliefs, their own ideas treated equally with the ideas of others, their own status as theists not taken as recommendation for their character or actions. This loss of status, as when a prince gets a parking ticket, seems to strike them as intrinsically insulting.

So your average theist seems oblivious to the implications of, say, the common newspaper account of someone apprehended in wrongdoing bringing their theism into the courtroom as a factor to be considered in sentencing. Do you see how easily such a worldview could lead to taking insult ?

I consider my position to be the more valid of the two.

If you consider that your position and the positions of the atheists are not equally valid, how then can you rightfully ask that they be treated with the same respect?

You said earlier:

I disagree with the views of atheists but I don't go out of my way to insult them. I realize their views are different from mine but I still try to treat them with respect. All I ask is the same respect in return.


That you even ask the question shows how little you respect my position and in turn, me.

My, how little you respect me, to interpret my words this way!

Atheists hear this complaint a lot, sometimes justified but in practice mostly derived from two circumstances:

- - a remarkable ability of theists - some of them, present company excluded for lack of evidence - to find insult in almost any observation or criticism that crosses their particular dogma.

In particular, the habit theists have of claiming sincerity of some belief as adequate grounds for respect - not only of the believer, but also of the belief - in matters of physical and historical fact, keeps running them into insult from people who are simply observing that the belief is nonsense.

- - and the fact that theists do not live in a world of atheists talking freely, and are not accustomed to hearing their own beliefs described in the same language they use for others' beliefs, their own ideas treated equally with the ideas of others, their own status as theists not taken as recommendation for their character or actions. This loss of status, as when a prince gets a parking ticket, seems to strike them as intrinsically insulting.

So your average theist seems oblivious to the implications of, say, the common newspaper account of someone apprehended in wrongdoing bringing their theism into the courtroom as a factor to be considered in sentencing. Do you see how easily such a worldview could lead to taking insult ?

EXACTLY.

Many theists think that by virtue of them thinking their position to be superior, others owe them to think it superior as well and to bow to it.

If you consider that your position and the positions of the atheists are not equally valid, how then can you rightfully ask that they be treated with the same respect?

You said earlier:






My, how little you respect me, to interpret my words this way!

greenberg, it is not a matter of what you say but of how you say it. People can disagree without being totally disagreeable. I need not ascribe to atheist beliefs to treat atheists respectfully. Atheists need not ascribe to theist beliefs to treat theists respectfully.

How often have Christians and other religious people been insulted on this board for their beliefs? Often enough for it to become an issue.

If I, as a Christian were to treat atheists the same way so many treat Christians I would be called upon it by other posters and rightfully so.

Atheists are not being asked to change their beliefs, to accept ours. They are being asked to not be so damned nasty and condescending when adressing Christians and others of faith.

greenberg, it is not a matter of what you say but of how you say it.

Why is asking you

Do you think that your position and the positions of the atheists are of equal worth, equally valid?

insultive?

It seems you are exactly like that since you feel it is your duty to constantly point out the error of their ways. You seem like one of those 'superior' types who just has to go around telling people how wrong they are. You are filled with your own form of hate and distain.
*************
M*W: Pot-Kettle if there ever was one.

How often have Christians and other religious people been insulted on this board for their beliefs?

Probably not often enough. The irrational and superstitious should be insulted to the point that they ultimately feel embarrassed to announce their superstitions in public or attempt to push their irrational beliefs on others.

Atheists are not being asked to change their beliefs, to accept ours. They are being asked to not be so damned nasty and condescending when adressing Christians and others of faith.

You're stuck on the label "atheist." I'm a rationalist. If being rational means that I'm without the embarrassment of having a superstition to adhere to in public, then that's a good thing. Though I've stood by the term in the past and been open about atheism, I'm fast realizing that its silly to have a label for something I'm not. I don't play golf, but I don't advertise myself as a non-golfer. I don't believe in astrology, but I don't consider myself an a-astrologist.

What you consider "nasty" and "condescending" is, in most cases, rational discourse. The superstitious always appeal to the cultural taboo they've established against being critical of religion. Fuck that. If you want to make batshit claims about the supernatural, then you deserve to be criticized for it. Indeed, you deserve to be ridiculed for it if those claims include magic underwear, walking on water, zombie messiahs, parting seas, stopping the rotation of the earth, etc., etc. ad nauseum.

Thank you for illustrating almost exactly what I was talking about, ylooshi. You seem incapable of discussing the issue without being purposely insulting.

Yes I have and I wll continue to do so. I have no truck with people on either side of the religious debate who either cannot or will not admit the humanity of those who believe differently than they do.

Please point out where I showed I cannot or will not admit the humanity of those who believe differently than me.