Christian Fundamentalists and the Rise of the Radical Right by Niki2

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Quote:
But the issue with fundamentalism and the Christian right is that they push their agenda. They aren't just holding prayer meetings, they're lobbying hard, and they've got deep pockets which they don't mind digging into to support candidates who will support their hardline on the above issues.

Then we're on the same page.

To be excessively ironic - Amen.

See, I got no issue with what someone BELIEVES, it's when they wanna ram it down MY throat on a bayonet, that I start getting all psychotic and hostile about it - and yeah, I can get fairly extreme about it, but why the hell shouldn't I ?

I mean, when someone who's agenda involves downright MURDERING people like me, although they dance around and weasel word it instead of having the honest chops to own up to it, AND they have every intention of subverting government force to that end if at all possible - seriously, can you understand why at that point I feel the world would be a better place if they were worm food ?

The minute you take up arms to violently force your will, your morals, your beliefs, upon me, I consider your right-to-live revoked, in my eyes.
I know that's damn harsh, but is that not exactly what they are saying behind those pikes, that unless you believe as they do, you need to die ?

I'm simply returning unto them what they've offered unto me - and MY beliefs expressly *forbid* forcing them on others, and strongly discourage even persuasion.
(as do some of the very beliefs picking up the pikes, which makes em hypocrites besides)

For most of em, it has jack shit to do with religion anyway, they're just looking for an EXCUSE to hurt people, a "cause" with which to massage their conscience about the harm they want to do, and any "cause" will do.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 12, 2011 2:09 AM

Oh, you forgot William Krar, Mikey, another classic example.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1229/p02s01-usju.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyler_poison_gas_plot

Of course, given WHO the intended victims were, I can see some folk around here lauding him as heroic...

Sick, ain't it ?

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 12, 2011 2:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by TheHappyTrader:
It takes more than a belief in 'creationism' to be a fundamentalist Christian and it should take more than questioning the theory of evolution to be anti-intellectual. IMO, the major pinciples your source attributes to fundamentalism does not encourage an anti-scientific view or the cherry picking of old testament verse to divide people and spread hatred. Those are human failings, which are no more common to fundamentalist than they are to any group of people.

Frankly that is BS. I described, using a reasonable source, which in turn referenced other sources to describe the beliefs of Fundamentalist Christianity. That is the Fundamentalist Christianity to which the author refers. If you have some other version, please describe it, but do not make out that what I have referenced is anything other than human failings when they are documented beliefs of that set of people.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 12, 2011 3:41 AM

Quote:
Hitler wasn't fighting for Christianity, so that's a non issue.

Um, actually, that one's probably debateable. Now there weren't so much Muslims in the European part of that war, but there were some skirmishes in the north Africa part, over oil, some of which probably did result in the death of Muslims. Definitely Hitler went after Jews, though whether on just religious lines or racial lines it's hard to say, as he arguably attempted to purge them for eugenics. But his concept of Nazism embraced traditional German culture, meaning Christians. Also, Hitler was a bit of a superstitious man, and actually did try to secure religious artifacts that he thought might grant him favour with God and turn the tide of the war. The stories of two of the Indiana Jones movies were based on this interest on the part of Hitler, which is why they had Nazis as antagonists.

Lastly, what Hitler wanted to create was the Third Reich, meaning, he thought his people were the inheritors of the Holy Roman Empire. A Christian Empire.

The Muslims tally up their kill count in brutal regimes and one-shot terrorist attacks, often suicide attacks, of which we can probably name more single events than for Christians. However, the Christians tally up their kill points in officially sanctioned war, meaning we have battles we can name, but we can't name the skirmish that happened outside some village on a crossroads (there's a whole bunch of those!). My impression is that our wars, and indirect fighting through Israel towards Palestine, and our support of brutal dictatorships such as Saddam Hussein at first, and our meddling in the Afghan-Russian war, AND our gun-running (Iran-Contra affair, anyone?), all of these have had some hefty casualties. And that's not counting the accidental deaths, when our intelligence is simply wrong, the actions of the mercenaries we've hired, or the I would like to think RARE cases like that murder squad we brought back to the states for trial.

I'm sorry, but considering how much we've screwed up that region from WWI onwards, the ones that hate us seem to have good reason. You can argue which one has had more casualties, but I think both sides are deplorable.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 12, 2011 3:53 AM

BLUEHANDEDMENACE

I absolutely love how Raptor flees when his loud bloviating gets refute-slammed by Mikey.

Rappy: Fact Fact Fact! Im right I win argument

Kwicko: Provides cites proving Rappy doesn't know wtf he is talking about

Rappy: *Crickets*

this is the kind of comedy I lurk around for, thanks guys!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 12, 2011 4:55 AM

DMAANLILEILTT

Ok, I have a thought.

While there are currently more terrorists that are practicing Muslums than any other major religion (although a fair few argue it's more about Arab Nationalism than just religion, but I digress), I would also say that fundamentalist Christians have caused the deaths of hundreds of innocent people in their pursuit of an entry into Heaven, albiet in a far more subtle and insidious manner: the persecution and eventual suicide of those they deem to be "unclean sinners".

"I really am ruggedly handsome, aren't I?"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 12, 2011 6:44 AM

Quote:
* The inerrancy of the Bible
* The literal nature of the Biblical accounts, especially regarding Christ's miracles, and the Creation account in Genesis.
* The Virgin Birth of Christ
* The bodily resurrection and physical return of Christ
* The substitutionary atonement of Christ on the cross

This is a set of beliefs/principles. I don't believe they necessitate an anti-intellectual mindset.

Quote:
Fundamentalists in the 1920s devoted themselves to fighting the teaching of evolution in the nation's schools and colleges.

Things like these I consider to be more human in nature.

I know you said you've bolded what you felt applies, but nothing is showing bold from my screen, so it's difficult to tell what out of all of that you felt was pertinent. I figured the bullets were most important cause they were bulleted.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 12, 2011 7:01 AM

It occurs to be that AURaptor really can't lose posting in a thread like this. If he really is as hateful as we are lead to believe, many of you re simply spreading his hatred. Rappy argues Muslims are the suck, and the response is an attack on Christians... another faith that Raptor doesn't believe in and probably hates.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 12, 2011 7:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dmaanlileiltt:
Ok, I have a thought.

While there are currently more terrorists that are practicing Muslums than any other major religion (although a fair few argue it's more about Arab Nationalism than just religion, but I digress), I would also say that fundamentalist Christians have caused the deaths of hundreds of innocent people in their pursuit of an entry into Heaven, albiet in a far more subtle and insidious manner: the persecution and eventual suicide of those they deem to be "unclean sinners".

"I really am ruggedly handsome, aren't I?"

A point, and it would include gays who have been beaten up. On the other hand, their responsibility for those deaths - and I do believe that they HAVE responsibility - is balanced by stonings for adultery, homosexuality, and oppression in some of the more archaic Muslim nations.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 12, 2011 7:59 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by BlueHandedMenace:
I absolutely love how Raptor flees when his loud bloviating gets refute-slammed by Mikey.

Rappy: Fact Fact Fact! Im right I win argument

Kwicko: Provides cites proving Rappy doesn't know wtf he is talking about

Rappy: *Crickets*

this is the kind of comedy I lurk around for, thanks guys!

I never get refuted based on any facts by Kwickie, or anyone here. That's what's so pointless in attempting to carry on any worth while dialog here. Kwickie takes inane, irrelevant non issues and tries to hold them up as some sort of counter to what I'm saying. It's like me saying the sun rises in the East, but Kwickie saying ' no, the Sun does NOT revolve around the Earth, but it's the other way around '. Yeah, and ? That's not the discussion at hand, but thanks for playing.

That I refuse to play this never ending game of mindless minutia w/ the likes of Kwickie, which offers you cretins free entertainment, is hardly me LOSING the argument. I know I won, I just don't feel the need to post 27 times, saying the same thing, over and over again.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 12, 2011 8:27 AM

BLUEHANDEDMENACE

OK, so u claim Hitler's war was not a religous war, Kwicko posts quote FROM HITLER about his religious motivations for his war, and u say nothing was refuted?

Must be nice to be on on planet Rappy. Is there free candy? I might relocate...

Oh, and posting the same thing 27 times in a row is EXACTLY WHAT U DO.

Scroll up and reread yourself, in this thread alone, u basically said the same thing about 4 or 5 times, claimed u won the argument, and that no one else posts any facts.

So in Rappy world, only what Raptor says is a fact, and anything posted or cited by anyone else is clearly a lie posted to manipulate....I see now

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 12, 2011 8:46 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Oh, how nice. I put stuff up I hope might be of interest to someone, and to come back and see SIXTY posts always makes me feel good (as long as it isn't 30/30 Mike and Raptor having it out!).

As for me, just about everything you wrote, Frem. I've seen a few things that made me sick to my stomach, and some of the things I hear from candidates do, too. People who want to force their beliefs on me scares the pants off me when they start getting the power to DO so.

Quote:
Believing in absolutism, and having your beliefs backed up by an all powerful being leads people down the path to not only stupidity, but violence in the name of your beliefs...that is what the article warns about. This kind of thinking is potentially dangerous, no matter who does it. You might feel comforted that the growth in fundamental lunacy in the states kind of reflects your beliefs, but for others who don't hold that view, its just more kinds of dangerous.

That about sums up a lot of what I believe.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 12, 2011 8:46 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Happy, I'm sad you found the article offensive. It wasn't talking about CHRISTIANS, you understand, it was talking about people who claim they are "more" Christian than anyone else, yet think and behave in ways that are distinctly UNChristian. You're absolutely right about the Bible, that's part of my anger. What the Bible encourages is precisely the OPPOSITE of how these people act and think, just as the Q'ran is completely unrelated to those who use violence in its name. I can see where you would find the article offensive, but if you remember that the author is talking ONLY about people who take their "faith" to extremes and refuse to even consider that anyone who doesn't do and think as they do won't go to hell, you might find it less so. He's not talking about "Christians", he's talking about "Fundamentalist"--and as that terms has come to be used, it means "extremist", not someone who follows the fundamentals of their faith.

Your remarks about more effectively writing the article are valid, IF he was trying to get through to the groups themselves. But there's no getting through to them, and he's trying to warn others, if anything, about what might be coming, not convince any on the religious right to change.

I think the problem you're having is the "lumping" of a group of people. It's semantics, but let's see if I can help. Instead of "fundamentalist Christian" (of which there are many, and probably MOST don't conform to what he's discussing), let's try "religious right extremists". The kind of people who shoot abortion doctors, or who APPLAUD the shooting of abortion doctors. That's what he's talking about; the word "fundamental" can be translated many ways, and nobody (I think) has any problem with someone who believes in the fundamentals of Christianity. It's those who want to force their beliefs on others, who want political power to do so, and who are so set in their ways that they see nothing wrong in doing so. It's a small part of the population (jezus I hope so!), but they are very vocal, very hard-line and already have the money and power to start. He's talking about them getting MORE power and the implications for us all.

Happy, "hating Christians" isn't in vogue; hating and fearing extremists and the power they are increasingly gaining, AND their willingness to force others to do as they want, is "in vogue" if you will because it's frightening to anyone who thinks differently than them. I don't know anyone who hates Christians per se, but I know a lot of people who are frightened by what they see happening in this country because of religious extremists.

A couple of times you've said you seen things as more "human" than "Christian". But the two aren't mutually exclusive. The very point is that humans who are wedded to certain extremist beliefs about their faith act and think in ways that they would force on others if they could. That same thing can be said of ANY extremist about their religion, whether Islamic or Christian or any other. The debate is about those humans who follow extremist beliefs about Christianity...yes, any human can fit those profiles, whatever religion they follow, but today, right now, in our country, it's the extremist fundamentalists who pose a danger, and that's what he's addressing.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 12, 2011 8:47 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Had to go back and re-read the article to see if I could grasp why people find it so offensive. The first paragraph is to me totally accurate when it comes to people who are self-righteously "fundamental" and think and act in ways that ARE "incompatible with the world view that depends on the conclusions and implications of science that we (and they!) rely on daily to function in the modern world." I can't speak to the first three, but I've seen and heard a LOT that convinces me they DO deny the basic principles of anthropology, archaeology and astronomy. I knew a woman whose fundamentalist parents thought that even if you read your horoscope for fun, it was a bad thing, and if you actually took any of that seriously, it was the work of the "devil". And of course we all know about the evolution thing.

The anti-intellectual thing is more right wing than fundamentalist Christian, but the two go hand in hand in some people, and on the right there is DEFINITELY an anti-intellectual bias. It's reflected in things like candidates showing off their pickup trucks to convince people they're a "good old boy", the constant use of "eliteist" as a pejorative meaning people who went to university or something, and you can hear the bias in any hard right-wing candidate; sometimes it's subtle, sometimes it's terribly obvious.

I think the article could be about fundamentalist Muslims as easily as Christians, and I think both ARE the antithesis of what is good for civilization.

One of the things I've always disliked about ANY religion when people take it to extremes is "It is comforting to have answers to life’s deepest questions and Fundamentalism provides relief from angst by postulating that there is some form of continued existence in an afterlife after death." The idea of simple answers to complex problems (which you can see all over in politics, from abortion to gay marriage to many other things) is a serious problem with all religions, when people use them to excuse thinking for themselves.

So to is the black-and-white thinking, for some of the same reasons. If you give the power over what you think to someone else, it makes thinking for yourself unnecessary and tolerance impossible.

The "far right political, economic and social agendas" are right before our eyes; not all are from fundamentalists, but you only have to look at Bachman to see how it's being USED to gain power, and then supposedly use that power to "impose their political, social and economic philosophy, their standards of public conduct, and their moral values on the rest of society". You can't ignore it unless you choose to; the condemnation of everything they don't approve of is being translated into the power to FORCE others to do what they want. One only has to listen to these candidates, and either they're lying about their beliefs to buy votes or they intend to put those beliefs into practice once they have the power. Enough have done so that they are making strides at exterminating the ability of a woman to have an abortion, to get rid of what little power the working man still has (unions) and to go after minorities, immigrants and the poor. Ironically, I don't think there are too many "poor" fundamentalist Christians, tho' I'd like more information on that and will check it out.

I think the entire article can be summed up by the one sentence:

Quote:
The self-delusion of the powerful when combined with a sense of theocratic mission and a lack of Christian humility and self-criticism is particularly dangerous in a political leader in a democracy.

He's not speaking of regular, decent, compassionate Christians, he's speaking of extremists with cemented mentality and willingness to attack those who don't fit that mentality, whatever religion they may follow.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 12, 2011 8:48 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Magons got it:

Quote:
Believing in absolutism, and having your beliefs backed up by an all powerful being leads people down the path to not only stupidity, but violence in the name of your beliefs

That's what he's talking about, and I don't think he has any grudge; I think he's seeing something many do not and trying to warn about it.

Wow, Magons. Just got to your long post, and it's wonderful. I agree. In fact I agree with about everything you wrote, especially

Quote:
They aren't just holding prayer meetings, they're lobbying hard, and they've got deep pockets which they don't mind digging into to support candidates who will support their hardline on the above issues.

They tried with Bush but were only partially successful; now they're trying to influence EVERYONE on the right, elect candidates who will have the power to force their agenda on the rest of us, and it's dangerous.

And yes, "Muslims tend to act more on their beliefs, in violent fashion, than do Christians" is an asinine statement. Of course, he only wants to look at the NOW and ignore all of history, but the irony is that if these people get enough power, the future will show that they WILL act more on their belief, in violent fashion (not just the killing of a few abortion doctors, but torture and more) to the detriment of anyone who doesn't toe THEIR mark.

Also, yes dear, you SHOULDN'T bother responding to Raptor...read all his posts in this thread and you'll see why. He's not addressing ANYTHING or raising any valid points; he merely snarks--or SNARLS--at everyone he disagrees with, calls them names and puts them down. Nothing else. Nothing of value, and certainly nothing to engage or try to communicate with. He needs to say he won and mischaracterize everyone else as losers, otherwise, he has nothing to say.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 12, 2011 8:53 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Ahhh, and here comes Mike to do war with Raptor. Couple of good points there, Mike, thanx for coming in. And Blue, you nailed it perfectly. Anyone who's curious, re-read Raptor's posts and it will be very clear to you. He calls us all inane and cretins, yet nobody in this thread has been as dismissive and unpleasant about others as he. It's very easy to see; he's here to piss people off by making statements that are SO far outside the realm of reality that it triggers people into arguing with him and trying to get through to him. It's is game, he plays it every day, and it's the very definition of an internet troll.

I do get sick of you back-and-forthing with him, Mike, because it only encourages him and takes up space, while achieving absolutely nothing but letting him "win" at the ACTUAL game he's playing. However, that said I do TRULY appreciate your clarifying about Hitler, etc.

DEspite the idiocy Raptor is spouting, the fact is that either Bush THOUGHT he was going to war because it was what God told him to, or he was SAYING that because he did have a base of fundamentalist Christians (the good and bad kind) and wanted to keep them on his side. Regular Christians (as well as anyone else) could be swayed into thinking it was our "duty" or something to go after terrorists, and that, being "the other", Muslims were evil, but he had a stake in "playing" to the extreme right-wing religous types, too. The fact is he SAID IT, and it was definitely a bell-ringer to some.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 12, 2011 8:55 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Hitler and his motivations have been documented and discussed far more times in the past 60 years than needs to be counted.

Spreading "Christianity " wasn't the focal point of Hitler's drive for military conquest, and it's pointless to drag all this up , once again, simply so Kwickie can claim to have scored some points in some message board contest.

Hitler died 65 years ago.

Jim Jones died 32+ years ago.

Neither of which had any remote comparison to the global terrorism which is being committed to by Islamic jihadists of today.

This whole thread has become a giant head fake to throw folks off topic, that being that Islamic fundamentalism is , by far, the more violent and pressing issue of the day.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 12, 2011 9:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
One of the things I've always disliked about ANY religion when people take it to extremes is "It is comforting to have answers to life’s deepest questions and Fundamentalism provides relief from angst by postulating that there is some form of continued existence in an afterlife after death." The idea of simple answers to complex problems (which you can see all over in politics, from abortion to gay marriage to many other things) is a serious problem with all religions, when people use them to excuse thinking for themselves.

So to is the black-and-white thinking, for some of the same reasons. If you give the power over what you think to someone else, it makes thinking for yourself unnecessary and tolerance impossible.

That's what I like about Shadow Vajrayana - it DOESN'T provide answers, but rather focuses on questioning the answers you THINK you have, and heavily delves into shades of grey, and third option thinking.
In fact, part of the inherent tricksterism relates to the idea that breaking the spirit of a rule while keeping to the letter, or breaking the letter while keeping to the spirit, is a GOOD thing, because it broadens ones mind and viewpoint, allowing them to break out of that binary style of thinking and embrace whole new ranges of possibilities - this is likely where the supposed last words of Hassan-i Sabbah (leader of the Hashishin) evolved from, that specific tenet, in that the phrase (probably falsely) attributed to him on his deathbed was...
"Nothing is real/true, everything is permitted."
*IF* he said it, that would have been part of a longer statement regarding the dangers of clinging to the letter of a thing while losing the spirit of it, but he kicked off the mortal coil before he could finish, likely.

Anyhows, we're extremely anti-extremist, and fully aware of just how ridiculous that dichotomy is, having installed it ON PURPOSE just to lampshade the stupidity of it all and prevent the rational from taking it seriously - and I'll shut up now cause this is bordering on prosthelytizing, which is also a no-no.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 12, 2011 10:04 AM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"... he's here to piss people off by making statements that are SO far outside the realm of reality that it triggers people into arguing with him and trying to get through to him. It's (h)is game, he plays it every day ..."

And it feeds his ego. Without it, he'd feel like the nothing he is.

It's why I refuse to post to him. Why waste the time when there are so many intelligent, informed, thoughtful and reasonably sane people to actually discuss things with?

But I give Kwicko a pass. I think he's honing his logic and writing skills on widdle wappy, and to tell you the truth, Kwicko gets me LOL at least once when I come to the board.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 12, 2011 12:20 PM

...What?

I guess you were too busy with Kwicko to notice my post, then.

Anyway, the islam thing is a side discussion anyway. I'm not even sure how it came up. Hardly the "whole thread."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 12, 2011 12:32 PM

Quote:

One of the things I've always disliked about ANY religion when people take it to extremes is "It is comforting to have answers to life’s deepest questions and Fundamentalism provides relief from angst by postulating that there is some form of continued existence in an afterlife after death."

See, that's the problem. That's not just fundamentalists, sorry, that's attacking a central tenet of Christianity.

I myself don't agree with the idea of a heaven, or even the consequences of people who think that they can be saved after death and so they can just let this world go to ruin. But the way this is phrased would be offensive to all Christianity. Indeed, all religion! For example, you don't believe in reincarnation, Niki, but a lot of Buddhists do.

So the article isn't just attacking fundamentalists, it's attacking a lot of different concepts, some of which it's entirely unfair to group with fundamentalism.

And why is this author attacking all religion? Because he is an intolerant Humanist. And that's my objection here.

Quote:
So to is the black-and-white thinking, for some of the same reasons. If you give the power over what you think to someone else, it makes thinking for yourself unnecessary and tolerance impossible.

Apparently, religion isn't a necessary prerequisite for intolerance.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 12, 2011 12:54 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"...What?

I guess you were too busy with Kwicko to notice my post, then."

Oh, uh, Byte - was that to me? If it was, you're going to have to explain to me where I went wrong. Thanks.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 12, 2011 12:57 PM

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

I never get refuted based on any facts by Kwickie, or anyone here. That's what's so pointless in attempting to carry on any worth while dialog here. Kwickie takes inane, irrelevant non issues and tries to hold them up as some sort of counter to what I'm saying. It's like me saying the sun rises in the East, but Kwickie saying ' no, the Sun does NOT revolve around the Earth, but it's the other way around '. Yeah, and ? That's not the discussion at hand, but thanks for playing.

You claimed that Christians in the last 300 years (YOUR time frame - look back at your posts) haven't done anywhere near the murders and terrorism that Muslims have. You laid it out point for point, and then said "Your turn."

So I responded, completely within the framework YOU laid out, and you threw a fit like the little child you are.

You even claimed that Jim Jones didn't engage in any sort of terrorism. So you are now on record as saying that assassination of a sitting member of Congress and the shootings of reporters don't count as terrorism. Well... not when a Christian does it, anyway.

You claim McVeigh never killed "in the name of Jesus". I say "Prove it."

I show direct quotes to support my positions, from the killers themselves, and your belief seems to be that we can't take Christians at their word about what they believe.

You'll refuse to see facts and reason for the rest of your life, it seems. You'll continue to believe that the sun revolves around the Earth, because at the heart of it, you really ARE a fundamentalist whackjob.

If you ever said "Support the Troops!", you are a socialist. You've taken money from me, by force and at gunpoint, and you've given it to people who are on a mission I don't support, and are murdering others in my name, and I am given no choice in the matter.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 12, 2011 12:58 PM

No. I don't just respond to the last post in a thread because it leads to people getting notices in their inboxes that are irrelevant to them. I consider it a form of spam.

I only respond to the person I'm addressing my comments to. If you didn't get an email notification, you're good.

...If you did get an email notification, I messed up somewhere...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 12, 2011 12:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Hitler and his motivations have been documented and discussed far more times in the past 60 years than needs to be counted.

Spreading "Christianity " wasn't the focal point of Hitler's drive for military conquest, and it's pointless to drag all this up , once again, simply so Kwickie can claim to have scored some points in some message board contest.

Hitler died 65 years ago.

Jim Jones died 32+ years ago.

Neither of which had any remote comparison to the global terrorism which is being committed to by Islamic jihadists of today.

This whole thread has become a giant head fake to throw folks off topic, that being that Islamic fundamentalism is , by far, the more violent and pressing issue of the day.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

YOUR challenge was for the last 300 years.

Or were you lying about that?

If you ever said "Support the Troops!", you are a socialist. You've taken money from me, by force and at gunpoint, and you've given it to people who are on a mission I don't support, and are murdering others in my name, and I am given no choice in the matter.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 12, 2011 1:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
hmmmmm- history is replete with examples that prove you otherwise, as the article Niki posted demonstrate.

We're living in the here and now. More people have died from Islamic extremism in the last 5 years than the last 100 or even 200 years of Christian extremism.

Hell, make it 300 years. It's not even close.

So spare me the game of equivalence. I'm not buying it.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

So "it's not even close" - UNTIL I prove that Hitler was a religiously-motivated Christian, and Jim Jones was as well. At which point you change your stance to something along the lines of "I never said that!"

You're so willing to dismiss the ugliness in Christianity's closet, aren't you?

Why is that, do you think? You have quite a giant blind spot there. You really should see to that.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 12, 2011 1:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by TheHappyTrader:
It occurs to be that AURaptor really can't lose posting in a thread like this. If he really is as hateful as we are lead to believe, many of you re simply spreading his hatred. Rappy argues Muslims are the suck, and the response is an attack on Christians...

What attack on Christianity? You really are so blinded by your own agenda you can't even read the posts that have been made on this board. I can't remember ONE attack on Christianity that one person has made. The discussion has been about extremists, extremist Christians who force their beliefs on others, and oppose evolution. I'm sorry you can't seem to distinguish between the two and just see any discussion that involves the 'C' word as offensive to your sensibilities, which would, by all appearances, prevent any criticism of it at all.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 12, 2011 1:31 PM

Uh, I know that it's hard for you guys to see, but as I said, a lot of stuff in that first post is NOT fundamentalist Christian, it's regular Christian.

It's an attack essay from a Humanist, against religion in general, parts of Christianity, and just happens to make some points in specific about Christian fundamentalists. But the whole essay is less about forcing legislated morality and more about the belief itself. I take issue with that.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 12, 2011 2:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

Oh, you forgot William Krar, Mikey, another classic example.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1229/p02s01-usju.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyler_poison_gas_plot

Of course, given WHO the intended victims were, I can see some folk around here lauding him as heroic...

Sick, ain't it ?

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

Wait a minute... "white supremacist"? Why, that doesn't even sound *a little bit* Muslim, does it?

How can this be? Rappy seems to believe that all terrorists are Muslim, and all Muslims are terrorists.

Hope you don't severely damage his worldview, again. ;)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 12, 2011 2:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Uh, I know that it's hard for you guys to see, but as I said, a lot of stuff in that first post is NOT fundamentalist Christian, it's regular Christian.

It's an attack essay from a Humanist, against religion in general, parts of Christianity, and just happens to make some points in specific about Christian fundamentalists. But the whole essay is less about forcing legislated morality and more about the belief itself. I take issue with that.

I was responding to Happy's assertion that there were attacks on Christianity per se by posters on this board. I haven't seen them.

And although the author is a humanist, I don't believe they describe all beliefs systems held by all Christians. Then again, I think Christians tend to be much more moderate, and even humanist in their beliefs in this country. Most Christians I know don't believe in the black and white, good vs evil. They don't believe that non Christians go to hell. They actually have more subtle, thoughtful views and are more concerned with how they live their lives rather than what happens after death. Most people in Australia would consider themselves basically Christian, but don't tend to follow the doctrine of a particular church. So, as far as I can see, Byte the author isn't attacking all Christians. They are trying to explore reasons why a religion allegedly of peace could lead to violent action. And as Niki has stated, they aren't aiming their article at people with strong religious views. We can already see the typical defensive response here on the board that they could expect to get from that body of people. I see this as a warning to those who don't share those views in that way, a cautionary tale about the impact of societies where religion and power are enmeshed.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 12, 2011 2:41 PM

I just found it ironic that the argument against Raptors assertion that Islamic extremism is the most dangerous threat nowadays was a counter assertion that Christian Extremism is more violent and numerous, when AURaptor has made it clear he's Atheist and doesn't think highly of any religion. Then I vocalized it in a sarcastic theory.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 12, 2011 2:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by TheHappyTrader:
I just found it ironic that the argument against Raptors assertion that Islamic extremism is the most dangerous threat nowadays was a counter assertion that Christian Extremism is more violent and numerous, when AURaptor has made it clear he's Atheist and doesn't think highly of any religion. Then I vocalized it in a sarcastic theory.

So what? Once again you miss the point - it's not about arguing against Christianity. It doesn't matter that Rap is an atheist, a buddhist, he could follow the lizard king for all I care. It's about his assertion that Islam is a more violent religion, and that Muslims are more prone to acting out their violence. With Rappy it's all in the inference, isn't it? He didn't talk about the current rise in Islamic fundamentalism, or discuss the whys and wherefores of that. He makes black and white statements, which a number of us have gone to rather pointless lengths to counter.

The whole point of the thread, of the article at least, was about extremism in religion. In my view, it's pointless doing a body count of who has done what to whom, only that it is sufficient to say that there has been some horrible atrocities committed in the name of religion by extremists, and that therefore we should be wary of a rise in exremist religious views with in our society. The fact that you can't stomach this basic premise demonstrates how worrisome the situation may be in the USA.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 12, 2011 3:03 PM

Quote:
...But there's no getting through to them, and he's trying to warn others, if anything, about what might be coming, not convince any on the religious right to change.

If you were to apply this comment to only the 'Zen' Buddhists, or only the 'concervative' African-Americans, or only the 'blue dog' Democrats, would it be okay? I mean it's not like you're negatively branding the entire race, religion or party right?

It's just disappointing to me that so many who claim to be against discrimination based off of race, sex, religion, sexual preference, etc... are so approving of this stereotyping.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 12, 2011 3:15 PM

ISo in your world view, it would be prejudical to criticise Nazism, or communism under Stalin, or the Kmer Rouge, because you'd be branding an entire people or belief system. Are we not able to criticise anything? We just have to accept whatever offensive views or actions perpetuated by a group?

And for the record, unlikely though it might be - if Zen Buddhists developed a violent rhetoric and became politically powerful, I'd have a go at them as well.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 12, 2011 3:16 PM

Huh. I don't think I ever encountered any Christians who don't believe in hell.

I mean, the justification is in the book, because the old testament talks about something more like the Greek Hades called Sheol, and because of the whole Jesus sacrificing himself and removing original sin thing, releasing all the trapped souls during his three day foray into the underworld and allowing supposedly everyone their chance. The most mention in the stories is in Revelations, when the dead wake and some demons drag the wicked into cravasses in the earth, but revelations was probably added fairly recently compared to the older books.

And Dante, which has become fanon, suggested non-believers go to limbo instead of hell outright. But most of the people I met haven't done that much research.

Even still, I wouldn't consider that fundamentalist. I mean, someone yelling at me that I'm of the devil, and going to hell, that's not exactly forcing me to do anything. It doesn't affect me because I don't believe what they do.

The creationist/Intelligent design thing gets a little closer, but then I realized the only reason they act this way and are pushing for the inclusion is because they feel that evolution has been pushed on THEM. And I think the intrusion has been so offensive to them that they can't even bring themselves to consider the reaction of other religions with no God or creation myth and how alienated they might be.

Ultimately, my thinking is, so long as no one complains, people can do what they want. Then create a safe environment to complain, like people asking to be excused with no repercussions. It's not like they'd be missing anything, and it's not like christian kids haven't left during sex ed or evolution themselves. I figure Intelligent Design simply doesn't matter.

The only laws that I really consider the product of religious effort are marriage laws and anti-homosexuality, but those are getting overturned. I just don't see these people as a threat.

Quote:
they aren't aiming their article at people with strong religious views.

Er? I guess we can't see eye to eye on it. I don't see how that article can be read without taking it parts of it as condemnation of belief without evidence.

And sure, I don't really like irrational belief either, but after I got out of highschool, where I was constantly the target of all the Utah mormon christian nonsense and it chaffed at me, I began to realize that there's not a lot of point trying to dissuade people from this.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 12, 2011 3:20 PM

Quote:
You really are so blinded by your own agenda you can't even read the posts that have been made on this board.

Sweet, ad hominem.

Quote:
In my view, it's pointless doing a body count of who has done what to whom, only that it is sufficient to say that there has been some horrible atrocities committed in the name of religion by extremists, and that therefore we should be wary of a rise in exremist religious views with in our society.

I would argue that behind every 'religiously motivated atrocity' is a person who made a conscious decision and effort to cause harm. We can be wary of the root 'human' causes of this kind of behavior, or we can take the easy what out and blame it groups of people we don't like, respect, or care to understand.

Quote:
The fact that you can't stomach this basic premise demonstrates how worrisome the situation may be in the USA.

Are you even interested in speaking with me, or would you rather talk at me? I haven't insulted your intelligence. If you'd like me to continue to reply, I would appreciate the same courtesy.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 12, 2011 6:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by TheHappyTrader:
I just found it ironic that the argument against Raptors assertion that Islamic extremism is the most dangerous threat nowadays was a counter assertion that Christian Extremism is more violent and numerous, when AURaptor has made it clear he's Atheist and doesn't think highly of any religion. Then I vocalized it in a sarcastic theory.

Actually, I was countering Rappy's claim that radical Muslim terrorists have killed more people in the last 5 years than Christians have in the last 300 years. He's 100% factually wrong, and I proved it quite easily.

Rappy *claims* atheism, but he can't walk the walk. He will always, ALWAYS, leap to the defense of Christianity, no matter what new evil it attempts to rationalize. And he goes to church and takes communion, odd acts for an alleged "atheist".

You had sarcasm, but you had no theory. Christian anti-intellectual anti-science types generally have a hard time figuring out what a THEORY really is. ;)

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 12, 2011 6:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by TheHappyTrader:
Quote:
...But there's no getting through to them, and he's trying to warn others, if anything, about what might be coming, not convince any on the religious right to change.

If you were to apply this comment to only the 'Zen' Buddhists, or only the 'concervative' African-Americans, or only the 'blue dog' Democrats, would it be okay? I mean it's not like you're negatively branding the entire race, religion or party right?

It's just disappointing to me that so many who claim to be against discrimination based off of race, sex, religion, sexual preference, etc... are so approving of this stereotyping.

But you participated in just such stereotyping yourself, when you claimed that

Quote:
My thoughts are that the author is prejudiced against fundamentalists. But I guess that's okay, cause they are Christians, and hating them is kind of in vogue.

You're stereotyping all Christians as "victims" of the hate which you claim is "in vogue". You offer no evidence that there's a widespread pattern of such behavior.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 12, 2011 6:36 PM

Quote:
In my view, it's pointless doing a body count of who has done what to whom, only that it is sufficient to say that there has been some horrible atrocities committed in the name of religion by extremists, and that therefore we should be wary of a rise in extremist religious views with in our society.

Bingo. That's been the entire point all along. It's not Islam, or Christianity, or Judaism; it's EXTREMISM. Religion is the easiest thing in the world to misuse, because there is always a violent core willing to do ANYTHING in the name of their religion.

The second easiest thing to grab hold of to wind up your base and turn it loose as a virulent mob is nationalism.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 12, 2011 6:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Huh. I don't think I ever encountered any Christians who don't believe in hell.

Well most of the Christians I know don't talk about hell, or don't believe that it the sulphur and heat underworld where sinners go. I was brought up in the Catholic religion and even then in those heady post vatican 2 days, they underplayed it. I seem to remember that redemption was a major theme. So yes, there are plenty of Christians out there who don't interpret the Bible literally, and don't believe that there is a fluffy, cloudy heaven and a smoking pit and that we get sent to one or the other after death. I'm figuring that living in Utah, you probably don't come across many of the more liberal Christians, but they would be the norm here and the fundies in a minority.

Quote:
Even still, I wouldn't consider that fundamentalist. I mean, someone yelling at me that I'm of the devil, and going to hell, that's not exactly forcing me to do anything. It doesn't affect me because I don't believe what they do.
It may not affect you, but people describing you as a doom laden sinner because of your beliefs is offensive (even if you choose to shrug it off), and it is even more so if these people actually hold power.

Quote:
The creationist/Intelligent design thing gets a little closer, but then I realized the only reason they act this way and are pushing for the inclusion is because they feel that evolution has been pushed on THEM. And I think the intrusion has been so offensive to them that they can't even bring themselves to consider the reaction of other religions with no God or creation myth and how alienated they might be.

The history of science has been one of battle with faith, to the point where it has actually held us back from scientific advances, especially if you were likely to be killed for disagreeing with what the all powerful Church said was true. It's one of my major grievances with religion and why I don't really care whether people feel that an evidence based scientific theory intrudes upon their fairytale.

Quote:
Ultimately, my thinking is, so long as no one complains, people can do what they want. Then create a safe environment to complain, like people asking to be excused with no repercussions. It's not like they'd be missing anything, and it's not like christian kids haven't left during sex ed or evolution themselves. I figure Intelligent Design simply doesn't matter.
Byte, it's not like these people are a powerless minority. They hold huge political sway in the US, and the US is the most powerful nation on earth - for the time being. Allow these bozos more power and you'll find yourself pedalling backwards at a rather fast rate.

Quote:
And sure, I don't really like irrational belief either, but after I got out of highschool, where I was constantly the target of all the Utah mormon christian nonsense and it chaffed at me, I began to realize that there's not a lot of point trying to dissuade people from this.

Why the article isn't aimed at them. It is a warning against them, not for them.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 12, 2011 6:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by TheHappyTrader:

Are you even interested in speaking with me, or would you rather talk at me? I haven't insulted your intelligence. If you'd like me to continue to reply, I would appreciate the same courtesy.

Perhaps I'm more forthright in my views, which differ from yours, than you are normally used to. I have been told that Australians can come across as insulting to Americans because of how we speak - usually quite forthrightly. That's all I've intended. I've responded to your posts, vehemently but without intent to insult. I have noticed that you do often get insulted simply by views which do not corrospond to your own, particularly when it comes to religion. And for that I can make no apology.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 12, 2011 6:50 PM

I'm not so insecure about science that I feel I have to defend it or else it could blow away in the stiff breeze from a blowhard's mouth.

The past is done. Modern days are different from when religion held sway, I can be openly atheist, and even Christians will generally leave me alone for it, and the country is not so homogenous.

Denying people the option of believing what they want is in violation of that whole pursuit of happiness thing that we talk about so much over here. And focusing too much on the past just leads to desire for (intellectual and real physical) revenge on both sides. Whatever powers they have, they are on the decline, I think. I don't fear a return to the dark ages from religion.

But prudence is not giving them a reason to hold a grudge, if they ever do get power again. That means letting go of our own grudges.

As for them saying I'm going to hell, so they're offensive, so what. Over here you're allowed to be offensive in speech. It still doesn't matter to me because I don't believe in hell.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 12, 2011 7:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
I don't fear a return to the dark ages from religion.

I do.
And that whole not giving them a reason falls flat too, since for most of the ones I have dealt with, my EXISTENCE is reason enough - remember what I said about ideologies which feel so threatened by any other alternative they need to crush it ?
Well, when that's one of the core beliefs, written directly INTO the religion itself, I take em as a threat till proved otherwise, and even then remain suspicious, cause of the perfidious nature of the belief itself.

However, also worth bearing in mind - challenging a persons BELIEFS, isn't challenging the PERSON, unless they chose it to be so.

A strong tower of faith withstands all force, but one with weak foundations does need that protection, I suppose.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 12, 2011 7:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
I'm not so insecure about science that I feel I have to defend it or else it could blow away in the stiff breeze from a blowhard's mouth.

The past is done. Modern days are different from when religion held sway, I can be openly atheist, and even Christians will generally leave me alone for it, and the country is not so homogenous.

Denying people the option of believing what they want is in violation of that whole pursuit of happiness thing that we talk about so much over here. And focusing too much on the past just leads to desire for (intellectual and real physical) revenge on both sides. Whatever powers they have, they are on the decline, I think. I don't fear a return to the dark ages from religion.

But prudence is not giving them a reason to hold a grudge, if they ever do get power again. That means letting go of our own grudges.

As for them saying I'm going to hell, so they're offensive, so what. Over here you're allowed to be offensive in speech. It still doesn't matter to me because I don't believe in hell.

Show me where I am denying anyone the right to believe in what they choose? Really, I must be shocking at getting my views across, if that is what you think I am saying. I support the author's views that the rise of religious extremism is dangerous because of its enmeshment in politics and its sway over politicans. But I agree people are free to believe what they want. I don't oppose Christianity, Islam, Buddhism or any other belief system. I have found value in religious teachings, just don't believe that there is a big Kahuna who runs the universe. And I believe that the separation of power and religion is a sound principle.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 12, 2011 7:29 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht

I believe in intelligent design and I've never blown anything up or bullied anyone or any of that, so Magon's a chara, why is not believing in evolution seen as the hallmark of an extremist who is cruising for trouble? And for that matter I do believe in micro evolution, all you've got to do to see that is look at dog breeds or the different kinds of frogs in the same swamp or animals who adapt to new habitats, if you look at the grand scheme of things animals have all had to adapt to changing habitats as the earth's climate has changed over time, if they didn't adapt they didn't make it so the ones with advantageous traits mated and ... you get the picture. It is macro evolution that I don't believe in, the billions of years and starting with a single cell out of nowhere by accident thing. I've never beat anyone up or blown up an abortion clinic, nor would I ever want to, that behavior doesn't solve anything and is just plain old mean. Ew. Am I a fundamentalist? Maybe. I like Niki's use of the word extremist better because it cuts out the middle man idea of believing in the fundamentals vs. being a "fundamentalist" which is a bit of a loaded term in this context. That being said I try not to boss people around about what words they're allowed to use, so if you want to call me a "fundamentalist" then go ahead.

Hitler: Quicko's quotes are indeed there and Hitler did say them. One can ask why: Did he say them because that's how _he believed, or did he say them to get others to come alongside him and get them interested in his cause. I don't know. There's this show on the history channel (which I've not watched) called Hitler and the Occult, which insinuates he was doing some things that I would consider unsavory that Christians tend to steer clear of. But then again he was a horribly evil awful person so none of what he did was something that a real Christian would consider savory or even remotely okay, so the point is moot.
Bottom line: Hitler is scum or the worst ilk, no matter what he says he believes in. Luh suh squared to the Nth power. And on that I think we can all agree.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 12, 2011 7:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by TheHappyTrader:
Quote:
* The inerrancy of the Bible
* The literal nature of the Biblical accounts, especially regarding Christ's miracles, and the Creation account in Genesis.
* The Virgin Birth of Christ
* The bodily resurrection and physical return of Christ
* The substitutionary atonement of Christ on the cross

This is a set of beliefs/principles. I don't believe they necessitate an anti-intellectual mindset.

I bolded the first two - if you believe in the inerrancy of the bible and that it is literal, then you believe that we are descended from Adam and Eve a few thousand years ago. You believe that the earth was created in 7 days, and that the earth was created before the sun and the moon and the stars. This is not supported by scientific evidence. If you believe it despite the scientific evidence, then you are anti intellectual.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 12, 2011 7:45 PM