What happens when school and religion are mixed

justifier · Post by **justifier** » 2004-03-17 08:55pm

The Albino Raven wrote:and I think religious fundementalism is bad. It is the use in excess of alcohol that makes it alcoholism, which leads to bad, just as the excess of religious doctrine makes religion religious fundementalism, which leads to bad in this case. You cannot tie discrimination directly to the concept of religion itself if you refuse to tie the action (drunk driving) to the concept base (alcohol).

That is a bad analogy because any kind or amount of religious doctrine is bad because they can cloud judgement, alcohol can be bad if a person has it all the time, just like people have relgion all the time.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-03-17 09:02pm

The Albino Raven wrote:and I think religious fundementalism is bad. It is the use in excess of alcohol that makes it alcoholism, which leads to bad, just as the excess of religious doctrine makes religion religious fundementalism, which leads to bad in this case. You cannot tie discrimination directly to the concept of religion itself if you refuse to tie the action (drunk driving) to the concept base (alcohol).

Albino, I have a question for you: don't you feel ashamed that these people are abusing your faith in this way? I'm not suggesting that moderate Christians are responsible for the action of fundies, but in my experience, most Christians treat fundamentalists with a certain degree of ambivalence. I don't know about you, but if I were Christian, I would be even more pissed at these people for distorting my faith then the athiests are for distorting the principles of morality.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-03-17 09:06pm

The Albino Raven wrote:and I think religious fundementalism is bad. It is the use in excess of alcohol that makes it alcoholism, which leads to bad, just as the excess of religious doctrine makes religion religious fundementalism, which leads to bad in this case. You cannot tie discrimination directly to the concept of religion itself if you refuse to tie the action (drunk driving) to the concept base (alcohol).

For the SECOND fucking time, don't distort my argument. I didn't say I was refusing to tie drunk driving to alcohol at all, fucktard. I just don't see how alcohol can be classified as "evil" since it is a substance rather than an ideology or behaviour. However, to be quite frank about it, society would indeed be better off if alcohol was eliminated from it. As Prohibition showed us, this is much easier said than done, and is not really feasible. But it does not really change the fact that the consumption of alcohol is a social behaviour with decidedly net-negative impact on humanity.

Similarly, humanity would be better off if Judaism and its bastard offspring had never existed.

The Albino Raven · Post by **The Albino Raven** » 2004-03-17 09:15pm

fair enough wong, conceded.

Albino, I have a question for you: don't you feel ashamed that these people are abusing your faith in this way? I'm not suggesting that moderate Christians are responsible for the action of fundies, but in my experience, most Christians treat fundamentalists with a certain degree of ambivalence. I don't know about you, but if I were Christian, I would be even more pissed at these people for distorting my faith then the athiests are for distorting the principles of morality.

I am not trying to attack atheists, and I do think these fundies use religion to give a bad name to faith, which is something i think is my own fucking business, so I don't preach shit like semage or anyone else. My point is, I as non-asshat christian don't want to get lumped in with those turds, thats all.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-03-17 09:18pm

The Kernel wrote:Albino, I have a question for you: don't you feel ashamed that these people are abusing your faith in this way? I'm not suggesting that moderate Christians are responsible for the action of fundies, but in my experience, most Christians treat fundamentalists with a certain degree of ambivalence. I don't know about you, but if I were Christian, I would be even more pissed at these people for distorting my faith then the athiests are for distorting the principles of morality.

The thing is, they're not really distorting their faith. They're just absolutely, unshakably, immovably 110% certain of their faith, whereas the moderate has some ambiguity and/or doubt.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-03-17 09:22pm

The Albino Raven wrote:
Albino, I have a question for you: don't you feel ashamed that these people are abusing your faith in this way? I'm not suggesting that moderate Christians are responsible for the action of fundies, but in my experience, most Christians treat fundamentalists with a certain degree of ambivalence. I don't know about you, but if I were Christian, I would be even more pissed at these people for distorting my faith then the athiests are for distorting the principles of morality.
I am not trying to attack atheists, and I do think these fundies use religion to give a bad name to faith, which is something i think is my own fucking business, so I don't preach shit like semage or anyone else. My point is, I as non-asshat christian don't want to get lumped in with those turds, thats all.

I wasn't suggesting that your are trying to attack athiest, I'm just wondeing why you (along with most moderate Christians) aren't more critical of fudies. You are absolutely right that religion in of itself is not a harmful thing, but considering that there are people who claim to represent those like you, yet suggest the most atrocious violations of human rights gives a bad name to all of you.

I'm just wondering why moderate Christians don't rise up and tell the world how full of shit these people are instead of simply politely disagreeing with them.

The Albino Raven · Post by **The Albino Raven** » 2004-03-17 09:36pm

The thing is, they're not really distorting their faith. They're just absolutely, unshakably, immovably 110% certain of their faith, whereas the moderate has some ambiguity and/or doubt.

The difference between a fundie and a moderate is that a fundie takes his faith and exports it to people as a whole, using their morals as the model for society in the name of God. A moderate, who may be secure and certain in their faith, will keep it to themselves and not fucking use it to legislate policy onto others. I consider myself moderate because I don't feel that the faith by which I live can be used for any other person, and therefore using my faith to control others is bullshit. Following this, I do not like religion for the most part. I find it conformist, controlling, and leading to the crap you see in the article. As you can see, I distinguish in this post between religion and faith, and it was on these grounds i conceded to darth wong, as his statement about religion is correct. Faith is an internal belief, and it becomes fundementalist when a standard of faith is set for others.

The Albino Raven · Post by **The Albino Raven** » 2004-03-17 09:39pm

The Kernel wrote:I wasn't suggesting that your are trying to attack athiest, I'm just wondeing why you (along with most moderate Christians) aren't more critical of fudies. You are absolutely right that religion in of itself is not a harmful thing, but considering that there are people who claim to represent those like you, yet suggest the most atrocious violations of human rights gives a bad name to all of you.

I'm just wondering why moderate Christians don't rise up and tell the world how full of shit these people are instead of simply politely disagreeing with them.

As I posted back at the begininning, these people are totally and logical, and for the record, I think they are full of shit, along with that ass in the white house, and his friends. Also for the record, the christian liberals i know feel the same way and are vocal about it.

Crayz9000 · Post by **Crayz9000** » 2004-03-17 09:40pm

Lazy Raptor wrote:What about it? You mean that's somehow more harsh than the Christian utopia? Read Leviticus. It isn't.

I don't want to take this off on a tangent, but since when has Leviticus defined the Christian utopia? Leviticus is part of the old law; if someone calls themself a Christian, then they should be going by what Christ said, which was that the old law (the Mosaic law, not including the ten commandments) had been fulfilled and was therefore no longer necessary.

Ergo, if someone's calling themself Christian and following the laws set in the book of Leviticus, then they aren't exactly Christian, are they.

It's not as if this matters to your typical fundie idiot; they'll just find some way to forward their own twisted agenda.

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2004-03-17 10:23pm

the baby jesus disagrees with you.

Ex.12:14, 17, 24
"And this day shall be unto you for a memorial; and ye shall keep it a feast to the LORD throughout your generations; ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance for ever. ... And ye shall observe the feast of unleavened bread; for in this selfsame day have I brought your armies out of the land of Egypt: therefore shall ye observe this day in your generations by an ordinance for ever. ... And ye shall observe this thing for an ordinance to thee and to thy sons for ever."
Lev.23:14,21,31
"It shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations."
Ps.119:151-2
"Thou art near, O LORD; and all thy commandments are truth. Concerning thy testimonies, I have known of old that thou hast founded them for ever."
Ps.119:160
"Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever."
Mt.5:18-19
"Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or tittle shall nowise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven."
Lk.16:17
"It is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail."

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-03-17 10:24pm

It's also worth noting that Paul quoted Mosaic Law repeatedly in his writings, which are considered part of the Christian doctrine. However, there are sub-sects within Christianity that do not accept Paul's authority, so one of the first questions one must ask a Christian is whether he accepts Paulianity.

Darth Raptor · Post by **Darth Raptor** » 2004-03-18 01:13am

Crayz9000 wrote:I don't want to take this off on a tangent, but since when has Leviticus defined the Christian utopia? Leviticus is part of the old law; if someone calls themself a Christian, then they should be going by what Christ said, which was that the old law (the Mosaic law, not including the ten commandments) had been fulfilled and was therefore no longer necessary.

Well, Enforcer Talen has already posted verses that show this isn't the case. Things Jesus himself said + things about the law from the OT make the law still valid. Unless it's a Paulian thing, I'm not aware of any NT (at least not in the Gospels) condemnation of homosexuality. The Christian Right has been picking and choosing which OT laws they want to follow. Saying the really ridiculous ones don't apply while the ones that pander to their knee-jerk bigotry do. This is where you get that "the law was fulfilled" crap. They don't want any queers getting married, but they want to eat shrimp and wear synthetic clothing. The problem is, they never EVER offer any method of determining WHICH laws are still in effect. From a strictly Biblical standpoint, ALL of the law is still very much in effect. Your take on the faith nice, but unless you completely disregard Paul, the entire OT and everything about the law Jesus himself ever said then you better not be working on Sunday either.