Guilty By Association?

[ChristineES]

i'll put it like this...

it's sort of like giving the KKK a new image
the KKK is associated with a certain idea and now the new moderate KKK members want the old association to that negative idea to be ignored or explained away with disclaimers..
sorry, that's how i see it.

I think it a huge difference between a group that has a main purpose to hate anyone who isn't white and a group that is supposed to love all people . But if that is the way you see it, I am not going to change your mind.

 

[vepurusg]

Who cares if my faith and other people's faith is a choice or not? That doesn't make prejudice any better.

Yes it does. Prejudice against somebody for something they can not control, and which they did not choose, is worse.

But in either case, prejudice can be justified (e.g. I am prejudiced against psychopaths- although it is not a choice on their part, I do not like them because they lack empathy and are by nature only self serving).

Which of these causes Christians to harm people: Loving their neighbor as him or herself, loving God, feeding people and clothing people, loving each other, pray for our enemies.

All of the above cause Christians to harm others.

"Loving their neighbor as him or herself"

Christianity is human-centric, and disregards all other beings as soulless automatons to be used as machines. "Loving your neighbor" is just a red herring which gives the illusion of morality, when in fact one's behavior can be highly inconsistent with legitimate moral consideration for others.

Christians also "love" their human neighbors in terms of their delusions regarding Christian soteriology, which can be more destructive than helpful in any case.

"loving God"

The being as defined in typically Christian canon doesn't exist, and so by loving it a Christian develops an unhealthy egotistical attachment to an imaginary creature, favoring its non-existent interests (as defined destructively) over real beings, and rejecting science and logic when they threaten to destabilize that delusion (the consequences of the rejection of knowledge being ignorance, which goes even further to harm others).

"feeding people and clothing people"

Particularly if done in ignorance, as above, with the rejection of science and logic, and the rejection of the moral value of other beings, this can be a highly destructive act.
Production of food and clothing can be very destructive to our environment, to other living things, and to other humans (economic slavery, etc.).

Again, this creates a sense of false, unmerited moral achievement and gives a Christian license to ignore other moral issues because he or she has convinced his or herself that he or she is actually doing good (when in fact, is probably doing evil out of ignorance of the real moral consequences of his or her actions).

"pray for our enemies"

Prayer is useless- proven so time and again- so to begin with this isn't doing anybody any good.

More importantly, this is a form of self-congratulation that increases egotistical investment into the memetic construct, decreases capacity for logic and free-thought (it actually turns off those parts of the brain and reinforces dogma), and wastes time that could be used to do real good in the world.

It gives the Christian the false impression that they have done something good, while doing something bad instead, thus relieving the urge to actually do something useful and good.

Jesus said those were the most important commandments.

Nobody has any idea what Yeshua said, or if the guy even existed.

But if you're going by actual scripture, instead of what is taught in liberal churches where nobody reads more than a few selected quotes out of the Christian bible, that's simply not true.

Old testament commandments are still important, particularly the primary ones, and even in New Testament focused Christianity the "Ten commandments" feature prominently.

In Scripture, Yeshua also focuses more on forgiveness of debts and wrongs than on any of the things you mentioned, there is a strong impetus to proselytism including encouragement of real or ideological warfare, and he even preaches against wasting resources on the poor.

Edit: I forgot to address something you asked. Do you honestly believe that all religious people are ignorant of science?

Not all religions; some of them (some of the non-fideistic ones) respect science and logic.
Most of the rest are ignorant of science, all the rest are ignorant of logic.

This includes all Abrahamic religions, most theistic religions, and all revealed religions to the extent they are revealed rather than reasoned.

Vedic religions tend not to be as arrogant, non-theistic Buddhism even less so, with the exception of some schools which reject logic on the grounds of non-realism dogma.

I love science, and there are plenty of people of faith who are scientists.

There are very, very few people of faith who are scientists, and for those who are, they only practice science to the extent they check their faiths at the door when they pursue actual knowledge. Where that religious dogma clings to their world views is where they are blinded to ever learning anything new, and so in those domains they are incapable of doing science- they are very limited, as scientists go, to "safe" areas of study where they don't have to worry about their religious views being challenged. They can be hard workers, but they are not very good scientists- and they can't be.

People should be judged for what they have done, not for what you think they will do if they follow a faith or religion.

I'm only judging you for what you are doing, and for what you will continue doing.

I think it's not only fair to judge people for doing evil, but it's morally necessary. Peer review is essential to keeping each other in line and improving our moral values.

Rejecting logic is evil, and results in evil. Following from that, rejecting science is evil, and results in evil. Following dogma is evil, and results in evil.

What you believe is good, is in fact evil- I don't think you intend to do evil, but out of a misunderstanding and ignorance believe you are doing good- that is the tragedy of religion.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

I think his point was about the modification of a strongly held traditional position of an established organisation... I think that has some merit... though on ancillary positions I personally think such associations can be modified without major dramas.

edit: I just looked up ancillary (I sometimes look up words I use for interest's sake) and found something amusing.
Origin: 1660&#8211;70; < Latin ancill ( a ) ( see ancilla) + -ary; compare Latin ancill&#257;ris having the status of a female slave, with -&#257;ris -ar1

WTF?!

 

[ChristineES]

Yes it does. Prejudice against somebody for something they can not control, and which they did not choose, is worse.

But in either case, prejudice can be justified (e.g. I am prejudiced against psychopaths- although it is not a choice on their part, I do not like them because they lack empathy and are by nature only self serving).




All of the above cause Christians to harm others.

"Loving their neighbor as him or herself"

Christianity is human-centric, and disregards all other beings as soulless automatons to be used as machines. "Loving your neighbor" is just a red herring which gives the illusion of morality, when in fact one's behavior can be highly inconsistent with legitimate moral consideration for others.

Christians also "love" their human neighbors in terms of their delusions regarding Christian soteriology, which can be more destructive than helpful in any case.

"loving God"

The being as defined in typically Christian canon doesn't exist, and so by loving it a Christian develops an unhealthy egotistical attachment to an imaginary creature, favoring its non-existent interests (as defined destructively) over real beings, and rejecting science and logic when they threaten to destabilize that delusion (the consequences of the rejection of knowledge being ignorance, which goes even further to harm others).

"feeding people and clothing people"

Particularly if done in ignorance, as above, with the rejection of science and logic, and the rejection of the moral value of other beings, this can be a highly destructive act.
Production of food and clothing can be very destructive to our environment, to other living things, and to other humans (economic slavery, etc.).

Again, this creates a sense of false, unmerited moral achievement and gives a Christian license to ignore other moral issues because he or she has convinced his or herself that he or she is actually doing good (when in fact, is probably doing evil out of ignorance of the real moral consequences of his or her actions).

"pray for our enemies"

Prayer is useless- proven so time and again- so to begin with this isn't doing anybody any good.

More importantly, this is a form of self-congratulation that increases egotistical investment into the memetic construct, decreases capacity for logic and free-thought (it actually turns off those parts of the brain and reinforces dogma), and wastes time that could be used to do real good in the world.

It gives the Christian the false impression that they have done something good, while doing something bad instead, thus relieving the urge to actually do something useful and good.




Nobody has any idea what Yeshua said, or if the guy even existed.

But if you're going by actual scripture, instead of what is taught in liberal churches where nobody reads more than a few selected quotes out of the Christian bible, that's simply not true.

Old testament commandments are still important, particularly the primary ones, and even in New Testament focused Christianity the "Ten commandments" feature prominently.

In Scripture, Yeshua also focuses more on forgiveness of debts and wrongs than on any of the things you mentioned, there is a strong impetus to proselytism including encouragement of real or ideological warfare, and he even preaches against wasting resources on the poor.




Not all religions; some of them (some of the non-fideistic ones) respect science and logic.
Most of the rest are ignorant of science, all the rest are ignorant of logic.

This includes all Abrahamic religions, most theistic religions, and all revealed religions to the extent they are revealed rather than reasoned.

Vedic religions tend not to be as arrogant, non-theistic Buddhism even less so, with the exception of some schools which reject logic on ground of non-realism dogmas.




There are very, very few people of faith who are scientists, and for those who are, they only practice science to the extent they check their faiths at the door when they pursue actual knowledge.




I'm only judging you for what you are doing, and for what you will continue doing.

I think it's not only fair to judge people for doing evil, but it's morally necessary. Peer review is essential to keeping each other in line and improving our moral values.

Rejecting logic is evil, and results in evil. Following from that, rejecting science is evil, and results in evil. Following dogma is evil, and results in evil.

What you believe is good, is in fact evil- I don't think you intend to do evil, but out of a misunderstanding and ignorance believe you are doing good- that is the tragedy of religion.

I don't agree. Let it suffice that I can't possibly judge anyone that I have never met personally, including you. If you want to judge me, go right ahead- it's no skin off my back.
And if you think I am illogical just because I have a religion, you are sorely mistaken. And if you think I reject science, you are sorely mistaken. If you think I follow dogma, you are mistaken. I have a faith, not dogma.
And lastly, you have no idea what I do or will do.

 

[vepurusg]

i'll put it like this...

it's sort of like giving the KKK a new image
the KKK is associated with a certain idea and now the new moderate KKK members want the old association to that negative idea to be ignored or explained away with disclaimers..
sorry, that's how i see it.

That was very well said.

When it's given a different name, like Lutheranism, Mormonism, Rastafari, etc. and holds very distinct theological views from tradition, I think it's fair to say that- to the extent the new religion is different- they needn't carry the baggage (though to the extent it is the same, they still do).

To expect the term "Christian" to not carry that baggage, though, is unreasonable. That's why movements are named; to distinguish them from the rest.

I think it a huge difference between a group that has a main purpose to hate anyone who isn't white and a group that is supposed to love all people . But if that is the way you see it, I am not going to change your mind.

You are completely wrong about the KKK- that is not the purpose at all.

The KKK is about loving all people, and loving GOD and keeping HIS order. The KKK love black people, they just understand the fact that GOD made them different, and subservient to white people, and that servitude is their proper place (from the time of Cain). Because blacks are lesser beings, if you give them the same place as whites, they will be depressed and get themselves into trouble- they can't handle that kind of responsibility because it isn't natural- so the only way to love them is to care for them, and help them in ways they can't help themselves, and for them to stay in their rightful place as subservient to the white race as GOD intended, where they will be happy and cared for by their masters.

See? No difference whatsoever. The KKK is actually a Christian group, they're all about "love" and righteousness in the name of their god.

They're both irrational dogma, that try to excuse themselves as moral by appealing to "love" and "god". You can make excuses for Christianity all day- so can a member of the KKK or any other group that has done harm to the world make excuses for his or her beliefs. It doesn't make the excuses valid, however, no matter how much you use the word "love"; they are all poor rationalizations.

 

[vepurusg]

I think his point was about the modification of a strongly held traditional position of an established organisation... I think that has some merit... though on ancillary positions I personally think such associations can be modified without major dramas.

Any such modification really needs a new term to delineate it conceptually.

And if you think I am illogical just because I have a religion, you are sorely mistaken.

Ah, no. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

The Christian god is an illogical concept; if you believe it is real (if you are Christian in the most general sense), then you must necessarily reject logic in order to do so.

And if you think I reject science, you are sorely mistaken.

Do you know what science is?

If you think I follow dogma, you are mistaken. I have a faith, not dogma.

You just spent the last post outlining your dogma. Your faith is placed in a dogma.

Faith without a dogma is an engine without a car.

And lastly, you have no idea what I do or will do.

I have a pretty good idea, thank you very much. But if I'm not right, feel free to give some counter-examples of your own behavior to show that it is moral, contrary to my arguments.

 

[ChristineES]

Any such modification really needs a new term to delineate it conceptually.




Ah, no. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

The Christian god is an illogical concept; if you believe it is real (if you are Christian in the most general sense), then you must necessarily reject logic in order to do so.



Do you know what science is?



You just spent the last post outlining your dogma. Your faith is placed in a dogma.

Faith without a dogma is an engine without a car.




I have a pretty good idea, thank you very much. But if I'm not right, feel free to give some counter-examples of your own behavior to show that it is moral, contrary to my arguments.

If you think you know me, who am I to argue? I am done discussing this with you, I have better debates to participate in. :sorry1:I concede, you win- whatever that means to you.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Any such modification really needs a new term to delineate it conceptually.

The problem being that some terms are used so ubiquitously that they lose all meaning 'Christian' is one such example there are so many associations made with the term despite there being tens of thousands (no exaggeration) of denominations, the result is a plethora of terms most of which people do not know... we use more general terms in order to assist people despite the connotations that they often (incorrectly) convey.

 

[blackout]

This is largely why I don't refer to mySelf by any group used labels Christine.

I don't call mySelf a 'this' or a 'that' because people then associate
all kinds of things with me, that don't reflect a thing about me at all.
(and often exactly the contrary).

I like your "follower of Yeshua" tag.
It comes with a lot less baggage than "Christian".
IMO

I think it's also a bit of a statement.
(that you have stepped out of the mainstream)

But don't let me tag you with MY ideas, of Your label.

 

[ChristineES]

This is largely why I don't refer to mySelf by any group used labels Christine.

I don't call mySelf a 'this' or a 'that' because people then associate
all kinds of things with me, that don't reflect a thing about me at all.
(and often exactly the contrary).

I like your "follower of Yeshua" tag.
It comes with a lot less baggage than "Christian".
IMO

I think it's also a bit of a statement.
(that you have stepped out of the mainstream)

But don't let me tag you with MY ideas, of Your label.

You're certainly right.
You'd expect to find pickles in pickle jars, but if you go to the refrigerator in someone's house, you may open the pickle jar and find some homemade jam because the owner of the house couldn't find another jar.
You're also right that my tag is a bit of a statement- I am not mainstream and never have been.
Thanks for the good advice. People never fit their labels- we're much more complex than any label.

 

[ChristineES]

*Deleted Post*

I haven't said enough to you for you to make such a judgment. You claimed you knew me and you don't. You claimed you knew what I would do and you don't. I can't debate with you because, honestly, I don't want to and I doubt that will change. If you have a problem with that, I really don't care. My life doesn't revolve around whether you approve of me or not. I am a middle-aged woman with a husband and children, some of them special needs- I don't have patience or time to debate someone who has some agenda I can't figure out and don't want to figure out. I don't care if you attack my faith, people do that all the time. But you have attacked ME. You don't even know me and you attack me because I have a faith you disapprove of.
Good day.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

In another thread, it was brought to attention that if one is a Christian, that he or she is guilty for what all Christians have done current and in the past. Do you believe this to be true? What about other groups?
This isn't only about Christianity and it isn't just about religion and faith- do you think that a whole group should be held accountable for what a few of it's members have done? Is that even fair?

If a Christian wishes to take credit for the achievements of previous, current, and future Christians, they must also be willing to take on the baggage of guilt.

Other than that, nah.

 

[chinu]

In another thread, it was brought to attention that if one is a Christian, that he or she is guilty for what all Christians have done current and in the past. Do you believe this to be true?What about other groups?
This isn't only about Christianity and it isn't just about religion and faith- do you think that a whole group should be held accountable for what a few of it's members have done? Is that even fair?

Firstly.. the one who has done something wrong is not eligible to be said as true Christian, or any true religious person. So.. why to feel guilty for any Non-Christian, or any Non-religious person.

Secondly.. Mistake can be made by anyone in this world, "Statue of Mistakes" is the second name for Humanbeings.

 

[vepurusg]

If a Christian wishes to take credit for the achievements of previous, current, and future Christians, they must also be willing to take on the baggage of guilt.

You can't just legitimately take the credit for something because you want to.

There are Christians who just so happen to be and don't care, and then there are Christians, whose core identity is with that belief and who give themselves over as slaves to the memetic construct's agency.

Wherein the person is more of a hollow shell (all about Jesus, everything for the glory of their god), and a mere extension of the meme's physical presence and agency in our world, that person is Christian, as in a mere part of this collective social entity- and in that case, they do have responsibility for all that Christianity has done because they are Christianity (lacking a substantial independent existence and completely subsumed and controlled by the meme).

Born-agains are like that sometimes. It can be a little scary.

 

[waitasec]

I think it a huge difference between a group that has a main purpose to hate anyone who isn't white and a group that is supposed to love all people . But if that is the way you see it, I am not going to change your mind.

where is the love though?
love those who are like you, who believe as you...that is how it's laid out in the bible.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I'm just trying to help you comprehend real morality, so you can escape the mental prison that is existential slavery to an evil memetic construct, and reclaim your free will and moral agency.

God save us from such pedantic pomposity.

 

[waitasec]

God save us from such pedantic pomposity.

is it really all that surprising considering most people actually believe there is a god who is concerned about them?

 

[ChristineES]

where is the love though?
love those who are like you, who believe as you...that is how it's laid out in the bible.

You know very well that anger is not the same as hatred, or at least you should. I didn't even attack him, only his words directed at my faith and me.
I refuse to debate him further. I am ignorant of his purpose and he doesn't seem to understand my faith and he doesn't understand that I am also a separate person from my faith, as well. He says I harm people because of my faith- I don't agree and that is that. There is nothing further to discuss.

 

[ChristineES]

If a Christian wishes to take credit for the achievements of previous, current, and future Christians, they must also be willing to take on the baggage of guilt.

Other than that, nah.

I always feel dismay at methods such as the Spanish Inquisition and other methods used in the past. They are part of the past and I have to deal with that. But, at the same time, I don't believe in such methods- the Christians I have known don't believe in such methods. I can't force my faith on someone else- I would never do that, much less kill someone who won't convert to my faith. I can't even force my faith on my children, and I wouldn't even if I could. I am not perfect, Christianity is not perfect, either. It doesn't have a squeaky clean past- but neither does humankind.

I don't think people should judge all Christians as narrow-minded, science hating people. It just isn't true.

 

[waitasec]

You know very well that anger is not the same as hatred, or at least you should. I didn't even attack him, only his words directed at my faith and me.
I refuse to debate him further. I am ignorant of his purpose and he doesn't seem to understand my faith and he doesn't understand that I am also a separate person from my faith, as well. He says I harm people because of my faith- I don't agree and that is that. There is nothing further to discuss.

what are you talking about?
who's him?