I don’t have much pithy to say, but I did tell Deke I’d be popping in more. But going a little off the recent thread that had him and Big Man trading philosophical blows with Tit For Tat…
…why is it that I have to be judged by the people who share my religion?
I mean it’s one thing to be judged by the people I choose as my close friends, or to be judged by my action or something.
But by people in my religion?
Does that mean I have to judge all Democrats by the Kennedy family? Or all Republicans by the Bush family? Or I meet one Buddhist and decide that if he’s a jerk, all Buddhists must be be jerks?
I just don’t get how if folks do somethin nasty with the Bible and twist it all around why do I have to be the one to answer for their dirty deeds and why do I have to be judged by their bad example?
Did I miss the memo where each group is a monolithic entity and everyone in a certain group is in groupthink mode?
Looking over that last thread, and all I see is yet another hard-boiled atheist wanting to screw around with some Christian boys… they never, ever intend to benefit from any discussion or debate. They only want to raise hell, (no pun intended) because, as was mentioned there, they don’t believe in any of it, anyway, so see no harm coming to themselves over it.
I love to point out the inconsistencies of their own religion – the religion of Darwin – and make fun of them when they have to modify their pet theories (Evilution is only a theory, remember!) (No, I spelled it right) to keep up with the increasing understanding that Intelligent Design makes far more sense than the idea of matter springing from nothingness, then imbuing itself with all of the necessary genetic information to enable it’s own survival in scenarios that it couldn’t possibly foretell, or even survive at first onslaught of them!
Tit’s group have settled things in their own minds, now wish to control others and have them think like them. It is arrogance, unbridled. If you want to see an atheist put in his place, check this out, and you’ll see the extent of the back-pedaling that they have done to try and cover the myriad of flaws in their religion:
Stein vs. Dawkins.
I especially love the part where Dawkins is forced to fess up over his own attempt to side-step the issue of common ancestry. Remember when you were in school, (if you went through the secular school system like I did) how they tried to force-feed you the dogma that modern man initially progressed through a series of simian metamorphoses, eventually becoming what we are, today? Now, here is the humanist guru, Richard Dawkins, saying that man did not progress through ape-like stages, rather, through a separate genealogy. Why is this? Because, as any thinking human being would soon see, this whole notion of Evilution is something pulled out of Satan’s ass, essentially for assholes!
Dawkins also cannot account for the means of the initial formation of matter. Even his confused brain knows that you cannot get something from nothing. He also says that there COULD be a god, just not the God of the Bible! Now, how scientific is a statement like that? Pretty damned biased, if you ask me!
No. Atheism is a religion of retards, and I’ve met plenty of them. This Tit-guy is simply one more. He’s a professional, and yet totally ignorant of what many children take for granted.
Arguing with them is like pissing into the wind… you can, but, why would you?
Btw, nice outfit… positively bitchin’, girl!
“I just don’t get how if folks do somethin nasty with the Bible and twist it all around why do I have to be the one to answer for their dirty deeds and why do I have to be judged by their bad example?” MP
It’s a good question. And I don’t mean for my next question to be mean (mean/mean–how confusing is that!), although I’m afraid it will come across that way.
But, why do you care, if you’re expected to answer, or if you’re judged?
@ The Highwayman,
I really try to leave off the idea of “convincing” atheists or agnostics about anything. This blog really serves three purposes for me: discuss spiritual ideas with other believers, show to believers and non-believers alike that there is more to Christianity than mythology (basically, try to discuss our respective viewpoints rather than sway each other), and to get stuff off my chest about life and current events.
Oh, OK, FOUR things: It’s also a venue for unveiling the first draft of my first novel.
But the main thing I argue with atheists, agnostics and others that I am not an idiot, nor is belief in Christianity idiocy.
I wouldn’t agree with you that atheism is the stuff of retards. In fact, much of atheism is intellectualism run rampant, to the point that people cut off themselves from ever discovering there is something spiritual inside them. The reason I won’t call their beliefs stupid is because I fully understand the logical and intellectual arguments that carry them away from belief and faith.
To call them idiots is to invite more accusations of our idiocy as Christians. Because, let’s face it, many, many, MANY Christians give no thought to their faith and simply let other people dictate it to them. That, in itself, is just as dangerous an endpoint as atheism, in my book.
Can’t speak for Miz Pink, and I’m sure she’ll respond when she’s up and about in her part of the nation, but I care about being judged by others when people make a blanket assumption about any group of which I am a part, and then treat me badly on those assumptions. One of my biggest pet peeves in life is judging every person in a movement or group as being the same. I have little problem judging the MOVEMENTS and GROUPS in terms of the dangers they may pose to people’s understanding and the places they might lead them that are hazardous, but I try never to assume anything about a person simply because they are part of a group. I try to approach people as individuals and let them show me who they truly are. To do otherwise is, I feel, a bit dehumanizing.
Tit’s group have settled things in their own minds(Highwayman)
By the way its Tat, its the wife’s Tit. 😉
Napoleon…Guess it’s like this: I want to be seen as uniquely me ya know? If you wanna think I’m bitchy or stupid or wonderful or sexy or boring or whatever I want that feeling to come out of unique appreciation for who the heck I am and how I’ve come across to you. I don’t wanna be derivatively judged because of other members of my group. You do that and you’ve reduced me to some cog in a machine and not treating me like a real person and that would pretty much get me pretty angry. Being judged is a part of life but I wanna be judged according to MY actions. Ya know?
Highwayman…a lot of what Deke said, really. But as an add on to that, thanks for the compliment on my attire tho I don’t think I’ve worn anything like that (except the boots) in 8 or 10 years or something. However I will say that the hair color is pretty close to my own. So I guess this little cartoon person is the closest any image has gotten to revealing what I look like. In other words you still won’t be able to pick Miz Pink up in a crowd. 😉 😉 😉
Being judged is a part of life but I wanna be judged according to MY actions. Ya know?(Pink)
If you give yourself title i.e. Christian, dont you think people will use that as part of their assessment(judgement) of you. If youre just Inda Pink, people will look to your actions for their view, not the group you attach to.
Tit for Tat…please! Miz Pink doesn’t walk around saying, “Hey, I’m a Christian!” Even in this forum, she expresses, as I do, specific opinions. We don’t wave a damn flag and spout some groupthink declarations.
If this were a political blog (and sometimes it IS depending on what’s in the news), would it be fair to judge her or I by Barack Obama’s actions or words…or Ted Kennedy’s…or any of a number of other Democrats? Or if we espouse liberal ideology, which we both often do (me to a slightly lesser extent), would you judge us by the most vocal liberals?
Perhaps you would, but it would be unfair.
You keep laying out Christianity as something that we walk around with pinned on our shirts, proclaiming it every moment in every thing we do. I know I’m a lot more complex than just being a religion.
It frustrates me how you make out religious affiliations to be something that permits you to judge people more broadly and more harshly than people who actively belong to any other group.
It isn’t fair, and the sooner you admit that you’re either (1) a person who hates all groups and organized institutions and thinks no one should belong to anything or (2) admit that you’re being hypocritical in your judgements, the happier I will be. So far, and in our most recent debate, I don’t recall you once acknowledging that you treat religious people and religious affiliations with a totally different set of standards than any social, political, cultural or other group/philosophy/belief system.
I don’t recall you once acknowledging that you treat religious people and religious affiliations with a totally different set of standards than any social, political, cultural or other group/philosophy/belief system.(deacon)
Nope,I pretty much treat all the same if during my encounter they use a title, i.e. Christian, Jew, Democrat, Liberal, conservative. My initial judgements always change once I get to know them. Until that time though, let the chips fall where they may. I would imagine this to be the same for you when you hear a person is an atheist. Until you get to know them you probably base your judgements of them on assumptions about atheists.
So basically, you think stereotyping is perfectly acceptable and have no problemw ith people making decisions about YOU based on their own stereotypes?
Yet, you’re over at my blog complaining about how I talk about WHITE PEOPLE? Something doesn’t connect here.
If stereotypes are acceptable for you to use until your mind is changed, then why isn’t that same practice ok for everybody else?
With me, I say that when I stereotype, I’m wrong, just like anybody else who stereotypes. You on the other hand say that your stereotyping is no big deal, but when others do it, well that’s unfair.
That’s really hilarious.
Actually, Tit for Tat…no, I don’t judge a person by their affiliations, unless those affiliations are with very fringe or dangerous groups (KKK, Michigan Militia, playing with poisonous snakes-style Pentecostals, etc.). People who are with very extreme groups that have no regard for people’s safety or something scare me, because there’s no reason to belong to such a group unless you have extreme feelings in line with that group.
But other than that, no.
I will treat a Republican, Democrat, Liberatarian, Liberal, Conservative, Jew, Muslim, Redneck, Academic, Bar-goer, Teatotaller, Christian, NASCAR fan, futbol fan, etc. as a PERSON and an INDIVIDUAL first. Even if they haved somehow telegraphed their affiliation to me ahead of time or just when I meet them, I don’t assume anything about them.
You know why? Because some ultra liberal natural living types are TV-free, and some are addicted to reality TV shows. Some Republicans worship Sarah Palin, and some know she’s a total idiot (and even the ones who like her aren’t always bad folks). I could go on, but why do I need to?
It’s not that I’m some special love everyone kind of person. Plenty of people irritate me. But I let their personalities, not their affiliations, be the deciding factor. I have friends who have vastly different religious or political beliefs than I do, but they are my friends because of what we share, not what makes us different, and because we gave each other the chance to get to know each other as PEOPLE, not representatives of a group.
And just to amend what I just said, given that you singled out atheists…I don’t assume anything about them either.
I’ve known and met atheists who respect faith beliefs and those who disdain them. I’ve met some who recognize that I have legitimate intellectual and logical arguments and others whose only retort to me is “you stubbornly cling to an ancient mythology!” I’ve met atheists who were intellectuals and those who are idiots.
It would be stupid of me to assume that every atheist is the stereotype (from some believers’ perspective) of being a faith-hating, scientifically enamored, intellectual liberal.
Yes, I did once argue that atheism is a sort of religion itself, with science at the heart of it instead of God, and even though I am less sure of that position nowadays, I still think elements of it are true…but that still wouldn’t make every atheist alike…or even all that similar to each other.
Big Man and Deacon
My “stereotype” is based on the title they give themselves. Not their skin colour or race. Very different dont ya think. Also, if someone is a member of the KKK or the crips you guys will make a judgement. What happens if it turns out they are just in the group as an informant. You would never know that unless you got to know them better. If not your “judgement” would be totally wrong. I keep forgetting though, you guys are “Christian” and dont judge people. Now thats hilarious.
Oh my goodness…Tit for Tat, for someone who accuses me of not truly using logic, how much have you strayed from it to make your point here?
Do you know how low a percentage of people in a group like the KKK would be informants?
And yet you will judge ALL Christians by the relatively small number of them who are crazy.
And I said there was no reason to BELONG (that is, WANT to be a part of) an extreme group that promotes actively illegal or harmful behavior and is DANGEROUS….UNLESS you agree substantially with them. I mean, is there any reason to join the KKK and desire to be part of them if you love non-whites?
But more importantly, look how you leap to skin color as your fallback, completely ignoring the fact that the examples I provided (political, ideology, fraternal, social, cause-based, etc. kind of groups) would all be “titles” as much as Christian…things that people CHOOSE to identify with. Do you judge all environmentalists by Greenpeace? Or do you pick some other high profile group to judge all of them?
Do you just all animal rights activists by PeTA? Or by the SPCA?
Do you just all Democrats in the U.S. by Barack Obama? Or all Republicans by George W. Bush?
Any time you believe in a cause or a movement, you have given yourself some general “title.” That still is a far cry from being part of some monolithic groupthink whereby the actions of any individual…or small portion…of that group can even remotely be used to judge an indidivual in that group.
You are, in short, full of crap.
My examples of groups I might “judge” were EXTREME groups that espouse things outside the law and outside of generally civilized behavior (and yes, I do sometimes judge people, but on their individual actions…even that is often wrong, and I avoid it most of the time, but I still wouldn’t judge a KKK member individually as a “crazed oppressive killer”…what I would do is assume that he disliked non-whites, given that that is what the KKK is all about. Amazing that with Christians, you focus on doctrine that is twisted to judge Christians, instead of focusing on the core of Christianity…which is about loving God and loving your neighbor (i.e. everyone). KKK espouses only love of your own race, and active rejection of the others…so it’s pretty fair to assume that a KK member operates from a basic postions of hated…kind of a diffference, don’t ya think?)
Tit fot Tat…you are clearly hell-bent on assuming that Christianity is nothing but a waste of time, that every aspect of it is flawed, and that every member of it follows their own rulebook which differs fundamentally from everyone else’s.
At this point, if I cannot make you see that individual Christian differences are no different than individual Republican, Democratic, Environmentalist, Vegetarian, Natural Living, Hunting, Fishing, Chicago Cubs fan, or beer lover differences, there is no point in discussing.
I know I said this before, and then you pulled me back in my acting rational again.
I won’t be fooled again.
You hold Christians to an entirely different standard than any other established, mainstream, basically socially responsible group composed of a pretty wide representation of humanity. Totally different. And for no logical reason.
Maybe there is another topic in the future on which you and I can talk. I am officially, irrevocably done with talking about this one with you. I’ve acknowledged your very legitimate points and you reject nearly all of my legitimate ones apparently.
So, done. I don’t want to start running around in circles again like I did with that moron Thordaddy.
And I’d hate to think that you’re more like him, and less like the reasonable, rational and relatively fair individual I had thought you might be. I’m just going to assume that you just have some mental block on this particular issue that you are incapable of overcoming, and will hope that it doesn’t impeded rational discourse between us in the future.
Well ya know Deke the KKK is known for many of its very strong and positive social causes, like keeping the bleach and starch and tailoring industry in business with all those robes that get smudged with smoke from the big bonfires and burning crosses on people’s lawns and the grass and dirt stains from meeting well away from where anyone can see them. And, ya know they’ve established so many nice foundations and hospitals and educational institutions and they are so welcoming…
I don’t know how you could judge a group like that.
I mean it’s not like they advocate armed violence, discrimination, segregation, terrorism or anything else. Just a nice little gathering of people who like to meet in the woods and wear robes and hood.
You dont need to talk to me, thats ok. To get back to the main point is, there is no method to show what a true “Christian” is. The reason I say this is because there are many fringe groups in the 33,000 types of “Christianity” that also espouse hate. You can ignore that all you want but that doesnt mean it isnt true. My comments still stand. I, like you, judge people based on certain things and those judgements change as we get to know people more personally. As far as Christianity goes(Jesus being G-d), I do believe this is delusional and unprovable. If your belief works, fine, but that is all it is, “A Belief”. As far as the philosophical and communal aspects of being a “loving Christian”. I wholeheartedly agree with those parts. That is why several of my best friends are your type of christian. As far as discourse in the future, Im always up for a “Good Chat”. Why dont you stop by and leave your 2 cents worth. Maybe you will enlighten me.
Not avoiding your blog or anything; just don’t have time for blogs as much as I used to. Only check out a few each day lately. But as time frees up I’ll probably visit at some point.
And because I’m the boss around here and get the last word when I want, there is no “method” to show what a “true” anyone of the vast majority of groups out there is, so Christianity (and religious groups in general) are FAR from alone in that regard. That has been one of my key points all along, and I’m sticking to it.
“there is no “method” to show what a “true” anyone of the vast majority of groups out there is” (deacon)
If this were true, and it isn’t, the no one could really proclaim to be a part of any moevment per se. Couldn’t be a Republican for example – because how would one decide that? Can’t be for civil rights or women’s rights because how does one determine if one is ‘in’? There obviously sets of standards and belief sets one must accept to be part of the ‘group’…and we all are parts of groups on society.
For example, someone’s kids are in a school system – making you part of that PTA group (if you choose to be)…but we know what it takes to get on that ‘group’ and their is some rules of what is expected of the group.
Why is Christianity isn’t thought of in this way? How could one determine a Christian from someone not a Christian then? I mean, I get a lot of people calling me a non-Christian and other names and yet they do not know what makes them one outside their close and personal relationship with Jesus (and pretty much everything Jesus did for them). So the standard is ‘internal’ and ‘mysterious’ – making them the keyholders of the gates to heaven…not saying this is you – but you have to admit – you have standards for Christians too.
My point isn’t that there aren’t guidelines to go by.
But Tit for Tat kept complaining that there was no way to know what a “real” Christian was because we have internal differences and disagreements.
My point was that such differences are no different than those between members of the same political party, who may have policy and ideological views sharply different than some of their colleagues in the same party.
Sure, there are basic things that are going to set you up as a Christian, notably faith in Jesus, but my point is that there isn’t some specific set of rules that, if you follow all of them, you are “clearly” a Christian, and if you deviate from even one of them, you “clearly” aren’t.
I think there are things you can do to get you kicked out of a group, if you deviate too far, and Christians like any other group do have such things. But do we really want to establish a platform that is so concrete that everyone is in lockstep? No!
Imagine a world where I told someone he or she wasn’t a Christian because that person doubted that Jesus’ birth was a virgin birth. Or decided that someone who believes Jesus literally is God isn’t properly Christian…or conversely, that failing to see God and Jesus as the exact same being makes them not Christian.
Being Christian is in many ways like being an environmentalist. There are many different environment groups, some extreme and some not…each with different focuses. In Christianity, we have denominations, and they set rules as to what you have to be to belong. But for any specific denomination to decry another person as NOT Chrisitian, when that person self-identifies as a Christian, is WRONG. It’s one thing for an institution or denomination to have its rules, but in the end, being CHRISTIAN isn’t something we can define with an immutable set of rules.
Hope that makes my stance more clear.