All of this christian bashing is so ignorant and stupid.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]

A couple of problems. First, the only people who are allowed to make 'accepted interpretations' are Christians themselves, or at least they are the only ones who do so en masse.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree.

[ QUOTE ]
And secondly, it is only CURRENTLY the accepted interpretation, because it is currently unacceptable to interpret it literally. There was a very, very different 'accepted interpretation' back when social mores and norms allowed for a more violent, barbaric outlook on life.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is very very false. In fact it is only recently that a literal interpretation of the text has become more popular. I thought I had a decently long post about it, but that might have been in another thread . . .

link


[ QUOTE ]

Mark it down as a near certainty: If Christianity is still around in 200 years, well over 90% of Christians will see no problem whatsoever with homosexuality. The accepted interpretation will be whatever social norms dictate.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is most likely true.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

A couple of problems. First, the only people who are allowed to make 'accepted interpretations' are Christians themselves, or at least they are the only ones who do so en masse.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree.

[ QUOTE ]
And secondly, it is only CURRENTLY the accepted interpretation, because it is currently unacceptable to interpret it literally. There was a very, very different 'accepted interpretation' back when social mores and norms allowed for a more violent, barbaric outlook on life.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is very very false. In fact it is only recently that a literal interpretation of the text has become more popular. I thought I had a decently long post about it, but that might have been in another thread . . .

link


[ QUOTE ]

Mark it down as a near certainty: If Christianity is still around in 200 years, well over 90% of Christians will see no problem whatsoever with homosexuality. The accepted interpretation will be whatever social norms dictate.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is most likely true.

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't really matter when fundamentalism started in Christianity. The point is, the Bible was interpreted in a much more violent way during, say, the Crusades, because society was more violent. The interpretation changes to fit the society, so there is no good reason for me to care what the current, accepted interpretation is. I could probably guess without even listening to a single Christian: the 'accepted interpretation' will generally reflect the social mores and norms of its society, minus about 50-100 years. Its a conservative group, slow to adapt, but it adapts nonetheless. Eventually it will ALL be metaphor, at least, as long as society continues to be progressive.

What bothers me is simply the impediment to progress that religion generally provides, and the shelter we allow for it. I mean, Luddites are impediments to progress as well, but luckily there aren't very many of them, and we would call them wackos if there were.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Wait, wait, wait. We don't get to hold Christianity accountable when Christians do horrible things in the name of their religion, and we don't get to hold the religion accountable for what it says because no specific priests preach about those ideals? Talk about a slippery target.

[/ QUOTE ]

Umm, yeah. Basically. Unless you want to do away with democracy because democratic governments do horrible things in the name of protecting democratic freedom. I mean, you see how that argument doesn't really work, right?

I mean, by this logic if I do something evil in the name of X, then X is at fault and not me even if X doesn't really say to perform that evil act.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, by this logic, how many times would someone have to do something in the name of X before you would be forced to admit that maybe X really DID say to do those things?

And where is this logic when religious groups do good things? Where is this logic when people talk about all of the great things religion does, all of he charity work, etc.? How come no one ever says "Well, you can't say religion is responsible, its the people's fault for doing all those good things."

No. Religion only gets the benefits, none of the costs.

[/ QUOTE ]
Its not the fault of religon that religons try to take all credit and no blame, its the fault of the people in the religon.

peoples are like that.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, except I'd place the fault with the people who ALLOW theists to get away with this absurd immunity, namely the culture of 'hands off religion' that we are arguing about in this thread.

[/ QUOTE ]
Absolutely. The war on terror should be funding crack satirists squads to pour ridicule and scorn on them fools.

Only reason they wont do it is friendly fire.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know if this was sarcastic or not, but pretending it was serious, I agree entirely.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's serious. Instead of responsing by feeding their self-importance which was exactly what they craved, we should do what they really can't stand and expose them for the ridiculous fools that they are.

We should fart in their general direction and taunt them some more.

chez

[Curtrosity]

No it's ignorant, they're ignorant.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]

What bothers me is simply the impediment to progress that religion generally provides, and the shelter we allow for it. I mean, Luddites are impediments to progress as well, but luckily there aren't very many of them, and we would call them wackos if there were.

[/ QUOTE ]

What I've been trying to say this whole time is that I don't believe religion is the impediment. Fundamentalism is. Fundamentalists are conservative, reject change, and oppose progress but it seems like everyone here is equating that with religion. I just think you guys are making all these arguments against fundamentalism, but calling it religion. Religion, classically, is supposed to change. You are supposed to use the teachings of a religion and apply them to your modern life. That's how it works in many other parts of the world at least.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

What bothers me is simply the impediment to progress that religion generally provides, and the shelter we allow for it. I mean, Luddites are impediments to progress as well, but luckily there aren't very many of them, and we would call them wackos if there were.

[/ QUOTE ]

What I've been trying to say this whole time is that I don't believe religion is the impediment. Fundamentalism is. Fundamentalists are conservative, reject change, and oppose progress but it seems like everyone here is equating that with religion. I just think you guys are making all these arguments against fundamentalism, but calling it religion. Religion, classically, is supposed to change. You are supposed to use the teachings of a religion and apply them to your modern life. That's how it works in many other parts of the world at least.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its just not supported by history. Religious orthodoxy has historically placed itself in opposition to change and progress. And of course that makes sense...religious orthodoxy has historically represented the status quo.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
religious orthodoxy has historically represented the status quo.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the part I don't agree with. Religious orthodoxy is what has been the most historically examined.