A Blanket Response to the Anti-Christian Posters
- Thread starter pastorjoeboggs
- Start date
Anyone can claim to be a Christian and defame Christianity as a military attack. The government sides with ISIS because it is the antithesis to Christianity and Hillary as well as Obama armed them to attack the country. Everyone knows Christians are the best people this world has overall. The Renaissance came out of Christianity and civilized society came out of Christianity globally from barbarian times to more peaceful times overall. When you get right down to it most prosperity in the world ties back to what came out of civilization under Christianity especially prior to the 20th century that led up to what we have now. You look at countries that have attacked Christians and they are in the stone age by comparison from Middle East throughout the world onto North Korea. There is no religion better, there are no better people overall. Overall that is clear to me and that is through an objective lens. I am not even a bible thumper Christian, but I can definitely see how a government that wants to put microchips in people's brains and worships Lucifer at Bohemian Grove is opposed to Christianity. Hitler, who is half Jewish went after Jews as merely practice for what is coming for Christians. Obama importing ISIS is only the beginning. Nero burned down Rome to blame attack Christians. Obama is doing the same today. Obama is Nero pretty much and behaves the same way. I would not be surprised at all if Obama tried to make his horse a member of the Senate. He is that evil, he is that Satanic. You can see the hatred for America and Christians (in particular) very clear in his eyes. I have known this for quite some time. Nobody can deny that today unless they willfully lie to themselves in absolute denial. Obama is doing to America today what Nero did to Rome centuries ago.
Last edited:
So again, it is the imposition of another person's morality on anyone that I'm opposed to. It's one of my great conflicts with conservatism as it is in this country, hence why I describe myself as a social liberal/fiscal conservative (but not so "anarchist" as to describe myself as Libertarian).
I don't think Stanis Baratheon should be allowed to legally set his daughter on fire to appease the Lord of Light on the belief that it will help him conquer Winterfell because some witch with big boobs told him so. Obviously, I'd be in favor of removing religious exemptions in the case of felonies such as that. Where I draw the line, then, is probably at the definition of "negligence". I personally would find it negligent to simply watch my child or wife die while praying real hard. If someone else weighs their own beliefs and morality and comes to a decision of sound mind (i.e. not affected by mental disability) that says that's the path they want to take, then I don't think it's my place to force them to do otherwise. Doctors may give the child a month to live, but 95% certainty of survival under treatment, yet the child may die under treatment and the child may live without treatment. Doctors are often wrong - they're just "practicing" after all. That I would personally place my trust in science over my faith does not mean it is immoral to do otherwise, in my opinion.
I think there are plenty of instances where someone is not capable of making decisions on their own, and thus we have medical powers of attorney who make those decisions on their behalf. Those individual's beliefs and morals often enter into such decisions, and while I personally see the difference between making such a decision on behalf of a 5 year old vs on behalf of a 95 year old, there are people out there who see life as life and would not agree with your stance on euthanasia (with which I happen to agree as well)!
If a Quaker elects not to seek complex, life-saving medical treatment for their child because it involves the use of modern technology, I think that is their right. I personally think it is idiotic, but there are plenty of things in this world I find idiotic that expand well past religious freedoms and moralities, and I don't get a vote in those, either.
So, on general principle, I do not think one morality should be imposed by law on anyone else, but there are certainly instances where it is undeniably the right decision to do so. We've been arguing about where that line is drawn for decades in this country (see abortion) and you and I are certainly not going to solve that puzzle on the GD board!
Yeah, I agree. Someone who thinks all Christians are evil because they follow a religion isn't a "free thinker". That person is a simpleton incapable of, or unwilling to engage in, complex thought. That largely describes most of ecouch's posts on this subject, that is to say everything is "if it's not black, it is therefore white."
It sounds like you may be contrasting commission with omission, e.g. sounds like you draw the line at a parent COMMITTING a crime against their child e.g. murdering the child. Whereas if it's more of an omission situation such as omitting life-saving medical care from their child in the name of religion, then "we" don't have a right to intervene. Not trying to put words in your mouth just thinking that might be where you're at.
Even at that, I can't imagine you'd be fine with allowing a parent to withhold food from a baby, right? I'm personally not seeing much of a difference, if any, between that scenario and withholding life-saving medical care from a dying baby, other than withholding food involves a 100% chance of death, whereas even in extreme scenarios, withholding medical care might only be a 99% chance of death or whatever.
This is an over simplification. Let's sat you have a family of 4 children. One of them gets ill with a disease that is possibly curable, but treatment is terribly expensive, far away, and painful for the child. Should the family be forced to go through this under threat from the govt and possibly to the detriment of the entire family including the other 3 children? There's too much grey area. I'd prefer gr8's point of view, but I'm super independent and would prefer the govt piss off as much as possible. If other people want to take risks with their kids, why should I care? They can kill them in the womb and I get no say. These people are a small percentage and honestly if they are too stupid to protect their offspring then maybe it's better in the long run in a darwinian sense...
It's not omission vs. commission, no. And I don't think the comparison from withholding food vs. withholding advanced or extreme treatment is germane, either. One is pretty obviously neglect of a human being's basic needs for survival. Advanced medical care crosses that threshold at some point for some people. Where that line is drawn isn't up to me, nor should it be for anyone and everyone.
As TSBoiler points out, people kill living things in their womb by the tens of thousands in this country every year (in my opinion), and the government has deemed that to be their choice by right. So again, it comes down to where you draw the line. A catholic who is strictly pro-life believes life begins at conception, but that catholic has been told that killing what they view as a life is perfectly legal and not immoral. Why would electing to withhold care on religious grounds be any different? If you're going to protect the child from religious beliefs that you view endanger its life, you should protect a child from secular beliefs all the same. But again... where is the line drawn? When does "life" begin? That legal definition has always seemed arbitrary to me as I don't agree with the basis for it as even a child born premature past the legal definition for abortion is still incapable of survival purely on its own until, what, age 5? At least that's how I've always thought of "life" as I also believe it starts at conception and cell division.
Last edited:
The oversimplification is intentional--how else are initial positions determined without first establishing the basics?
Your gray area example is just that--a gray area example. From a moral perspective it would be easy to argue for withholding medical care in your gray area example, e.g. invoking utilitarianism. What wouldn't be easy to argue from a moral perspective IMO, though, is allowing a mother to murder her daughter in the name of religion. I then don't happen to think it's much of a leap to change "murder" there to "withhold life-saving medical care" or even food, but that seems to be the spot where my line is different than others' line, which I get.
I do think most of the "fun" discussion is had in the gray areas. For example, a 5-year old has a life-threatening issue that will almost certainly lead to the child's death without medical intervention. The father wants the child to have such medical care. The mother, though, who recently converted to a fundamentalist religion, doesn't want the child to have such medical care. Who wins? I'm not actually sure legally who would win in that scenario today or if there's any precedent.
I think in that case it goes to a judiciary determination of "best interest of the child", which would pretty clearly be the father. In the case where there is no conflict among the legal and rightful guardians of the child, it then becomes "does the government have the right to intervene contrary to the religion-based wishes of the (sane and healthy) parents?" And I think in that case, the answer should be "no."
In any event, I can take action to kill a child by withholding food, and the child will certainly die in a matter of a short time. Withholding medical care is not necessarily the same thing, because sometimes "miracles" happen and doctors are wrong. People cannot survive without food and water. People can survive without advanced medical care.
There is a whole spectrum between "saint" and "evil person," no? Have we really reached the point where we're boiling it down to "if you're not perfect, you're Satan?" I've never argued that Mother Theresa, or any other Christian, is perfect. My only point has been that to label every Christian as categorically evil is going way too far in the other direction.
Much of the criticism of Mother Theresa seems to be of the fact that she proselytized among the sick and dying. How is that "evil?" Her refusal to advocate for birth control is not, in itself, "evil." Was she always perfect or even "good" in her efforts to care for the poor. Almost certainly not, she was human, after all. But it is unreasonable to condemn her motives without conclusive proof. Just because Hitchens and others disagreed with her theology, that does not mean that she was a terrible person.
And keep in mind, I'm only using Mother Theresa as one example of my larger point. It is equally unreasonable to suggest that the hundreds of Christians who donated blood or who gather in prayer or who advocate for a change in laws are "evil" simply because of their faith. Just because an individual does not do all the good they might do, that does not negate the good they actually do.
Although it often is, it doesn't have to be "advanced" medical care--e.g. in this article, there were 5 case studies: (1) a child who died of diabetes avoidable with basic insulin shots, (2) a burst appendix fixable by routine removal surgery, (3) another one with a ruptured appendix, (4) another one from diabetes, and (5) a 2-day old baby that could've been saved with basic antibiotics but instead died of infection. Two aspects of the article were downright ugly IMO: (a) reading about the sheer torture that these kids suffered in their final days of life, and (b) reading the disgusting nonsense that the parents were spouting in justifying their child's painful death as "God's will" and how they didn't want to be "weak in their faith" and so on.
But nonetheless I'm not trying to change your mind--was just trying to determine where your "line" was being drawn and why, and you've laid that out well and I believe I understand your position. I'm not much into government intervention either so despite our difference of opinion I can relate to some of the points that you and TopSecret made.
I also thought about abortion at an earlier point in this conversation, but IMO it's not a super-helpful analog for the simple reason that 100% of people believe that a 5-year old child is a "human being" whereas only 50% or whatever percentage of people think a 2-month old fetus is. Not saying that "democracy" or "popular opinion" is the right way to establish morality--after all popular opinion often proves disastrously wrong ("99% think the world is flat!"), but I'm just distinguishing why I think the two subjects are too different to lend each other much by way of comparison. Just my opinion...
Nope, I agree with you regarding abortion. There is clearly a line someplace, and there's no easy answer to any of it. Similar to my stance on "faith healing" vs. medicine, as I have become pro-choice over time, I am still anti-abortion in most cases. I think that's an important distinction.
I only brought it up because as a secular society we have prevented religious morals from being forced upon everyone as pertains to abortion, and I believe the same standard should apply to secular morality in that we should be granted BOTH freedom FROM religion and freedom OF religion.
Casimir Effect is definitive scientific proof of virtual particles which is...wait for it, something from nothing.
agnostics are different in my opinion...I term it active disbelief versus saying I neither believe nor disbelieve. Agnostics say it's pointless to ask the question because the answer is unknowable (short of God literally appearing to all of us, and he apparently stopped doing that around Moses time, that or Mo was into the good stuff if you know what I mean). Theists are yes, atheists no, and agnostics are I don't know. IMO.
Pretty sure there is pre-existing energy in the vacuum where the virtual particles appear. And the Casimir effect doesn't explain how the universe came into existence.
If somebody wants to believe in what I consider is the mumbo jumbo of Christianity, that's fine with me. I don't even harbor any resentment to public prayer or religious displays. Tolerance should be a two way street, and my being an atheist should be tolerated as well. Just returned from the Czech Republic where I was told that despite the abundance of churches and cathedrals, some 40% of the population is atheist. I think education and knowledge will raise that percentage.
Plenty of people far smarter and more educated than you and I believe in God.
Virtual particles are the definitive something from nothing but it's ok because they pair annihilate almost immediately (except for Hawking radiation from black holes).
We dont obviously have the definitive answer to how the universe was created, but it's not like we don't have some decent ideas with evidence.
Everyone believes in something that objectively isn't true, even the smartest among us.
Sure. My point was that education doesn't stamp out religion. It never has and probably never will because there will always be some level of "But yes, where did all of this come from?" or "Who/what initiated the Big Bang?" etc. I reject the assertion that only the uneducated hold religious beliefs.
Depends on how you define "belief". If your definition is acceptance of a truth without supporting evidence, then I, and many others like me, don't believe in anything.
if you play that game, then define evidence. Because that's not a universal definition either. And then define sufficient evidence. I guarantee there is some myth, internal delusion, or something that you believe in that you think there is evidence for but you are mistaken, misguided, deluded...we are all that way about something, unless you are the sole perfectly rational human being ever in existence.
well that's my point, educated people hold all sorts of beliefs that are ultimately not true, because we are all flawed reasoning machines to some degree.
... and we're all seeking answers to things we can't (yet) explain. I suspect that the presence of things we can't explain will continue in perpetuity.
Belief: Acceptance of a truth without the need for evidence
Evidence: verifiable or observable data that can be used to support an idea, supposition, or hypothesis
Sufficient evidence is subjective. Some need a youtube video and others need controlled, scientific trials
An example would be Aliens (the interstellar kind). I would say that while I do not believe in aliens, I do think, given the immense size & scope of the universe, that some sort of life exists outside of earth. The rationale for my stance is the verifiable and observable evidence of the size and scope of the cosmos.
I could always be ignorant, deluded or mistaken about available evidence regarding a given truth, but I don't think that qualifies as a belief based upon the definition I've put forth.
Good, I'm glad you rely on tawdry rationalizations to prop up your insecurity. I'm glad you sleep well at night believing in the fantasy of salvation. I'm sure there are plenty of people smarter and more educated than you who believe that they're god. (lower case to keep it in perspective)
belief is more than acceptance of truth without evidence. I "believe" in the theory of relativity. Evidence? It's wider than your definition too. Some evidence isn't necessarily verifiable or it's disputable if it is. And yes you've taken two extreme versions of what sufficient is...there's a whole lot in the middle, and controlled, scientific trials can lead to the wrong "belief"
As for your example, plenty of scientists use those same observations and come to the conclusion that we are alone. Others think we are rare. Others think we are one of millions of intelligent species. And they can all point to evidence both verifiable and observable to reach that...belief.
I agree in the sense that too many non-believers state that they don't believe anything without strong evidence---which I think is generally BS. Even if it's just subconsciously, we pretty much all tend to draw beliefs from a variety of sources that aren't always very "justified" from an evidence-standpoint.
That said, I like the quote that I believe it was Carl Sagan who popularized, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." In other words, maybe it's not all that important that I believe something of little consequence that happens to be based on little-to-no evidence, like when I have a hunch that my car or my pet is having issues despite not having substantial explanations as to why exactly I believe that.
But if I want to affirm my belief that there is an omniscient and invisible spirit "being" who I can speak to (or who can simply read my thoughts) and who will sometimes fulfill my wishes but other times not, and who cares who I have sex with and what I do on Sundays and who otherwise takes an active interest in my life as well as the lives of billions of other earthlings, and who has complete control over the natural disasters and day-to-day events that occur on Earth.....then IMO now we're getting into the territory of "needing extraordinary evidence".
God means different things to different people. To some it means that last bit, to others it's a much more nebulous concept. Heck, it could be a hyperadvanced species of life that has been around for billions of years in another universe or a prior universe who is able to create universes, created this one, and can control every aspect of it. That's enough to be "God" to us. Or think of the "Q" on Star Trek...didn't create the universe but have conquered physical laws sufficiently to be nearly omniscient and omnipotent.
Or, there is no God. No afterlife. We're just thinking bags of meat. I have no way of knowing that answer although I suspect it's the last bit. But to your point, there is at least some evidence that a reasonable mind could interpret as signs of a higher power of some sort. I don't tend to agree but I don't find those that do necessarily operating under blind belief without a shred of evidence either.
Remember that religion is the human interpretation of "God's will" and will, thus, always be flawed. So while I do believe in God, I don't believe He can read my thoughts, I doubt He cares much about what individuals pray for (but that hasn't stopped me), and I don't think He cares what I do on Sunday... or any other rule we made up...
"Belief" implies faith. Scientists don't "believe" in relativity, continental drift, or climate change, but they do accept them as scientific facts and prevailing theories.
Scientists can guess all they want, and they can also believe in whatever they want. Good scientists understand the point where their opinions move beyond the observable & verifiable, and therefore enter the realm of "belief".
one definition of belief implies faith, but the actual meaning of the word?
1. a principle, proposition, idea, etc, accepted as true
2. opinion; conviction
3. religious faith
4. trust or confidence, as in a person or a person's abilities, probity, etc
You are focused on 3 to the exclusion of 1 for sure, and I think 2 as well. 4 obviously isn't really relevant to the discussion.
I realize this is a discussion of semantics, but I think it's an important distinction in this case. I've had multiple discussions with those in denial of climate change who love couching the theory as a "belief" and therefore a "religion", making it much easier for them to dismiss. Though the two terms may be synonymous in some usage, I try to use the word "think" rather than "belief" due to the connotations involved.
Eh, my position is I'm not going to narrow a valid word just because someone else wrongfully does. Those folks don't understand how theories work to begin with.
Yea, therein lies the initial problem with the universal question, "Do you believe in God?" To me the appropriate response is, "Well that depends, how do you define 'God'?" Because to your general point a decent percentage of people conceptualize God as "The Universe", essentially pantheism. In that case of course I believe in "God", basically as self-evident or even as an identity/definition, i.e. God = everything, I believe in "everything", therefore I believe in "God". It would just be a different word for the same thing.
For more religious and anthropomorphic definitions of God, there's truly something super-natural being asserted, and to believe that type of claim I would require convincing evidence. Heck I feel like I would need more evidence just to even define "God" in the first place, which ends up being a very circular position.
As someone who doesn't believe in God in the first place, I predictably have a different viewpoint from your first sentence - religion isn't "the human interpretation of God's will", but rather just a human invention. Religions are fundamentally flawed because they are created without an objective base. It's easy for concepts to be flawed when they're not fact-based, and especially so when the initial concepts of most religions were developed in ancient times by primitive people.
The scope of religions and their "gods" will continue to shrink over time as our understanding of the universe grows, which is why religion has historically been so at odds with science--they are essentially competing for surface area. When the likes of Galileo or Darwin promote ideas that are mutually exclusive with religious text and dogma, it necessarily shrinks religion. Evolution means that God didn't create mankind directly...best case he created the right conditions in the universe to eventually lead to the evolution of matter into human beings over billions of years, but that story is substantially less compelling than "on the 6th day God created man in his own image and likeness". Evolution also implies humans are just a few fortunate genetic twists and turns away from "lesser animals", which virtually no Christian would've believed just a few hundred years ago.
Fundamentalists are still holding on for dear life on many of these topics. Whereas I think your view of God as stated above is pretty mainstream these days--but not that long ago I don't think it would've been very common. That's what I'm referring to when I'm talking about the scope of theism shrinking.
