The Sound of Freedom

[jimmyjazz 46502]

3 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Jimmy, this right here is pretty much you saying that. 

Eh, I disagree.  I'm not saying they aren't Christians.  I'm saying that behavior is not what Christ taught.

It might seem like too subtle a distinction for some, I agree.  

This might surprise some of you:  at this point I pretty much consider myself a "recovering Christian".  (Fortunately, I started at Presbyterianism, so it's not far to go in some eyes.)

[chainsaw 10031]

Just now, jimmyjazz said:

 that behavior is not what Christ taught.

It might seem like too subtle a distinction for some

I agree with you: the lore is awesome. We should all try to emulate Christ and follow his teachings.

The distinction I'm making is between the lore (the window dressing) and the foundation upon which the lore is resting: an irrational set of beliefs.

I don't believe the distinction is subtle, but if you want to make distinctions between bad acts by people interpreting the Christianity lore poorly and the proper interpretations of Christianity lore, I should be allowed to make distinctions too.

[jimmyjazz 46502]

3 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

Those "teachings" are window dressing. I'm not addressing or talking about those. Every belief system has window dressing. I can't agree with you that those bad acts wash away due to the fact that they're (in your opinion) "outside" the teachings. They count.

I mean, it's not hard to read what the guy taught and see that these crimes against humanity and fundamental indecency don't align.

The only reason I got into this is because of the implication that all Christians support the bad shit that has been done in the name of Christianity over time.  It's just not true.  I'm not trying to convert anyone.  I don't really support the general notion of eternal life and whatnot anymore.  The core values are still worthwhile.

[wildcat09 29453]

They can still support the bad shit unknowingly or unintentionally when they're not willing to confront the fact that the predominant form of Christianity in America today is apocalyptic, far-right Christian nationalism.  There are millions of Christian Americans who aren't very comfortable with that, but would be even less comfortable with an America that was even less Christian than it is today (in their eyes) and so ultimately vote to give Christian nationalists political power.

[chainsaw 10031]

2 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I mean, it's not hard to read what the guy taught and see that these crimes against humanity and fundamental indecency don't align.

The only reason I got into this is because of the implication that all Christians support the bad shit that has been done in the name of Christianity over time.  It's just not true.  I'm not trying to convert anyone.  I don't really support the general notion of eternal life and whatnot anymore.  The core values are still worthwhile.

I'm glad. I don't think all Christians support MAGA or Sound of Freedom or anything like that. The core values are worthwhile. I just wish they weren't entangled with or resting firmly upon a set of irrational beliefs. It's the irrational beliefs that seem to place people, religious and atheist alike, on the path to radicalization.

[BrickHorn 18333]

On 12/7/2023 at 11:21 AM, Goredho said:

I personally don't give a shit these movies are being made, or that actors are collecting a paycheck for them.  There is a market for evangelical infotainment.  There is nothing inherently wrong with someone serving that.

“Wrong” is a subjective term. What’s clear is that fiction — especially dystopian narratives — can be incredibly powerful propaganda. For example, research suggests that totalitarian dystopian fiction makes people more likely to support political violence. Indeed, fiction appears far more persuasive on this front that nonfictional reports of actual totalitarian oppression. 

Which is why so much of the emerging genre of rightwing fiction deals with totalitarian dystopian themes. The right is indulging in the fantasy of a leftist totalitarian dystopia and it’s driving them to political violence. It’s much easier to convince a group of idiots who consume a steady stream of stupid bullshit about leftist world government conspiracies to storm the capital than, say, people who watch mainstream news outlets, read Oprah’s book list, and indulge in rom coms. 

Edited December 8, 2023 by BrickHorn

[BrickHorn 18333]

And to address the sudden topic shift: for the same reason, the fascist right wing is dominated by Christian denominations that place more emphasis on apocalyptic eschatology. Dystopian fiction goes back millennia and it served the same purpose then that it serves now. 

[UpperWestside 6224]

16 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

We went through this before -- he's our resident "let me tell you I'm an atheist" dickhead.  No ACTUAL perspective, just a gigantic broad brush that couldn't be more off the mark.  I'll continue to neg rep the asshole.

I honestly do not know that I have ever read their posts before, but noted for future reference.

I think really what I find to be common about human beings that do atrocious things to other human beings is not a religious ethos or atheistic one or anything else. People who do awful things to others try to find a group that can either be controlled or manipulated. You see this with the uneducated GQP being weaponized through the use of a religion they barely have a passing knowledge of. China and North Korea, as recent examples, control countries through fear and intimidation and torture without using religion. The Middle East has countries where the uneducated are weaponized by distorting Islam and turning things into a jihad. 
 

People just look for ways to control a group of people that is large enough and powerful to help them reach their goal. That’s basically been human history from the jump. Humans looking to control others to get what they want will never change. Completely blaming religion for atrocities shows a level of intellect on par with GQP members etc…

Edited December 8, 2023 by UpperWestside

[jimmyjazz 46502]

You're not wrong.  Weaponizing religion just makes it that much easier to control a subset of the population.  Not all are that gullible, though.

Trump didn't really go that far on the religion front, but most of those he hornswoggled were Christians.  Sure, he held up a prop Bible (upside down), he'd let random prosperity gospel pastors pray over him, etc., but he didn't need to evoke religion to get them to follow.  They bought into the reality TV star.  It's another form of cultish hero worship, and he played them masterfully.  And here we are.

[Pescado_Rojo 19454]

1 hour ago, DDD Dad said:

Is that like someone who does CrossFit?

Worse...Vegans. 

[MissingInAction 25318]

I am GOD!

Prove me wrong!

Shit I'll even pay to publish a book stating my omnipotent glory.

Worship me you fucking heathens!

Edited December 8, 2023 by MissingInAction

[chainsaw 10031]

8 minutes ago, MissingInAction said:

I'll even pay to publish a book stating my omnipotent glory.

L Ron Hubbard beat you to it

[Walser 1110]

hey whaddaya guys up to

[Fudge Nuggets 19283]

On 12/5/2023 at 12:54 PM, longhornmatt said:

Fucking shameless.

And proof there is no god.  If god existed, we would be hearing about a lot of struck by lightning deaths.   Alas, nothing but crickets.  Thanks for nothing, asshole.

[UpperWestside 6224]

34 minutes ago, MissingInAction said:

I am GOD!

Prove me wrong!

Shit I'll even pay to publish a book stating my omnipotent glory.

Worship me you fucking heathens!

Are you the long waited for Flying Spaghetti Monster? 

[MissingInAction 25318]

7 hours ago, UpperWestside said:

Are you the long waited for Flying Spaghetti Monster? 

It's time to lay off the whiskey.

[UpperWestside 6224]

28 minutes ago, MissingInAction said:

It's time to lay off the whiskey.

I don’t drink. Haven’t had anything in four years and do not miss it one bit. I found whiskey disgusting when I did. Have no idea how anyone drinks whiskey.

[chainsaw 10031]

All kinds of ways. Can't go wrong with neat.

[Pescado_Rojo 19454]

1 hour ago, MissingInAction said:

It's time to lay off the whiskey.

Blasphemer!!!!! A real God would never say such a thing!!

[MissingInAction 25318]

20 minutes ago, Pescado_Rojo said:

Blasphemer!!!!! A real God would never say such a thing!!

I'm back.

[DDD Dad 14376]

1 hour ago, UpperWestside said:

I don’t drink. Haven’t had anything in four years and do not miss it one bit. I found whiskey disgusting when I did. Have no idea how anyone drinks whiskey.

One sip at a time. 

55 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

All kinds of ways. Can't go wrong with neat.

I’m partial to a big ice cube. 

32 minutes ago, Pescado_Rojo said:

Blasphemer!!!!! A real God would never say such a thing!!

🤘

[UpperWestside 6224]

58 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

All kinds of ways. Can't go wrong with neat.

The taste of it made me sick right off the bat every single time. Then again everything except for maybe three things I ever drank made me sick. I’ll thankfully never find out about the taste ever again. Still serve the mess out of some whiskey to folks at work though so there’s plenty of folks who can handle it!

[BevoAbyss 2090]

Debate tactics never change among the theists, regardless of which team.

1. Cherry picking ("peace and love," "Jesus said..." ) from the sacred text, while ignoring all the horrors, violence, idiocy, fact-free fables, atrocities, etc. 

2. Never having any evidence for their deity. No proof of Genesis 1:1. None. Nope. Never. 

3. Deploying all kinds of logical fallacies, equivocations, and doublethink.

4. Remain in denial of the past 400 years of astronomy and astrophysics, plus evolutionary biology/sciences.

5. Thus, the last resort is name-calling atheists or irrelevant charges: "Bigots." "Cynics." "Freshman level atheist." "Not a serious thinker." etc. Or the newest: "Crossfit." Lulz. 

Sometimes i wonder if some of the people posting in Surly were running the creationist/evangelical/fundamentalist table in the Free Speech area on the West Mall in the late 1980s, early 1990s at UT. Same exact arguments and claims and denialism. Nothing changes.

 

 

Edited December 9, 2023 by BevoAbyss
clarity.

[jimmyjazz 46502]

Your ignorance is breathtaking.

[Brisketexan 105626]

Freshman-intellect level atheism is boring and stupid and I think there can be good found in religious faith, but I do think it's wrong to say that right-wing evangelical Christians aren't "real" Christians.  They are real Christians. So are Methodists, so are Episcopalians, so are black southern Baptists. And pretending otherwise causes real harm. Here's a good piece on how and why:

With respect to the “fake Christian” tendency, dismissing anti-democratic and bigoted believers from “real” Christianity is a convenient deflection tactic that serves to absolve more liberal Christians from the necessary work of grappling seriously with the ways in which they benefit from, and are complicit in, historical and contemporary Christian hegemony and its attendant violence. Unfortunately, that hegemony is still so strong in the US that the equation of “Christian” with “good” is a habit of mind that many find hard to break. In many cases, devotion to what Lee Leviter has dubbed “the myth of Christian innocence” is a matter of such deep-seated emotional investment that even progressive Christians become defensive and passive-aggressive when called, however mildly, on how their linguistic reinforcement of Christian supremacy harms religious minorities and the nonreligious.
Even scholars who frequently provide important and insightful analysis of evangelicalism seem at times unable to keep themselves from editorializing with prescriptive theology. More and less nuanced commentators alike have a habit of opining that white evangelicals’ majority anti-immigrant and anti-refugee stance contradicts Jesus’s statement about welcoming the stranger in Matthew 25 instead of considering how illiberal evangelicals interpret the Bible to support their nationalist politics. The Bible, after all, is multivalent and internally contradictory. To be sure, it contains passages that call for showing hospitality to strangers. It also contains passages that stir up fear of outsiders and internal enemies, including in the gospels, where Jesus talks about the coming apocalyptic future.
In fact, most of Matthew 24 and 25 consist of apocalyptic warnings, and there is no immediate contextual reason to interpret Jesus’s brief mention of welcoming the stranger as collective, rather than individual. I point this out not to support anti-refugee views—it is my strong conviction that, after twenty years of failure to stabilize Afghanistan in the aftermath of the US invasion, our country owes assistance and asylum to Afghans who fear for their future. I derive that conclusion from a secular approach to ethics.
No, I bring this up to highlight precisely that the Bible is not straightforward, that communally mediated interpretation is what shapes the political theology of particular Christian groups as opposed to some imagined “objective” approach to the Bible. In reporting on particular groups’ political influence, then, one should refrain from debating their theology (you aren’t going to convince them, but you will reinforce Christian supremacism by de facto accepting that Christian theology should be applied to American policymaking). Instead, where relevant, it would be most helpful for journalists to point out how the theology of a given group shapes its politics. 
Evangelicals have a habit of imagining themselves as beleaguered and persecuted, living in “the last days,” and it is precisely this apocalyptic emphasis, easily derived from a particular reading of the New Testament, that fuels the “paranoid style” of thinking that defines the American right-wing. To be sure, the bigotry and paranoia may be prior, but reading them into biblical texts isn’t difficult, and doing so allows authoritarian Christians to use the Bible as a powerful justification for continuing their bigotry and paranoia.
Meanwhile, despite some improvement in major media outlets’ coverage of evangelicals and the broader Christian Right over the last year or so, sanitization and defense of evangelicals’ anti-pluralist, anti-democratic tendencies is still common. This month, the Los Angeles Review of Books printed the most bizarre take on evangelicals I’ve seen since InterVarsity Christian Fellowship leader R. York Moore claimed that evangelicals were intellectually serious, decent citizens not interested in conspiracy theories or grabbing worldly power—in the 1980s and 1990s. You know, at the very height of the culture wars and the evangelical purity culture craze.
But if you think that’s funny, wait till you hear what Jim Hinch thinks. A senior editor for the “inspirational” magazine Guideposts, which was founded by Donald Trump’s childhood pastor Norman Vincent Peale, Hinch would have us believe that it’s the pandemic that’s radicalized evangelicals. Taking popular California megachurch Pastor John MacArthur as his paradigmatic example, Hinch takes at face value Grace Church’s claim that MacArthur stays out of politics. It’s on that basis that Hinch claims MacArthur was apolitical until Covid-19 came along and the pastor was asked to observe some reasonable public health measures, which he not only refused to do, but over which he also sued Los Angeles County. “The tragedy of MacArthur and other evangelicals’ pandemic denialism,” Hinch laments, is that “the evangelical prioritization of growth and power that motivated MacArthur has robbed the United States of an important source of social cohesion in a time of crisis.” Never mind that evangelical subculture has been a source of division in America since well before 2020.
It’s after spending some time on MacArthur, however, that Hinch gets to what seems to be the crux of the matter for him—criticizing those of us writing pieces critical of evangelical Christian nationalism. “[A] publishing genre has emerged that could be called The (Evangelical) Plot Against the United States,” he testily snarks, arguing that journalists and commentators who are critical of white evangelical illiberalism have simply fallen to “groupthink.” Hinch does agree that the “sudden” radicalization of evangelicals is the result of long-term historical forces, it’s just that, he believes, most critics of evangelicalism are focused on the wrong ones. It’s not white supremacism or patriarchy we should be worrying our little heads about, you see. No, no. It’s the tragic corporatization of evangelical churches that really matters.
According to Hinch, ordinary evangelicals aren’t people moved by deep-seated cultural grievances tied to the ugliest elements of American history. Heavens no. They’re simply regular folks who go to church because, just like you and me, they need relief from “the challenges of elder caregiving, fraying marriages, struggles with addiction, worries about children, lost jobs, grief, regret, and overall stress.”
Per Hinch:

Christians go to church for help with everyday troubles such as these. And it is here, I believe, that a deeper explanation lies both for evangelicals’ anti-social pandemic behavior and for their larger pattern of divisive, anti-government attitudes. In recent decades, motivated by a combination of evangelistic zeal and everyday human ambition, evangelicals have embraced an explicitly business-oriented approach to ministry that has remade Christianity in the image of corporate America.

To be sure, the megachurch model has exploded in popularity since the 1980s. But evangelicals’ “divisive, anti-government attitudes” both predate and transcend the rise of the megachurch. The sentence Conspiracy theories and political extremism have filled the gap left by churches’ preoccupation with market share and media reach could only be written by someone who knows nothing (or pretends to know nothing) about evangelicalism during the Cold War. Meanwhile, Hinch writes that, “Since the megachurch movement took off in the 1990s, the percentage of Americans identifying as evangelical has declined from nearly a third to just over a fifth,” suggesting direct causality. But of course, correlation isn’t causation. And sociologists have long since established that it’s actually the evangelical culture wars and the association of American Christianity with the political Right that caused the rapid decline in religious affiliation over this period, which directly undermines Hinch’s sloppy argument.
But are megachurches in fact less equipped to meet their members’ everyday “spiritual needs” than smaller, less growth-focused churches, as Hinch claims? That question seems to me to be a highly subjective one, but even Hinch himself argues from his anecdotal observations that, regardless of their size, “a focus on one-on-one ministry and a commitment to local communities” are what have helped churches weather the pandemic. However, Hinch fails to shore up his larger argument when he points to the famous Saddleback megachurch’s model of using “small fellowship groups” to “provide the kind of personal contact and accountability otherwise lacking in large, anonymous megachurch services” as if this is a novel approach. After all, anyone who is or has been evangelical could tell you that small groups have been a staple of evangelical churches for decades.
In short, Hinch’s article is a 4466-word-long exercise in rhetorical sleight-of-hand by a man who clearly holds critics of evangelical subculture in contempt and who sees religion as an inherently pro-social force. (It is not.) Hinch himself is an Episcopalian, which I suppose gives him just enough distance from evangelicalism to make his “centrist,” “contrarian” approach to the subject of evangelical politics perfectly comfortable for him. He writes about evangelicals often, and his latest piece in LARB is far from his first overly rosy assessment of evangelical subculture. In 2016, for example, Hinch penned a contribution to the perennial (and perennially false) “the evangelical youth will be making evangelicalism normal any day now” subgenre.
I grew up with Guideposts in the home, as I’m sure many evangelicals and exvangelicals (whose voices Hinch entirely ignores) did. It’s a magazine for believers who are in love with believing, and that’s what Hinch seems to have in spades—that great (obnoxious) American faith in faith itself. Yet nowhere in his new piece does Hinch attempt to interrogate how his own biases might color his view of the evangelicals he so clearly sympathizes with.
At the end of the day, the cry of “fake Christians” and the sanitization of evangelical subculture are two sides of the same coin. Neither approach helps us understand white evangelicalism on anything but a surface level. And unless we’re willing to dive deeper, we’ll inevitably fall into reinforcing Christian supremacism, which is still the American cultural default.

Another piece from the same person:

One of those unspoken social rules I’ve never been very good at observing is that new years are supposed to be greeted with optimism, and this year is no different. Here we are at the beginning of 2022, one year after a violent right-wing insurrection aimed at overturning the legitimate results of the US presidential election, and I just don’t see much reason to be optimistic about the immediate future of American democracy.
As Religion Dispatches recently concluded: “Whether the first anniversary of [the 6 January 2021 attack on the Capitol] will bring further violence is unknown, but what is knowable is that, without accountability, there will be no peace.” As the article explains, contrasting the charges and sentences handed out to individual rioters with the lack of consequences for the architects of the insurrection – not least Donald Trump himself – shows how the US is failing on the issue of accountability.
But it’s not just that we’re failing to hold wealthy, powerful and politically well-connected criminals (such as Trump, Steve Bannon and Roger Stone) accountable for inciting a mob to disrupt what should have been a routine peaceful transfer of power. As a society, we are also failing to fully investigate and confront the root causes of the epidemic of both political and religious violence, of which the 6 January insurrection is the most disturbing expression to date.
To be sure, many commentators have noted the prevalence of Christian prayers, symbols, songs and rhetoric in the events of 6 January. These took place after a Jericho March event, where many of the same actors invoked the notion of divinely ordained conquest in their efforts to “stop the steal”.
But journalists and commentators, particularly in the legacy media, are failing us in their refusal to push past their pro-Christian biases and take these political actions seriously as Christianity. Not as a perversion of Christianity, but as a very real, powerful and broad expression of the faith, with deep historical roots, which has been present in one form or another since at least the fourth century, when Christianity became deeply entangled with Roman imperial power.
This is the Christianity of divine authority and violent apocalyptic ‘justice’, of Christ as ruler, of European colonialism and American white supremacy. And this Christianity is not less authentic than turn-the-other-cheek Christianity just because we find it less congenial.
As I have argued many times, the dismissal of authoritarian Christianity as ‘fake’ Christianity only serves to reinforce Christian hegemony by perpetuating the equation of ‘Christian’ with ‘good’ in the common imagination, an equation we don’t make for members of any other religious or non-religious demographic. Muslims, for example, are often demonised, while atheists face social stigma in vast swathes of the US.
In equating ‘Christian’ with ‘good’, commentators elide the real issue: that Christian supremacy and privilege are every bit as real as (for instance) white privilege and male privilege, and are part of the unjust social hierarchies that still pervade our society and need to be dismantled for equity to be achieved.
To be sure, Christian privilege isn’t distributed evenly among all Christians. Those who benefit most are white Protestants, and, unsurprisingly, it is white Protestants – above all, evangelicals – who make up the backbone of the Christian nationalist extremist movement in the States.
Hard truths that are repressed will only fester and re-emerge in yet more virulent forms, and that is why facing them head on is crucial. Which means that media framing matters a great deal.
To illustrate the current prevailing framing – and what’s wrong with it – take Jennifer Rubin’s recent Washington Post column, entitled ‘Trump idolatry has undermined religious faith’. In it, Rubin laments “the damage the MAGA movement has wrought to religious values” (italics in original).
In other words, she relegates authoritarian attitudes, racist and anti-immigrant sentiment and a willingness to destroy democracy in order to hold on to power, to a position outside the category of “religious values” – even though she has already (correctly) referred to Trump’s Christian nationalist base as moved by an “apocalyptic vision”.
Later in the piece, she doubles down, referring to “the MAGA crowd’s very unreligious cruelty toward immigrants”, as if religion was always pro-social, pro-immigrant and pro-democracy. In fact, there are no such things as universal “religious values” – nor are the “traditional religious values” she refers to later in the same paragraph universal.
The category of ‘religious values’ must always be understood contextually, and what the vast majority of white evangelicals (and other conservative Christians) value is the power to implement their theocratic agenda. Christianity can be (and often is) anti-pluralist.
It is also true that different religious values within the same religious community may become operationalised in different circumstances, and that they may be in conflict with one another. Rubin disingenuously interprets Donald Trump Jr’s statement that turning the other cheek has “gotten us nothing” as a total rejection of “the teachings of Jesus” by Trump supporters.
But the Bible – including the New Testament – leaves plenty of room for apocalyptic judgement and violence, for a future time when the ‘enemies of God’ receive their punishment. That cruel, punitive vision of ‘divine justice’ is also a ‘religious value’ – a specifically Christian value that one must recognise, alongside turning the other cheek.
Rubin worries that if our current trajectory continues, “we will wind up with a country rooted in neither democratic principles nor religious values. That would be a mean, violent and intolerant future few of us would want to experience.”
I agree that we are headed for a country unmoored from democratic principles, but to equate those principles with the meaninglessly broad category of ‘religious values’, or to see the latter as an essential pillar of American democracy, is pernicious nonsense.
And if the US’s elite pundits and media gatekeepers refuse to see that some religious values, rather than helping to make things better, can actually be a problem for democracy, they’ll be doing their part to keep the country on the road to an authoritarian future.

More moderate Christians need to stop pretending that these freaks aren't true Christians. They are, in fact, part of a branch of Christianity that has been hugely influential and powerful in this country for its entire existence.

Just wanted to posrep this post and the pieces you quoted. They’re right, and they’re important.

We can’t say MAGAts aren’t “real Christians.” Just like we can’t say that murderous Klan bigots aren’t true Americans. They both are.

Any institution ultimately is “what you do with it.” Shit, look at the democratic republic we created. Is it an amazing system, a triumph of human self-determination, that ultimately brings more fairness and prosperity than most any other workable system? Yep. Also…was it born of native genocide, with embedded race-based slavery, secondary rights for women, and susceptible to manipulation by oligarch-types? Also yes.

So, is Christianity a simple faith of kindness, loving god and your neighbor above all else? Yes, absolutely. It’s quite plain. Is it also a faith of rationalization, with some written basis in each case, for violence, murder, oppression, and cruelty? Yep.

It all depends on what you do with it. And what American Christianity has long done includes a shitload of bad - this is just the latest iteration. My wife and I are active in the PCUSA. That denomination has split THREE TIMES, between “conservative” and “liberal” factions. First, over slavery. Then, over the ordination of women. And recently, over allowing homosexuals to be in ministry. One side has been on “the wrong side of history” three times. Each time, in the name of “this is what the faith demands.”

A skillet can be used to feed people or hit them over the head. It’s all in what you do with it.

[956 Worldwide 34969]

There’s not a “theist” in this thread debating atheism vs. theism from first principles. Some of the debate me bro atheists in this thread have been called out for making evidence-free assertions about the deleterious effect of religion(s); and it’s been pointed out that there have also been a lot of logical fallacies themselves stacked up in place of evidence on that topic. @jimmyjazz is right in that engaging with a little bit of Thomism would help you build some arguments. 
 

I might also suggest that coming in with the stance “debate me bro but first let me tell you you’re irrational” is pretty tiresome. It might explain the large overlap between incels and debate bros of all stripes, is “stop being irrational” your go-to with women? 

[956 Worldwide 34969]

23 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

Freshman-intellect level atheism is boring and stupid and I think there can be good found in religious faith, but I do think it's wrong to say that right-wing evangelical Christians aren't "real" Christians.  They are real Christians. So are Methodists, so are Episcopalians, so are black southern Baptists. And pretending otherwise causes real harm. Here's a good piece on how and why:

Another piece from the same person:

More moderate Christians need to stop pretending that these freaks aren't true Christians. They are, in fact, part of a branch of Christianity that has been hugely influential and powerful in this country for its entire existence.

This is a completely true and important statement. It’s sort of evidence of how deeply ingrained Platonism is in our entire worldview and how we try to imagine that things such as a “ideal,” or “real” Christianity exists apart from the belief and praxis of Christians themselves.  All around that leads to a logic of fundamentalism from within (only my version is correct and no one else is a real Christian) and intolerance from without (the “real” Christianity is bad and thus adherents are either bad or deluded or stupid). And you also end up handing the argument to the crazies, because they are always going to be engaged and ready and perfectly capable of demonstrating that all their beliefs are perfectly consistent with a belief system known as “Christianity.”  
 

This came into sharp focus when I was working on CVE in Pakistan.  Remembering a long talk with Muslim scholars on how you’re playing with fire when you make sweeping statements like “Islam is a religion of peace“ or “ISIS aren’t real Muslims.” Because the problem is that ISIS is really super-duper Muslim and violent extremists have really worked hard to develop a theory of how their violence is perfectly in line with Islamic scripture and teaching, and so you end up looking ridiculous and non-credible. Rather, it’s better to approach it from a lens of how there are plenty of ways (most ways, in fact) to be Muslim that do NOT involve violence or hatred, and that those ways of being Muslim will both lead to a better and more humane outcome in the here and now while also keeping you square with the Great Unseen. 

Edited December 9, 2023 by 956 Worldwide

[Bullneck 19320]

This is a good watch:

https://www.instagram.com/p/C09dns1AL2Y/?hl=en

[Nivek 17055]

Your ignorance is breathtaking.

The evidence issue is true to religion. The adoption of stories or other religious icons/stories also can be interpreted as a weakness. Gilgamesh’s influence upon the Abrahamic religions in particular. It would be akin to building a religion and incorporating Odysseus’ adventures but calling him something else.

The issue I have with religion is that it’s practitioners use it as a cudgel more in reality than a guide for themselves. The over the top virtue signaling, the attempts to sneak it into schools and indoctrinate impressionable children is annoying. It may seem innocuous to you religious folks, but the pledge of allegiance children say daily includes normalizing the acknowledgment of a god.

[Longhorn_Fan68 33952]

16 minutes ago, Nivek said:

The evidence issue is true to religion. The adoption of stories or other religious icons/stories also can be interpreted as a weakness. Gilgamesh’s influence upon the Abrahamic religions in particular. It would be akin to building a religion and incorporating Odysseus’ adventures but calling him something else.

The issue I have with religion is that it’s practitioners use it as a cudgel more in reality than a guide for themselves. The over the top virtue signaling, the attempts to sneak it into schools and indoctrinate impressionable children is annoying. It may seem innocuous to you religious folks, but the pledge of allegiance children say daily includes normalizing the acknowledgment of a god.

I used to mumble "Under Zod" 

[jimmyjazz 46502]

18 minutes ago, Nivek said:

The evidence issue is true to religion. The adoption of stories or other religious icons/stories also can be interpreted as a weakness. Gilgamesh’s influence upon the Abrahamic religions in particular. It would be akin to building a religion and incorporating Odysseus’ adventures but calling him something else.

The issue I have with religion is that it’s practitioners use it as a cudgel more in reality than a guide for themselves. The over the top virtue signaling, the attempts to sneak it into schools and indoctrinate impressionable children is annoying. It may seem innocuous to you religious folks, but the pledge of allegiance children say daily includes normalizing the acknowledgment of a god.

I don't have a problem with most of this, other than the "you religious folks" aspect.  For one, I've already admitted to being a "recovering Christian".  As I age, I just don't really believe it any more.  Maybe not 100%, but I'm inching that way.

Beyond that, though, my main beef with this whole thing is the broad brush used to paint "religious folks".  Plenty, and I mean PLENTY of Christians are against religion in school, shaming of non-believers, the silly myth of creationism, etc., and have always been that way.  I mean, Christianity is about the New Testament.  Expecting me to believe goofy folklore in the Old Testament is ignorant. 

There are factions within Christianity as there are factions within all kinds of religions.  Whitewashing that away is an ignorant place to start (and end).

Edited December 18, 2023 by jimmyjazz

[Bozo_Casanova 26688]

I’m just glad I have a solid foundation of Hinduism to fall back on. 

[Brisketexan 105626]

4 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I’m just glad I have a solid foundation of Hinduism to fall back on. 

And on the plus side, if you DO fall back, Vishnu is much more likely to catch you...

[TwiceHorn 31699]

At some point, the label "Christians" becomes rather meaningless.  It could be "Heffalumps" or "Jackalopes."

 

[wildcat09 29453]

19 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I don't have a problem with most of this, other than the "you religious folks" aspect.  For one, I've already admitted to being a "recovering Christian".  As I age, I just don't really believe it any more.  Maybe not 100%, but I'm inching that way.

Beyond that, though, my main beef with this whole thing is the broad brush used to paint "religious folks".  Plenty, and I mean PLENTY of Christians are against religion in school, shaming of non-believers, the silly myth of creationism, etc., and have always been that way.  I mean, Christianity is about the New Testament.  Expecting me to believe goofy folklore in the Old Testament is ignorant. 

There are factions within Christianity as there are factions within all kinds of religions.  Whitewashing that away is an ignorant place to start (and end).

Yeah man, we know. But to the extent they vote Republican (which MANY of those types do), it doesn't really matter, does it? Actions matter, and the biggest manifestation of their beliefs is political support for fundamentalist Christianity. 

[jimmyjazz 46502]

5 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Yeah man, we know. But to the extent they vote Republican (which MANY of those types do), it doesn't really matter, does it? Actions matter, and the biggest manifestation of their beliefs is political support for fundamentalist Christianity. 

See, that's your ignorance talking.  Christians lean Democrat 44% to 37% Republican.  The overall breakdown of all religions in America is shown in this chart (Pew Research):

 

Religion & politics (Pew Research)

['stache 21919]

51 minutes ago, Nivek said:

The evidence issue is true to religion. The adoption of stories or other religious icons/stories also can be interpreted as a weakness. Gilgamesh’s influence upon the Abrahamic religions in particular. It would be akin to building a religion and incorporating Odysseus’ adventures but calling him something else.

The issue I have with religion is that it’s practitioners use it as a cudgel more in reality than a guide for themselves. The over the top virtue signaling, the attempts to sneak it into schools and indoctrinate impressionable children is annoying. It may seem innocuous to you religious folks, but the pledge of allegiance children say daily includes normalizing the acknowledgment of a god.

I just have to roll me eyes whenever people say something like "how do you know someone's athiest, because they'll tell you as soon as you meet" or as someone said above as "debate me bros." Christians literally bring it up everywhere to everyone constantly. Twice this month I've attending a weekly meeting of a non-secular group of about 200-250 people and the speaker decided to throw in their views of Christianity, etc. One even said "I know this group is meant to be non-secular but thank you for letting me share the truth." It's fucking infuriating. I've seen hundreds of "Keep Christ in Christmas" stickers on vehicles and yard signs, haven't seen a single "God isn't Real" signs or stickers. Sometimes pushback is necessary and it isn't asking for a debate or making it known. I rarely say the words "I'm an athietst" and in fact our society makes it such that it would be dangerous for me to do so in mixed company, professional company in particular. Athiests aren't standing outside of parking garages with their little stack of pamphlets or knocking door to door. Athiests aren't Karen'ing up school boards to have their preferred religous takes preached in public schools. An entire political party constituting half of our electorate brings it up every single day at the Capitol and are passing laws prohibiting other people from living their lives because of others' religious beliefs. It's the religious folks who make damn sure everyone knows it at every turn, not the other way around. They're in fact making laws to force others into living by those beliefs. Just another "War on Christmas" fake persecution complex.

Edited December 18, 2023 by 'stache

[Bozo_Casanova 26688]

18 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

At some point, the label "Christians" becomes rather meaningless.  It could be "Heffalumps" or "Jackalopes."

 

I’ve talked with @Brisketexan about this a few times. I think there are two senses to the word “Christian”, to wit:

1) a person who walks in the footsteps of Christ, and lives in this world in a manner consistent with his gospel.

2) a person who (regardless of practice, belief, membership or attendance) identifies with either a generic idea of Christian-coded cultural tradition and/or with one or more of the great diversity of Christian-coded communities that represent an enormous range of belief and behaviors, including some that many Christians and non Christians alike consider explicitly unchristian. 
 

Most Christians are Christian in the second sense- nominally Christian, including me. So when people ask me if I’m a Christian I usually answer “No, but I’d like to be one someday.”

Edited December 18, 2023 by Bozo_Casanova

[Bozo_Casanova 26688]

19 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I think there are two senses to the word “Christian”, to wit:

Adding: by contrast Hinduism mostly rejects the entire notion of a correct, universal approach to enlightenment, and for that reason does not struggle to navigate between Hindu identity and Hinduism as a practice because unlike the Abrahamic faiths, in Hinduism no such distinction exists. You’re free to seek God where you find it, in Vishnu, Krishna, Rama, or for that matter even in Jesus Christ. 
Thou art that. 

[Nivek 17055]

1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

I don't have a problem with most of this, other than the "you religious folks" aspect.  For one, I've already admitted to being a "recovering Christian".  As I age, I just don't really believe it any more.  Maybe not 100%, but I'm inching that way.

Beyond that, though, my main beef with this whole thing is the broad brush used to paint "religious folks".  Plenty, and I mean PLENTY of Christians are against religion in school, shaming of non-believers, the silly myth of creationism, etc., and have always been that way.  I mean, Christianity is about the New Testament.  Expecting me to believe goofy folklore in the Old Testament is ignorant. 

There are factions within Christianity as there are factions within all kinds of religions.  Whitewashing that away is an ignorant place to start (and end).

This is just a bit hypersensitive Jimmy.  Of course religious people are not a monolith, and a drive through any town of any size in this country will demonstrate that just based on the divergence within each umbrella category.  I didn't think I needed to write this out.  Just like when I tell my wife I am going to the store, I don't tell her I wore pants and bought the items with American money instead of stealing them.  I figured that would be understood.   

[jimmyjazz 46502]

2 minutes ago, Nivek said:

This is just a bit hypersensitive Jimmy.  Of course religious people are not a monolith, and a drive through any town of any size in this country will demonstrate that just based on the divergence within each umbrella category.  I didn't think I needed to write this out.  Just like when I tell my wife I am going to the store, I don't tell her I wore pants and bought the items with American money instead of stealing them.  I figured that would be understood.   

Hypersensitive?  When people allude to a 90/10 breakdown of a demographic that's 37/44?  

I don't think so.  It's a constant beating.  Maybe that makes me hypersensitive.  I guess.

[Brisketexan 105626]

3 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Hypersensitive?  When people allude to a 90/10 breakdown of a demographic that's 37/44?  

I don't think so.  It's a constant beating.  Maybe that makes me hypersensitive.  I guess.

I think the problem is that those numbers are so disturbing as-is for a belief system that bears the title of a dude who is divine become human who preached only two fundamental rules: love God, and love everyone else.

That 37% of the people who claim the label that literally means "followers of that guy" are absolute cruel fucking dickheads is such an incongruity that everything else gets lost in that atomic blast of noise.  When we live in a society where, if someone says to you "I'm a Christian," your first thought is that they are a raging asshole who is fucking mean as a rattlesnake and somehow finds a way to shit on everyone who isn't a white fundagelical like them, INSTEAD of thinking "cool, that's probably a good, kind, decent, and humble person".....that makes the final numbers kind of irrelevant.  In short, if the percentage is all the way up there at 37%, it might as well be 90% because it's not a fringe, it's one of the core demographics.

I say this as someone who moves and works in Christian communities on the regular, both as a volunteer and as the spouse of someone ordained.  We both have the same visceral reaction when we meet a stranger who tells us they are Christian, or is wearing or displaying some obvious Christian symbols -- "probably a fucking asshole."

 

[jimmyjazz 46502]

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

That 37% of the people who claim the label that literally means "followers of that guy" are absolute cruel fucking dickheads is such an incongruity that everything else gets lost in that atomic blast of noise.  When we live in a society where, if someone says to you "I'm a Christian," your first thought is that they are a raging asshole who is fucking mean as a rattlesnake and somehow finds a way to shit on everyone who isn't a white fundagelical like them, INSTEAD of thinking "cool, that's probably a good, kind, decent, and humble person".....that makes the final numbers kind of irrelevant.  In short, if the percentage is all the way up there at 37%, it might as well be 90% because it's not a fringe, it's one of the core demographics.

I don't think you're necessarily wrong, but I also think decent, rational people should be a bit more aware of the actual demographic and stop being so hysterically overreactive.

[Brisketexan 105626]

2 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I don't think you're necessarily wrong, but I also think decent, rational people should be a bit more aware of the actual demographic and stop being so hysterically overreactive.

Sure.

But honestly, if someone tells you about a location or event and says "there will be lots of Christians there," isn't your instinct gonna be "gosh, I would go, but that's the day I'm getting my toenails painted?"

A label that literally means "good and kind" means, over 1/3 of the time, "evil fucking assholes."  No thanks.  Most people aren't willing to sift through 37% runny shit to find the remaining percentage of good stuff.

[Bozo_Casanova 26688]

4 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I think the problem is that those numbers are so disturbing as-is for a belief system that bears the title of a dude who is divine become human who preached only two fundamental rules: love God, and love everyone else.

That 37% of the people who claim the label that literally means "followers of that guy" are absolute cruel fucking dickheads is such an incongruity that everything else gets lost in that atomic blast of noise.  When we live in a society where, if someone says to you "I'm a Christian," your first thought is that they are a raging asshole who is fucking mean as a rattlesnake and somehow finds a way to shit on everyone who isn't a white fundagelical like them, INSTEAD of thinking "cool, that's probably a good, kind, decent, and humble person".....that makes the final numbers kind of irrelevant.  In short, if the percentage is all the way up there at 37%, it might as well be 90% because it's not a fringe, it's one of the core demographics.

I say this as someone who moves and works in Christian communities on the regular, both as a volunteer and as the spouse of someone ordained.  We both have the same visceral reaction when we meet a stranger who tells us they are Christian, or is wearing or displaying some obvious Christian symbols -- "probably a fucking asshole."

 

An evangelical leader is warning that conservative Christians are now rejecting the teachings of Jesus as "liberal talking points."

 

But what I’m saying is that the second sense is also real- we have to recognize that it’s not that these people aren’t Christian, it’s that they are. They’re just bad at it.

[Brisketexan 105626]

1 minute ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

An evangelical leader is warning that conservative Christians are now rejecting the teachings of Jesus as "liberal talking points."

 

But what I’m saying is that the second sense is also real- we have to recognize that it’s not that these people aren’t Christian, it’s that they are. They’re just bad at it.

I disagree.  Claiming the label doesn't make you Christian.  Sporting the gear doesn't make you Christian.  All those things make you "Christian," the cultural identifier that is largely divorced from any actual Gospel-based theology.

Putting a "Jesus Saves" bumper sticker on your car doesn't make you anything other than a person who wants others to see what kind of bumper sticker you put on your car.

[G650 14303]

Shinto or gtfo

[Nivek 17055]

31 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

An evangelical leader is warning that conservative Christians are now rejecting the teachings of Jesus as "liberal talking points."

 

But what I’m saying is that the second sense is also real- we have to recognize that it’s not that these people aren’t Christian, it’s that they are. They’re just bad at it.

Democratic People's Republic of Korea is neither democratic nor a republic.    

[Nivek 17055]

56 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Hypersensitive?  When people allude to a 90/10 breakdown of a demographic that's 37/44?  

I don't think so.  It's a constant beating.  Maybe that makes me hypersensitive.  I guess.

Also I think Christianity is something like 63% of the population.  If you scroll down on that pew research you will see that approximately 80% of both groups feel like their religion guides their politics and nearly the same number believe in a higher power.   From the perspective of the non-religious, the government is run by religious folks and there is a growing theocratic element to some of these movements.   But while some of the encroachments are being resisted, others are not. 

I think many of us would be OK with this convict/convert:

Quote

 

 

[Longhorn_Fan68 33952]

2 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

See, that's your ignorance talking.  Christians lean Democrat 44% to 37% Republican.  The overall breakdown of all religions in America is shown in this chart (Pew Research):

 

Religion & politics (Pew Research)

who knew Jehovah's Witnesses were so libruhl. also, color me surprised catholics are pretty split.