Christians and Judgementalism

Make snide and ill-informed quips/say bad things of other faiths/etc.

They post in OTC?

I kid, I kid.

edited 22nd Sep '11 11:40:07 AM by Justice4243

Really people need to stop with that shit here. It's frustrating and has no purpose in discussions here.

What shit?

Some do, yes.

However, OTC isn't the world. We take our ideas and opinions and bring them here. The boundaries of those things are often set by the culture as a whole. Implying that someone is "irrational" over something is probably (definitely) better than the implication that they are "evil", which is a fairly common belief.

The privilege is stating that religious beliefs shouldn't be criticized under any/most circumstances. As I said. Privilege allows the bad guys to win.

Probably derailing threads into taking about religion in general in a very "religion vs other schools" of thought way. It used to be the norm around here, but many tropers including mods and myself are a bit sick of it.

I don't think anyone in this thread is believing that. Maxima is being stereotyped in this thread and in PMs about his beliefs. It's happened to me on numerous occasions, it's happened to Aon. It does not feel good and doesn't have much place in discussion.

edited 22nd Sep '11 11:46:28 AM by Justice4243

You are right, we are judgmental.

Again, why is it a problem when WE are judgmental? YOU are judgmental as well. We ALL are.

Everyday we vote to restrict people's lives. We vote to lower or increase taxes. We vote to increase or decrease welfare. We vote to change the procedures people have to go through to get a loan, a house, even a job. But it seems it's only a problem when it's a Christian.

And by the way, those you think as you do, also vote to restrict OUR freedoms. We can't pray in public, while you people can do more or less as you please. You can teach evolution, but we'll be fired if we teach Creationism. You argue for a man's right to marry a man, but you'll staunchly argue to have "In God we Trust" removed off the money.

But of course, none of this is judgmentalism. Or is it???

It's not the judgementalism that's the problem, it's the fact that it's a brand of morality that doesn't seem to work that well in our world. If it worked well I would have much less of a problem with it, but generally speaking the view that morality is something viewed through the lens of a deity rather than the effect of your actions, doesn't seem to work too well in our world.

And I think we can do better.

Surely the United States' constitutional seperation of church and state is more responsible for each of those issues rather than judgementalism.

What’s your definition of “working well”, exactly?

edited 22nd Sep '11 11:52:56 AM by Justice4243

x4

I'm sorry. But see, theres an inherent problem in teaching creationism. You're fine and welcome to teach it. In a theology course. Theres absolutely no scientific evidence to back it up, making it absolutely pointless to bring up in a science class. Therein lies the problem in that debate. You assume simply because Creationism exists it should be taught in science class, nevermind it has about as much scientific evidence as the theory of Phlogiston. Science classes teach based on scientific data, noty on 'well, evolution might not be true because fundamentaloist readings of the bible say so, nevermind the complete lack of evidence"

as for the other points, In God we trust is a meaningless phrase thrown on the dollar bill in the 60's to differentiate us from those godless commies, and you can pray in public whenever you damn well feel like. You just dont have the right to force people to participate.

edited 22nd Sep '11 11:53:50 AM by Midgetsnowman

Oh, and let me clear something up about this whole homosexual marriage thing.

We are not, in fact, trying to prevent people from entering happy unions. We are saying that a man being with a man, or a woman with a woman does not constitute the definition of a "marriage". I never argued against civil unions. A man feels a man makes him happier than a woman...who am I to argue (hell sometimes I get fed up with women).

Man says he wants to marry a man, I say "but that's not a marriage."

I don't get it, a ton more people than just gays would love to marry multiple people. But we say "Sorry, that's not what a marriage is." Are we a bunch of judgmental assholes for denying "adults" that right as well??

silly slippery slope argument is silly. Also, its a symbolic thing. Yeah, civil unions could be a thing, but gay people are gonna call them marriages anyhow because of a little phrase I like to call "I didnt ask her to civil union me"

edited 22nd Sep '11 11:57:02 AM by Midgetsnowman

No pagad, it isn't. It's the liberal agenda that is responsible.

To you midgetsnowman, we get to the crux of this issue. There is very compelling evidence to support the theory of a higher intelligence creating all that exists. I don't feel the need to go hunt down a ton of links to placate the "unsubstantiated Christian claim" crowd, but I'll start with the most basic, the complexity of the universe and the creatures in it points to it being a design of a higher intelligence as to random evolution.

Additionally, there is evidence to suggest that evolution is, at the very least, flawed.

But again, all that's irrelevant.

No, it's not a silly slippery slope argument. It is another clumsy attempt to belittle a valid point. We uphold the definition in one case, and not in another. But I can see how admitting to such selective indignation would be a tad inconvenient.

edited 22nd Sep '11 12:07:09 PM by TheStarshipMaxima

The complexity of the universe proves absolutely nothing. It presupposes a lot of ridiculous notions like the idea that we are unique and definitely the only universe thats ever existed and nevermind the fact the universe is so vast life while low probability, is practically inevitable.

In short. That argument only holds water with deluded idiots who dont understand "chances are next to zero =/= God did it.

and of course evolution is flawed. all science is inherently flawed because if you can completely 100% explain something in science, then further research on it is impossible. But generally, the VAST majority of science agrees on the basic theory of evolution being the best explanation for the evidence we have right now and also agrees that creationism has as much cogent evidenciary backup as flying space noodle aliens and furthermore, evolution has nothing to do with the genesis of life. Its like comparing the middle of a football game to a kickoff.

Science has inherent flaws. Thats why we continue researching to determine the cause of the flaws and revise the theories when we find them. if you want 100% completely explainabkle reasons for existence with no possibility for them to change, then go with religion and tune out evidence.

edited 22nd Sep '11 12:10:42 PM by Midgetsnowman

What evidence is there? All the Christians I know (Anglicans/Catholic et al) have all said that but haven't said why which suggests to me that they are being judgemental

edited 22nd Sep '11 12:08:19 PM by whaleofyournightmare

Of course it is. It's a constant work-in-progress that gets updated as new information becomes available.

Like the rest of science, really.

edited 22nd Sep '11 12:09:56 PM by pagad

So in short, "who cares if it's flawed?" Okay, not a surprising response.

But if there are flaws in the concept of evolution, why is it automatic that there's NO chance that Creationism is correct?

Oh, and midget, I know me and my kind are "deluded idiots" but I wonder what you would say to the number of reputable scientists who also believe in Creationism.

Because Creatonism can't be tested?

Creationism, whether or not it is true, has no bearing on evolution at all.

It also cannot be scientifically tested. Therefore whether or not true, it has about as much place in a science class as geology does in a class on the Bible.

Also, the vast majority of evidence we have of both geology and biology shoots huge holes in creationism. Like the whole "god created everything at once and evolutiopn doesnt exist at all" thing has a tiny problem called the fossil record.

and the Young Earth variant works even less well because it supposes somehow carbon radio dating is also worthless and all life not only doesnt show up in the record the way it should, but the universe is actively lying to us all.

and if you want a completely unflawed explanation for the creation of life, you're going to be found lacking. Science never has non-flawed premises because we dont know everything yet. You're essentially asking someone with a third grade education to recreate a steven hawking essay verbatim.

edited 22nd Sep '11 12:20:23 PM by Midgetsnowman

I always strive to answer an honest question. So I'll answer this one.

Maybe it's because after you spend your life being interrogated about why you believe and someone dares you to "prove" it, and after you spent hours getting baited into giving valid citations only to be told "Well, that's not valid." "Why?" "Cause. It just isn't".

Well, you get fed up and realize that once people peg you as a "Bible-thumper" everything you say will only get twisted or ignored.

Thats pretty much what we get from bible thumpers, ironically.

"evolution isnt real"

"why not? the fossil record and biology and genetics and all other branches of related science support it"

"Because Jesus. shut up. science is wrong."

It gets annoying when people dismiss years upon years of collected data simply because it cant explain everything yet because some book they similarly cant verify "says so." (when it really really doesnt)

edited 22nd Sep '11 12:25:47 PM by Midgetsnowman

This thread is way off topic and starting to get more than a little hostile.

Anyone want to create a thread on evolution vs creationism and continue with the topic. Or should we just request a lock?

I think we should lock this I created a monster.

No, you created a religious thread, not your fault they often evolve into monsters.