The Antichristian Phenomenon
Just an interesting thought that could be groundbreaking if the Christians to whom it would apply to would actually share my point of view (hint: they don’t); namely that if god is suppose to promote acceptance and tolerance, then Satan must necessarily be the opposite, no? Meaning that Satan would then represent the very thing many Christians often adhere to, such as being against homosexuality, promoting sexism and so on and so forth. I haven’t been in a religious discussion with a believer in quite some time, but it is definitely a card I would bring up. Seeing that these people quite often already cherrypick what passages to believe in from the bible I doubt it would work as intended (god only likes Christians y’know? Christians like me, since everyone else claiming to be Christian and for example liking homosexuals can’t be Christian), but I guess it is worth a try.
September 28th, 2011 at 3:23 pm - Edit
God isn't supposed to promote tolerance and acceptance, it promotes whatever the believer in question already accepts. Better use the god-loves-everyone thing – it's the same, but less people are likely to simply reject that (they'll say god loves those *insert group* too but they have to change their ways to meet my worldview).
Interestingly, in conversations like this, the word god can usually be replaced with "I/my"
September 29th, 2011 at 3:18 pm - Edit
Well, the side effects of assuming god loves all is tolerance and acceptance since only god is capable of passing judgement on people.
I agree with you that people who bring up the argument that "only god loves group X" are usually just projecting their own ideas into the idea of god. Well, it goes back to the idea that god is created in man's image than the other way around.
October 1st, 2011 at 2:31 pm - Edit
Disclaimer: I am Catholic.
To really answer, you have to first look at / decide upon the validity of the Bible. Christians accept it as a rule of faith and a way to see who God is at a minimum.
Next comes the question of is it the Bible alone. That in theological terms is called sola scriptura (scripture alone). All christian faiths except for the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church adhere to this. That is why you have so many different Christian faiths. Each has a different interpretation (often, yes, via cherry picking) of the Bible. Baptists are hung up on John 3:16, Pentecostals on Acts 2:38, etc. The Catholic Church though, does not believe in sola scriptura and also does not believe in total private interpretation of Scripture. So, put more simply, we rely on the Church – specifically the College of Cardinals and often other groups of appointed Bishops to explain teaching on some items. A good example is on contraception. One could argue that we have fulfilled the call to be fruitful. But there's more to the story than that and thats why there is a teaching against it.
So… the teaching against homosexuality is both Traditional (been taught for hundreds and hundreds of years), scriptural, and part of the modern teaching of the Church. Tolerance does not mean acceptance of what is wrong. So your argument about tolerance should be rephrased to a decision about the morality of homosexuality, not about whether or not to accept it. Murder, abortion, contraception – all wrong and none should be tolerated and all should be fought against.
In terms of the morality of homosexuality, the problem is way, way too complex to really argue out on a web page. If you are serious about wanting to know more about why Christianity rejects homosexuality, read this: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/c….
October 1st, 2011 at 4:39 pm - Edit
So neither tolerance nor acceptance of what is perceived wrong is a trait of catholic faith. Whether the "wrong" is murder or contraception (…). But this is still a faith to an all-loving god, based on the teachings of a person who supposedly taught..what was it? Oh, yes, tolerance and peace.
If Jesus was who you people think he was, he'd be really disappointed in you.
Unless you can find a good reason that "none should be tolerated and all should be fought against" is any step forward from Torquemada or Osama bin Laden.
October 3rd, 2011 at 11:48 pm - Edit
Tolerance is part of our faith, but you have to open your eyes to see it. Lots of the faithful help post-abortive women for instance. Perceived wrong is not always correct. Gay marriage is a good example of intolerance going the other way. Just because Christians think that gay marriage is wrong, we are considered intolerant. Yet schools are allowed to teach that "Gay is OK" in spite of our beliefs. Tolerance does not mean allowing wrongs.
October 4th, 2011 at 12:11 pm - Edit
Is tolerance part of your faith or should none of the "wrongs" be tolerated? From what I understand what you're saying is you don't tolerate anything but if it happens anyway, then we'll just say we're tolerant.
Christians who think gay marriage is wrong are not intolerant for it, at least not for me. When it comes to religious marriage, I even agree with christians – it's their rules, if you don't like it, don't have it. What does make them intolerant is that they are trying to force their opinion on others and make other people live their lives by a set of rules they care nothing about. You may say it's a two way street, but if schools teach that "gay is ok", well, it's not the same thing. They're not teaching "be gay and have a gay marriage and don't be christian". Christians on the other hand are doing exactly that. They're forbidding. If you want to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you", you shouldn't forbid them.
Lastly, I agree that tolerance does not mean allowing wrongs. It's obviously not tolerant to allow crimes. But it does mean accepting the possibility that many – most – people (including christians) do not share your definition of wrong, at least in cases like gay-ness, abortion, or (especially) contraception. Muslims are not allowed to drink alcohol, right? What would you say if they tried to ban it from every country? Or if Hinduists wanted to forbid the eating of cows in England because it's wrong and shouldn't be allowed?
October 5th, 2011 at 1:23 am - Edit
Vampy — well said and you have made the point that you can't argue tolerance. Tolerance = accepting other points of view. But when the other point of view is immoral, there is an issue for someone. Typically sin is 1st tolerated (contraception), then permitted (Roe v. Wade), then embraced (1980s), and then enforced (china – 1 child allowed, any more and forced abortion). The core sin in that list is not contraception, or abortion but making children a choice in a marriage. Once that happened, the above chain is the likely result. Gay marriage started out OK – I wasn't even threatened and could have cared less. Then… well… in NY the problem is that now that gay marriage is allowed all of the Catholic based orphanages and adoption services can no longer receive state funding unless they don't discriminate. Oh, but now that gay marriage is legal, not placing kids with gay parents is considered discrimination. So the funding from the state was pooled. Now kids who are to be adopted who may not want to go to a gay marriage home may not have a choice.
October 5th, 2011 at 3:07 pm - Edit
First of all, you're not forced to have an abortion in China. From what I know (I'm not sure about it but I'm quite certain what you say is false) you just have to pay some sort of tax for having more than one child, just as in other countries you get tax relief for the same reason.(*) And of course the reason for this is not the the embrace of contraception but rather the opposite. China ended up having an overpopulation problem, which obviously wasn't caused by contraception. Anyway.
As for the rest, I'm sorry, but not allowing gay couples to adopt (though I think marriage and adoption rights are different cases), for example, is indeed discrimination. You may think it is a justified one, but that's another matter. In regards to the kid's choice, I think your sentence contains too many "may's". And I would guess that if a kid doesn't want to be adopted by a certain couple, gay or not, the couple is unlikely to adopt it.
Also, making children a choice and the rest, this is personal. Feel free to consider it a sin, but you can't expect others to do so. If you want to tell me that there are Chinese catholics who are not allowed to have as many children as they want and thus have their religious rights violated, yes, you'd be right. Though that would probably not be the greatest human rights violation in China.
(*) Ok, turns out I was totally wrong about that, but so are you. If you're interested, here's more on it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy and, similarly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-child_policy
October 5th, 2011 at 4:02 pm - Edit
Right, so I wish to comment a b it on what's being written here seeing it is after all, MY topic. I wish to be as clear as possible and therefore my arguments will be broken down in numbers, seeing a lot of points are being raised.
1. I agree with that tolerance and acceptance are two different things.
1a. But I still believe there is a confusion going on especially the way Petit Sourice attempts to frame tolerance and acceptance in that
1b. Tolerance and acceptance are not related to consequences of behavior, but rather attitudes towards behavior.
2. I would define tolerance as still disagreeing with behavior but tolerates its existence among others but acceptance is agreement of behavior.
2a. In a real life scenario this would mean that when it for example comes to gay marriage, a tolerant Christian would not agree with that gays want to be married and do get married, but would not attempt to stop the behavior among others by for example preaching against gay marriage, whereas an accepting Christian would encourage the behavior.
2b. Saying that you help for example women who chose to have abortion after their abortion but you still preach against abortion is not tolerant to me, but rather hypocritical behavior. db0 covered that part already in a previous post: http://www.antichristian-phenomenon.com/db0/your-…
2c. This therefore goes back to how tolerance and acceptance are attitudes towards behavior rather than attitudes towards consequences of behavior.
2d. Many parents for example disencourage the use of tobacco among their children but they will still provide with medical support of their children would contract a disease in relation to tobacco use.
3. Therefore, it ss not about the morality of the issues per se.
3a. However, people who may find for example gay marriage immoral are probably also more likely to be anti-gay and ergo also intolerant of anything gay such as gay marriage.
4. The validity of the Bible and how it denotes certain groups is therefore irrelevant as
4a. the Bible as a source of accepted* human behavior is often highly contradictory.
4b. The Bible can therefore not be seen as a valid source by itself, since it also highly depends on the attitudes of the believer.
4c. There is a tendency among believers to support certain aspects of the Bible to support their own ideas of accepted human behavior, where those who may for instance behave intolerant against gays are more likely to support and use passages found within the Bible that denotes homosexuality as unaccepted.
5. To conclude, I think that your definitions lack clarity and this lack of clarity weakens your arguments.
*There is a difference between accepted human behavior and immoral behavior as immoral behavior may still be accepted depending on the social context in which it is situated. For example, in the boxing ring, it is accepted that the boxers can and should use a certain level of violence against each other that would in all other instances in society most likely be considered physical abuse.
October 12th, 2011 at 10:14 am - Edit
What relevance does your post have to the topic at hand at all? None. If you want to rant about the Catholic church, maybe you should do it in a post instead of attacking people randomly who attempt to after all, have a civil discussion with us.
I could debunk most of your statements here because so much of it is unfounded or just subjectively biased, but I won't really bother. One thing that I will ask you to do though is to stop that freaking militant attitude. To me, you come across as just as ignorant and insecure in your belief that religion is wrong as you claim religious to be.
October 14th, 2011 at 10:13 pm - Edit
You're right. That was completely uncalled for and misplaced. I'm now replacing it with a blank space and rephrasing it in the correct format, in a different place. You could over analyze any statement I made and attempt a "debunk", but the fact remains that humans currently resemble a growing virus that's infecting, polluting, and destroying their host. Differing ideals on life around the world is leading to the destruction of the world we all live on. Its not just Catholics, but all the world's varying ideals of either waiting for a God to clean it up, belief that a doomsday is on the horizon, or perpetuating unrelenting population expansion! However, like you pointed out, this is a different topic for a different post.
November 8th, 2011 at 6:23 pm - Edit
Hi there. I am it for to pronounce it fatwah upon it you heathen satan atheist head. Your it foul demon womens will be whipped and stoned. Mens will be it skinned it alive it. Death, death, death I say to you, death to everybodys. Now it I must go it for to pick it up my welfare cheque before going it home to beat my foul wife and daughters.
Calixtus
November 29th, 2011 at 8:21 pm - Edit
Let me first start by saying that I am what you would consider to be a "Christian". Yes, I believe in the Bible, and that God created the earth, and that Jesus Christ was born, crucified, and resurrected all for the forgiveness of sins. But I would have to agree with something I saw earlier on this thread. That if God is who we say He is, He would be ashamed of us. Modern day Christianity is a man-made institution, perverted from a marvelous and (mostly) pure-hearted FAITH. I do not believe that God "tolerates all peoples. I wont say that God loves a certain X group, because God loves ALL people. Including my wretched terrible sinful self. I think we have shifted the focus off of God's tremendous love and mercy, and onto ourselves and how close we can walk the line without "sinning'. I WOULD say that homosexuality is a sin. But it is no greater a sin than murder or lying or cheating or stealing. We are all human, and thus all in the same boat together. We all sin equally because we have ALL sinned. The problem lies within not wishing to change from what our nature makes us. Certain sins, such as homosexuality, among others, require you to constantly be submerged in it. That is not to say it is any worse a sin than any other, but it is more of a choice. As this is an anti-Christian website, I realize that I will not be able to change the mind of everyone on here. My intention isnt to slaughter anyone's beliefs. My intention is to explain what I believe, and what I think we should believe. Now, understand that, by saying that, I dont mean to say that everything I believe is perfect and true. I am human, as are all of you. And thus, faulty. I have flaws in my beliefs just as you do in yours, and anyone else does. I believe that, as "Christians", we lose our focus. We are supposed to be servants. To the poor, hungry, thirsty, abused, and all other peoples. If we were to live like we are supposed to more often, we might not have many of these arguments we so often find ourselves having.
December 12th, 2011 at 4:49 pm - Edit
I too am a follower and disciple of the ressurected CHRIST, JESUS. I know that THE LIVING GOD loves all people but he is also a righteous judge. Sin of any form will not be tolerated by GOD nor can it be. I love my family and would do most anything for them but they are wrong too in their disbelief. Just because I denounced sin in my life (even though still a saved sinner) because I am not perfect I still make mistakes and I am not like I used to be. God is no respector of person, and sin of any form will not go unpunished. I as a believer am told to preach the good news to all of God's love gift, it is only the hearer's responsibility to believe or not.