This story is archived
Why Do Some Christians Want To Run YOUR Life? : Op Ed »
Posted by: Bkumm 2 years, 4 months agoWhen it comes right down to it, we can all get together and talk about religion, saying this and that and the other thing, use a bunch of big words, but the fact remains that Christianity is the religion of people that want to run your life for you.
Read Full Story at bransplace.net »
Submitted By:
Bkumm
Ex-Navy, degrees in History and Marketing and Management.
Socially liberal, fiscal conservative.
Just following my own brand of atheistic spiritualism.
" [T]he only purpose for ...
Who Also Submitted:
This Story is Archived and Commenting is Closed
Comments: 1,135
-
Bkumm
June 16, 2007, 2:26 a.m.I'm not posting this to really irritate anyone, I'm just tired of it. I would like this to be a country where we all respected each other and I'm sick of the idea that permissiveness is somehow not respecting another person.
That is a ludicrous idea and I'm tired of it.
So, I hope people enjoy it and I hope it sparks some lively conversation, but I'm really not trying to make anyone angry.
-
CatholicRedneck
June 16, 2007, 2:44 a.m."To put it in terms that Christians will understand, I hate the sin, not the sinner. Which is one of the biggest bunches of hooey..." The author contradicts himself there: first, he says he doesn't hate Christians but what we do with our religion. Then he follows that up by saying that idea is a big bunch of hooey. So, he does hate us.
Permissiveness certainly can be about respecting other people. And sometimes it isn't. Whatever.
The CENTRAL dogma of this man's worldview is that we are all alone in the world. Let me clarify: he gives the example of a motorcyclist riding without a helmet. Fine by him, he says; and if the motorcyclist gets into an accident, that's his tough luck. The rest of us aren't responsible. Sorry, but in the real world no man is an island. (more)
-
CatholicRedneck
June 16, 2007, 2:51 a.m.(continued)
It's nearly impossible to live dependent on no one but yourself - which means that if you want the benefits of society, you're going to have to put up with the aggravation of society's limits on your desires.
What we have is a culture war fighting for what kind of society we are going to live in. Christians want a Christian society and secularists want a secular society. Obviously, the author wants a secular one - and he's a fool if he thinks that a secular society won't impose on him.
Bottom line: there's no such thing as a society of atomized individuals able to do whatever they want and aren't dependent on other individuals in that society.
-
zaph22
June 16, 2007, 7:29 a.m.All I'll say on this subject, and about people that want to insist, and be very, very persistent about it. About the kind of person that will not stop until everyong beleves the way they do, believes what this person wants them to believe, and this is not the only person like this, but it is the best example here that I know of.... RickyDawkins. So I don't think it's Christians and Christianity that is the only problem, or don't you mind those that are so busy not believing in God that it's all they can talk about, and they are busy trying to make sure no one else believes in God. Or is that ok, is it just those that believe in God that are the problem? Seems to me Atheists do the same thing, and if they're wrong and there is a God, they did do something to hurt people, if those that belivee in God are wrong, and convince others too, what harm is done? But as I was saying, if those that don't believe in God are wrong and convince others, some harm is done I think.
-
ETproductions
June 16, 2007, 7:41 a.m.Bkumm, good find.
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."
Law should be aimed at protecting people from harm by other people, not at protecting them from themselves or forcing them to bow and pray a certain way. Seems that no matter how often Christ said "Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, many Christians take it to mean gobble up all that leaven you can get.
-
alakazam
June 16, 2007, 9:44 a.m.A good example of this argument is the Pledge of Allegiance.
No one says it in school anymore.
So, it has the words "Under God" in it.
Whose God?
Does it matter?
Every morning at colors millions of Americans stood and pledged themselves to Liberty and Justice.
Doesn't anyone have any feelings about that?
-
gfarral
June 16, 2007, 10:27 a.m.I have observed Christian churches send missionaries to Christian nations. When I asked why I received two answers, First to help spread the Gospel. Hmmm the Christians who are already there are incapable? The real reason is to proselytize Non-Christians and Christians alike to their brand of Christianity.
Second to help rebuild churches and other religious facilities destroyed by rogue governments or recent combat. Admirable, now are they going to Iraq and Afghanistan to help rebuild Mosques? I doubt it.
Most people have no clue what Catholicism means because it was perverted centuries ago by Rome. The first Christian Church was the Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church in Antioch.
Rome at one time belonged within this sphere. Then when Rome became politically powerful they wanted to take over period. They invoked Roman Catholicism. Catholic means UNIVERSAL. In that regard most Christian churches believe they are the UNIVERSAL church. Using the term Catholic by itself is meaningless.
-
stephen-johnson
June 16, 2007, 10:56 a.m.Quite frankly, I'm more concerned by a government that would like to ban trans fats, smoking (I don't smoke, BTW), SUVs and other assorted vices du jour. All in the name of making us safer.
Removing one's choices = Making one safer
-
Bkumm
June 16, 2007, 11:04 a.m.Zaph, I'm replying to you here, because I can't read the one liner.
You are suggesting that standing up for the rights of all people to have religion stay out of the enforced state rules is somehow not respectful. I think that is a disengenous argument. I think we should be respectful of others and that means everyone. If the atheists tried to make some of their 'beliefs' law that would be wrong. Saying that they don't think that religion has a place in government, especially when it is one single religion, isn't wrong.
That is not inconsistant with what I said earlier, by the way. It is the legislation of morality, based on the idea that this or that is in some religious text, that I have a problem with. I also have a problem with most of the things that StephenJohnson mentioned.
-
crespi
June 16, 2007, 11:09 a.m.Here is a reposted comment for all my Christian bretheren-
You'll understand that after Musgrave, Tancredo, Allard, Lott, the murder of Allen Berg, the killing of an atheist by Christians last month, the Joel Osteen follower quote, "the Good Samaritan is no longer a useful role model for Christians," Fundamentalist Blackwater troops, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, the Christian murder of Mathew Sheppard, Christian Identity movement, praying for Armageddon, all the Christian Republican candidates saying they are in favor of NUCLEAR PRE-EMPTIVE STRIKES, Christians sabotaging scientists at NASA, Creationsts trying to hijack class rooms--
It will be a LONG LONG time before I trust the motivations or actions of my fellow American Christians.
-
slate
June 16, 2007, 11:16 a.m.Ok I just incorporated two things,,,, i do agree that since no one is certain that what they believe is correct they should have their own personal faith in their beliefs and allow others to do the same.
-
RickyDawkins
June 16, 2007, 11:26 a.m.http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/06/we_s...
There's more to the godless view than just the "jolly debunking" and the assumed lack of understanding that ZAPH and REDNECK impart to us. We do not escape sorrow, we do not lack for joys, and we try as hard (I think even harder) as the believers to find meaning in our lives. We simply do not accept the short cut of magical thinking that allows the lazy-minded to follow the path of religious escapism.
We stand awed at the heights our people have achieved. No gods, no religion. Us.
-
RickyDawkins
June 16, 2007, 11:30 a.m.What we atheists are saying is that we need to turn away from those powerless rationalizations, no matter how poetic they might be, and recognize that their power and their appeal flows from their humanity, not their religiosity. Forget god, that empty hulk, that great vacuum that humanity has stocked with its fears and dreams, and look at what we have created and felt instead. When someone weeps over a dead child or creates a great poem, it should matter not at all what some priest imagines his pantheon is doing. Take your eyes off your hallucination of heavenâ;;what's real are that woman's tears, that child's triumph, that grain of sand, that bird on wing. The meaning is derived from the reality of what we see and feel, not some convoluted vapor and self-serving puffery about an abstract concept like "god".
-
crespi
June 16, 2007, 11:46 a.m.I forgot the great spiritual leader Ted Haggard.
Sorry.
"It's a nice day for a- GAY WEDDING!"
-
RickyDawkins
June 16, 2007, 12:08 p.m.I swear it's like "Invasion of the Body Snatchers".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Invasion_of_...
But in all fairness, that's what I probably seem like to THEM. Some kind of posessed, helbent, anarchist.
Alas, I am a mild mannered (unless you scuff my nike's), highly educated, and kind. I'm just telling it like I see it. I used to believe in God, because that's what I was taught, now I would bet my bottom dollar that there isn't. And I ain't the gambling type, (except for texas hold em).
And I can go so far as to put myself in their shoes (something which they have a hard time doing) and realize that they do mean well. Wherein, lies the PROBLEM, that at the ROOT of CHRISTIANITY is a 2000 year old TEXT.
-
stephen-johnson
June 16, 2007, 12:13 p.m."I want to stop talking about gay marriage, gay adoption, gay whatever. If two people are above the age of consent then let them enter the contract of marriage and quit wasting the time of legislators"
"'In Massachusetts today, the freedom to marry is secure,' Governor Deval Patrick said after the legislature voted 151 to 45 against the amendment, which needed 50 favorable votes to come before voters in a referendum in November 2008."
If the amendment were put to a vote, the Massachusetts voting public would have settled the issue once and for all. But since the legislature didn't allow it, look for them to waste more time on gay issues in the future
-
RickyDawkins
June 16, 2007, 12:35 p.m.Mr. ZAPPY... If you cannot distinguish the words of the bible from what you believe, then all is lost.
http://www.evilbible.com/Evil Bible Quotes.htm
I see so many religionists rant and rave about how Atheists are "not tolerant of believers and have no respect for their faith". To non believers this claim is absurd. For intolerance of various religions is the foundation of Judaism, Christianity, Muslim and many other orthodox communities. Matter of fact, the Bible commands religious intolerance in MANY verses, even to the point of KILLING people for their beliefs. Here then, are a few choice verses that show just how intolerant these religionists are of other believers and nonbelievers. We shall start with the two verses that helped to inflict one of the biggest mass murders in history, the Inquisition.
Woman with "familiar spirits" must be stoned to death. Leviticus 20:27
"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." Exodus 22:18
-
RickyDawkins
June 16, 2007, 12:39 p.m.Stephen Johnson:
You have publicly made a religious claim that is vague or has no trustworthy basis in fact. If I had remained silent, you might have erroneously assumed that I agreed with you. Because I value our relationship, though, I am hereby taking this moment to advise you of my disagreement. I am handing you this card to remind you of my beliefs:
There are no invisible sentient beings such as Gods, spirits and ghosts.
When people die, they are completely dead. They don't "go" anywhere.
The ancient religious scripture on which you rely is untrustworthy because it is vague, self-contradictory and historically unsupported.
To best understand life one may employ a naturalistic worldview free of supernatural elements.
There are many important things about life that humans simply don't know and it is important to acknowledge our ignorance.
I judge morality entirely on whether people demonstrate kindness to one another, not on religious beliefs.
-
Sideways_28
June 16, 2007, 12:39 p.m."But, they need to get the hell out of people's lives."
from the article, and is that not what christians are trying to do. and for the commenter above stating that christians are trying to "hijack" the school room, read your history if it has not been rewritten already, the christians founded the the school sytem to teach the young to read so they could study the bible. it is the government that then hijacked the school and began to teach the "hooey" we now have. namely there are no absolutes and do as you please as long as it doesn't hurt another. If the writer of this article is not also a hypocrite then he or she will agree that everything besides the three R's need to be removed from the school room, because anything else is not based on facts that can be proven, including creation, evolution, born that way, and so on.
-
Sideways_28
June 16, 2007, 1:12 p.m.because harm is a relative thing. take the guy who in 1941 was headed to the USS arizona and was mugged on the way, had to go to the emergency room and get his arm fixed up, while there the japs attack and the arizona is sunk. did the mugger harm the man or save his life? Now i say there is a God, and he created this ball we live on, if i am right then you are harming kids by teaching them otherwise. On the converse of this argument, i agree that i should not be able to force you to live a certain way, that is not what "true" christianity is all about, no matter how many "so-called" christians try to make you live a certain way. but in a country where the majority make the laws i would be neglegent in my duties as a citizen to not state my beliefs, where we have the freedom OF religion and and OF speach.
-
SlapALib
June 16, 2007, 1:26 p.m.What this article misses is that people don't have to justify why they are against something. Every member of our society has a say in the rules of our society by virtue of being a member of our society.
There is a price to be paid for being part of a society. If a society decides against a minority on something, it may not be fair, but life isn't fair.
And speaking of tyranny of the majority, there is a minority that says the Federal Government should have nothing to do with marriage. Why exactly is that minority allowed to by tyrannized against?
-
Sideways_28
June 16, 2007, 1:30 p.m.Then why do we teach that evolution is a FACT? there is no evidence that it is either. And as for the freedom to legislate "beliefs systems", all we have is belief systems, the blief that murder is wrong, that thievery is wrong, the belief that rape is wrong, and so on, you just want to push your belief on me that homosexuality is right. and here is where we disagree and agree at the same time, i believe homosexuality is wrong and a sin, i do not agree the government should make laws prohibiting it, but, and its a big but, if we make laws condoning it then you are forcing me into a corner and i then have the right as a citizen to stand up and say NO. and if you say i am wrong about that then you contradicct your own beliefs and make them useless, to use your own arguement against you.
-
SlapALib
June 16, 2007, 1:30 p.m.I happen to love when people say that homosexuality manifests itself in nature.
Here's what I tell them:
You know what else manifests itself in nature? Forced abortion. Now add that to your cogent philosophy on women's rights.
-
Tuishimi
June 16, 2007, 1:38 p.m.Hmmm. Well, I am Christian and I don't push my viewpoint on anyone. If it comes up in conversation then I will talk about it. Evangelism isn't my strong point. I also won't direct any negativism toward people who prefer other religions. It's your choice. I think the vast majority of Christians are more like me, and it's the minority that bother people.
Lead by example... it's the best way. And who in this world has not been exposed to the word?
In short, the problem lies with the people and their interpretations and not the word itself. And there are Christians out there that bother me too, but there is not much more that can be done other than bringing up my viewpoint to them.
I am also one of those rare people I suppose that believes in separation of Church and State, but then again, I also believe that public school should be optional and stuff like that... it's easier to read here what I think:
-
Mutainia
June 16, 2007, 1:44 p.m.It's easy to scold and make fun of a religion whose followers only THINK those who desire to get it up the anal tract might result in their going to hell. However, I think I'd be FAR more impressed with this article IF it's author complained about a religion whose followers are commanded to SEND those to hell for wanting to get it up the anal tract.
The first 640 comments are shown. Show all 1135 comments »
Submit a Story
Advertisement
