Sunday Disparage

[Bhim]

Given the popularity/infamy of the "Sunday Dispatch" thread, I thought now might be a good time to start posting my general thoughts on Jesus and Christianity. I know it's not Sunday, and I don't intend to post according to any rigid schedule, but as an ex-Christian I contemplate Christianity for at least a few minutes every day. Virtually all of my opinions on this religion and its founder are negative, but my thoughts are usually accompanied by greatly positive feelings at finally being out of Christianity and no longer subject to Jesus. I've written extensively on why I believe Christianity is an evil and depraved religion: namely because it consigns non-Christians to eternal conscious torment in hell, and because it prescribes the wicked task of missionary work for Christians. While I do not intend to stray from this topic, I would like to give voice to my thoughts, and to open them up for any and all comments. My aim here is to denigrate the person and work of Jesus the false Christ, whom Christians revere so fervently. I would also like to engage in some comparative religion, or should I say, "my religion is better than yours," knowing full well that any reactions from Christians will contain the words "caste system" and "Graham Staines." To Christians, all I can say is that you should feel free to speak your mind, just as I do.

 

If my first post had a subtitle, it would be "why evangelical Christianity sucks." If you walk into an evangelical church, it will likely be a non-denominational megachurch. These churches employ a praise band and sing idiotic songs like "Open the Eyes of my Heart Lord," or "Here I am to Worship." In addition to being effeminate (which is generally a bad thing if you're a straight male), these songs are shallow and fit only for children. Whatever else I say about Christianity, I will happily grant that Christians have a rich musical tradition. Christian history is replete with music that stimulates both the mind and the heart (at least if you can get over the fact that Jesus is sending your sweet old grandmother to hell for being born in the wrong religion). Yet modern evangelicals happily discard this rich history in favor of songs written by girly-man artists whom I could swear want to have gay sex with Jesus. Maybe they should. Given the long hair with which he is usually depicted, one could easily mistake him for a woman from behind. And given what contemporary Christian music says about him, you would never confuse him for the Lord of the Universe who will strike me dead for making sexual humor about him. At the church I was attending when I deconverted, the praise band took it a step further than simply using other people's asinine music. They actually wrote their own! It was as bad as you would think, and were I still a Christian I would be ashamed because of these people.

 

My general inability to take evangelical worship seriously extends beyond the music, though. At the church I attended in grad school, as well as the one I'd attend when I went back to my hometown, the lyrics were projected on a screen. Now, this in and of itself was fine, but behind the words were animated backgrounds. These backgrounds ranged from psychadelic patterns to images of grass blowing in the wind, and in one case (at a second church near my college campus), there was sometimes a silhouette image of a man standing in a cornfield raising their hands in victory. Christianity's history of brilliant architecture rivals its musical heritage, but my church's building resembled a wearhouse more than a place of worship. And as if this all were not bad enough, rarely have I ever heard heard preaching that was worth listening to. The pastors at my church used to make regular references to football, music, and other popular culture. In fact it was a rule among the pastors that anyone who preaches must start their sermon (excuse me, "message") with a personal anecdote. In virtually all cases these little vignettes were utterly inane. The pastor of my college ministry tried his darndest to connect to skateboarder culture; he seemed to be under the mistaken impression that at least one person in the church actually rode a skateboard and that he was being relevant. On more than one occasion I would think to myself, "I'm way to educated for these people," and then chastise myself for my hubris. Thankfully I've abandoned humility as a worthless Christian virtue.

 

Here's the thing though: it's not that evangelicals act like children because they misunderstand Jesus. No, they are obeying Jesus to a T. Jesus himself was a childish imbecile who eschewed the beauty and elegance of the tradition from whence he came. The Old Testament teaches a very rigid and meaningful system of ceremony. The Jewish house of worship as envisioned in the Torah tunes all of a man's senses, whether sight, smell, or even taste, to the Otherworldly. It is Jesus who taught that people should abandon this system and be left to their own devices for the purposes of worship (e.g. "worship God in Spirit"). The only reason Christians evolved such elegant traditions is because they distanced themselves from Jesus. Indeed, Martin Luther's very objection ot the Catholic Church was that they had departed from the teachings of their founder, and Luther's legacy is modern evangelical Christianity.

 

Evangelicals claim that the God of the Universe has judged me guilty of sin, but will save me by the shed blood of his Son so that I may worship him and enjoy him forever. And then they dare take me inside an evangelical church, subject me to the circus act that they call "worship," and tell me that the church offers me communion with the Living God? If there is a God, I'm quite certain his ministers don't dress like clowns.

 

Now that I'm not a Christian anymore, I make no attempt to defend the lunacy that is evangelical Christian worship.  In fact, when I first returned to Hinduism, I immediately looked forward to religious practices that I could actually take seriously.  When I enter a Hindu temple, no one is jumping up and down with arms raised.  There is no rock music to fill the air.  And I don't have to look at any dumbass animations projected onto the wall.  I don't feel like a child when I participate in this sort of worship, nor do I need to pretend that childishness is a virtue.  This is a religion I can practice without feeling ridiculous.  Evangelical Christianity, on the other hand, is an exercise in idiocy.

 

Christianity is trash, as is its founder and false messiah, Jesus.  Truer words were never spoken than when the Jewish peasant said that nothing good can come from Nazareth.  Oh wait, Nazareth didn't even exist in the first century.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

An excellent treatise, Bhim.  I would add to it that evangelical pentecostals (the tradition from whence I came) are far and away even more childish and idiotic than the regular evangelical.  On top of all the asinine practices you've mentioned above, they add speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, praying in tongues, and even singing in tongues.  Yet they fail to realize the very basic (and simple) difference between "dialektos," which refers to legitimate languages and was used in Acts chapter 2 in describing what happened on the day of pentecost, and "glossolalia," which refers to articulate speech, including such verbal pauses as "um", "argh", and "wow", and which would be more in line with the gobbledygook they vomit forth and call "tongues".

[Bhim]

Evangelicals are a bunch of losers with an effeminate savior

 

I've been seeing televised ads for ChristianMingle.com lately.  These ubiquitous ads are a good example of how Jesus, who himself is an effeminate figure, appeals disproportionately to women.  You may be familiar with a popular ChristianMingle ad which features an older couple.  In the last few seconds of the commercial, you can hear the woman tear up and say "he's my second chance."

 

What the hell does this mean?  Looking around the blogosphere I've seen a couple suggestions.  One is that it's being implied that she is divorced.  If there is an objective intent to this line, I'd like to know what the commercial's creator had in mind.  Regardless, I have a theory that they put this in as an allusion to the teaching that the church is the bride of Christ, and that he redeems her from her sins.  This idea is seen, for example, in evangelical interpretations of the Book of Ruth, in which Boaz acts as Kinsman Redeemer to bring a destitute woman out of poverty through marriage.  It comes ultimately from the book of Ephesians, in which Paul states that the institution of marriage is a mystery revealed through Christ, who gave his life to save the church.

 

This idea of course appeals to women who believe that they have no self-worth apart from their husbands.  I'd imagine it also leads women who don't already hold such a self-image to adopt it.  Furthermore it feminizes men by making them think that in order to be complete, they need to find a broken woman to marry, and to turn said person into a submissive, Christ-like wife.  That would explain why my Christian lab-mate back in grad school married the first fornicating woman he met (after converting her to evangelical Christianity, of course) and then regularly went with her to bake cookies with the Mormon couple next door (with the intent of converting them as well).

 

And that is the reason that I am thankful, this Sunday, to no longer worship the repressed homosexual deity Jesus.

[Roz]

I like this better than Ironhorse's bit, but honestly I'm keeping tabs on both because IH's thread is one of those "so bad that's it actually entertaining" shows.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Furthermore it feminizes men by making them think that in order to be complete, they need to find a broken woman to marry, and to turn said person into a submissive, Christ-like wife.  

I've often wondered what should be done if the wife felt like jesus was leading her in one direction, but the husband felt like going in a completely different direction.  Whom should the truly submissive wife obey, the husband, or the savior?

[♦ ficino ♦]

 

Furthermore it feminizes men by making them think that in order to be complete, they need to find a broken woman to marry, and to turn said person into a submissive, Christ-like wife.  

I've often wondered what should be done if the wife felt like jesus was leading her in one direction, but the husband felt like going in a completely different direction.  Whom should the truly submissive wife obey, the husband, or the savior?

 

Easy.  Follow God's "chain of command."  obey the husband.

[MerryG]

 

 

Furthermore it feminizes men by making them think that in order to be complete, they need to find a broken woman to marry, and to turn said person into a submissive, Christ-like wife.  

I've often wondered what should be done if the wife felt like jesus was leading her in one direction, but the husband felt like going in a completely different direction.  Whom should the truly submissive wife obey, the husband, or the savior?

 

Easy.  Follow God's "chain of command."  obey the husband.

 

 

Agreed. Especially 'cause while Jesus might send you to hell for all eternity -- in theory -- it's god's representative on earth -- the good christian husband -- who's likely to whup the shit out of you if you aren't properly docile and submissive.

[RipVanWinkle]

You'd follow your husband because he's real.   bill

[ironhorse]

"If my first post had a subtitle, it would be "why evangelical Christianity sucks." If you walk into an evangelical church, it will likely be a non-denominational megachurch. These churches employ a praise band and sing idiotic songs like "Open the Eyes of my Heart Lord," or "Here I am to Worship." In addition to being effeminate (which is generally a bad thing if you're a straight male), these songs are shallow and fit only for children." ~Bhim

 

 

I agree. They use mindless repetitive "praise songs" to stir emotions and numb thinking.

 

I suggest you try a few U2 albums or Bob Dylan.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

 

 

Furthermore it feminizes men by making them think that in order to be complete, they need to find a broken woman to marry, and to turn said person into a submissive, Christ-like wife.  

I've often wondered what should be done if the wife felt like jesus was leading her in one direction, but the husband felt like going in a completely different direction.  Whom should the truly submissive wife obey, the husband, or the savior?

 

Easy.  Follow God's "chain of command."  obey the husband.

 

 

Agreed. Especially 'cause while Jesus might send you to hell for all eternity -- in theory -- it's god's representative on earth -- the good christian husband -- who's likely to whup the shit out of you if you aren't properly docile and submissive.

 

I don't know, obeying the husband would put the wife out of god's will, which might lead both of them down the path to destruction.  Shouldn't the wife stand firm and pray for jesus to change the husband's mind?  Moreover, if she truly is following jesus, shouldn't she hate her husband along with her father and mother, brother and sisters?

[xtify]

"If my first post had a subtitle, it would be "why evangelical Christianity sucks." If you walk into an evangelical church, it will likely be a non-denominational megachurch. These churches employ a praise band and sing idiotic songs like "Open the Eyes of my Heart Lord," or "Here I am to Worship." In addition to being effeminate (which is generally a bad thing if you're a straight male), these songs are shallow and fit only for children." ~Bhim

 

 

I agree. They use mindless repetitive "praise songs" to stir emotions and numb thinking.

 

I suggest you try a few U2 albums or Bob Dylan.

 

So, your version of true christianity allows you to listen to secular music (aka, good music) and you feel praise songs are mindless and repetitive?  I just don't get what version of christianity you are selling here then.  It sounds like your own convoluted variety, which in that case you are making yourself into a god and not willing to sacrifice your love of U2 and Dylan for Yeshua.  And you are also blaspheming the holy ghost by saying that his music is crap.

 

Speaking of U2:

 

Mysterious Ways

Johnny take a walk with your sister the moon

Let her pale light in to fill up your room

You've been living underground

Eating from a can

You've been running away

From what you don't understand...

Love

 

She's slippy

You're sliding down

She'll be there when you hit the ground

 

It's alright, it's alright, it's alright

She moves in mysterious ways

It's alright, it's alright, it's alright

She moves in mysterious ways

 

Johnny take a dive with your sister in the rain

Let her talk about the things you can't explain

To touch is to heal

To hurt is to steal

If you want to kiss the sky

Better learn how to kneel

 

(on your knees boy)

 

She's the wave

She turns the tide

She sees the man inside the child

 

It's alright, it's alright, it's alright

She moves in mysterious ways

It's alright, it's alright, it's alright

She moves in mysterious ways

It's alright, it's alright, it's alright

Lift my days, light up my nights

 

One day you will look...back

And you'll see...where

You were held...how

By this love...while

You could stand...there

You could move on this moment

Follow this feeling

 

It's alright, it's alright, it's alright

She moves in mysterious ways

It's alright, it's alright, it's alright

She moves in mysterious ways

It's alright, it's alright, it's alright

 

We move through miracle days

Spirit moves in mysterious ways

She moves with it

She moves with it

Lift my days, light up my nights.

 

Yeshua would be pissy about that one!

[Adam5]

..I've written extensively on why I believe Christianity is an evil and depraved religion: namely because it consigns non-Christians to eternal conscious torment in hell, and because it prescribes the wicked task of missionary work for Christians. While I do not intend to stray from this topic, I would like to give voice to my thoughts, and to open them up for any and all comments. ..

 

Hi Bhim, if its ok, I take issue with the above comment about Christianity being evil and depraved.  I'd say its more delusional than evil, as it lacks proof and its all based on hypothetical and unprovable beliefs.

 

I dont think most Christians "consign non-Christians to eternal conscious torment in hell".  That is the view of some very conservative evangelical protestants aka fundies. 

 

But you have some Christians dont believe in hell, others think its a separation from God, and not a literal place, others think non Christians will be saved if they live a good life.  Christians have a wide view of opinions on lots of things.  Which is proof that no holy ghost is operating, otherwise there would be some kind of consistency.

 

I agree that some of the songs are idiotic though

 

"When I enter a Hindu temple, no one is jumping up and down with arms raised." I dont think the craziness is just restricted to Christianity, Hinduism has its share too, as a google search will prove.

[Bhim]

Hi Bhim, if its ok, I take issue with the above comment about Christianity being evil and depraved.  I'd say its more delusional than evil, as it lacks proof and its all based on hypothetical and unprovable beliefs.

 

Hi Adam.  It's certainly OK with me if you take issue with my comments; thank you for posting.

 

Let me start by reasserting my claim that Christianity is evil and depraved.  I don't know much about your experience with this religion, but I do know that you're from the UK where evangelical activity seems to be somewhat less than in the United States.  My experience is quite a bit more negative.  Evangelicals here send missionaries all around the world to destroy families by converting people of other religions to Christianity.  The same people possess the gross hypocrisy to say that their religion encourages "family values."  Given that some of my relatives live in India, which evangelicals regard as a land of spiritual darkness worthy of intense missionary pressure, you can see how this is very harmful to me.  Evangelicals likewise target people of non-Christian religions for conversion on college campuses.  We're talking about people who ruin lives and who are rightly called homewreckers.  To me, Christianity is not about intellectual about honesty, but about genuine and measurable devastation of the family structure.  Evangelical Christianity is utterly evil, and without any redeeming merit whatsoever.  I generally believe in religious freedom, but I think that every developed nation should ban evangelical Christianity and burn to the ground any churches that act as centers of evangelism.

 

I dont think most Christians "consign non-Christians to eternal conscious torment in hell".  That is the view of some very conservative evangelical protestants aka fundies. 

 

But you have some Christians dont believe in hell, others think its a separation from God, and not a literal place, others think non Christians will be saved if they live a good life.  Christians have a wide view of opinions on lots of things.  Which is proof that no holy ghost is operating, otherwise there would be some kind of consistency.

 

My friend, I fear you are gravely mistaken to think that belief in hell is a fringe view held by a small number of people.  8 in 10 evangelicals "absolutely" believe in hell (source: http://www.uscongregations.org/beyond-the-ordinary/hell-hath-some-fury-and-potential-benefits-for-many-americans/).  The numbers are of course lower for Catholics and mainline Protestants, which should be cause for concern since these are the groups that are diminishing in number, while evangelical Christianity is growing.

 

Sure, some Christians think that hell is a separation from God.  But let's be honest with ourselves, this is bullshit that Christians make up to feel better about Uncle Ted the Atheist (or other friends/loved ones who aren't Christians).  Jesus said that hell is a place of weeping and gnashing of teeth where their fire is not quenched and their worm does not die.  The book of Revelation states that the smoke of the torment of the damned ascends forever and ever.  How does someone interpret this to mean painless separation from God?  Despite all this, I would be comfortable with Christians who do not believe in a place of eternal conscious torment, but for the fact that this is the minority view among Christians who take their faith seriously (the source I quoted states that 7 in 10 Americans believe in hell).  Again, this is why Christianity is evil: the only Christians who are good people are bad Christians.

 

I agree that some of the songs are idiotic though

 

"When I enter a Hindu temple, no one is jumping up and down with arms raised." I dont think the craziness is just restricted to Christianity, Hinduism has its share too, as a google search will prove.

 

I'm sure if you Google hard enough you can find obscure topics like the rat temple in India, or a certain roadside temple I recently passed in Chennai which had a statue of a deceased Bollywood actor.  But the things I cited in my earlier post aren't arcane examples, they are the norm.  Idiotic worship is hard to quantify and even harder to be statistically tabulated.  But I went to many evangelical churches during my time as a Christian, and not one (even the Reformed Baptist church I attended in college) was not dominated by foolish, feminine music.  I didn't need to do a Google search to know that all evangelical worship sucks.  The fact that this is required in order to "dig up dirt" on Hinduism suggests that the latter is better than Christianity in the sense that it is far easier to take seriously.  The fact that we don't condemn anyone to hell is probably why even most atheists I know who think all religions are fairy tales have few harsh words for this religion.

 

Anyway, I realize that what I've written sounds bombastic, and that certainly isn't my intent.  But I do wish to convey my utter disdain and lack of respect for both evangelical Christianity and its founder Jesus.  I'm definitely interested to hear your opinions on all of this!

[Adam5]

Hi Bhim,

 

"I generally believe in religious freedom, but I think that every developed nation should ban evangelical Christianity and burn to the ground any churches that act as centers of evangelism"

 

This reads like a contradictory statement.  Burning churches?  Come on, this sounds like something an extremist would say. 

 

"8 in 10 evangelicals "absolutely" believe in hell."

 

I would question what this means.  I doubt 80% believe in a literal eternal torture. And US evangelicals and extremist groups are a minority amongst Christians worldwide.  I agree that this is an absurd and pervserse notion though.

 

"all evangelical worship sucks" - cant disagree on that one

 

"The fact that we don't condemn anyone to hell is probably why even most atheists I know who think all religions are fairy tales have few harsh words for this religion"

 

I agree, but all religion is a problem. The issue is if a God or gods has not given a revelation, then the contradictory religions, including Hinduism, are simply man-made nonsense. 

[amateur]

Bhim, I am loving what you wrote!  The megachurches, the effeminate take on xianity, the truly bad repetitive music with the even more vapid visuals, the personal anecdotes from preachers, the 1984-esque "family values" where love=hate, the awkward embarrassment of watching grown men wave their arms over their heads, that truly appalling xian mingle commercial with the teary woman clinging to her "second chance" while he smiles uncomfortably/smugly at the camera.  And let's not forget all the incarnations of hell, from eternal torment to separation from god, from babies burning to babies saved.  

 

Isn't Sunday morning lovely when you sleep in, be woken by the sun thru the window, and enjoy a leisurely breakfast?

[♦ ficino ♦]

Sitting next to the tuba during "Power in the Blood."  That's when I started to be able to imagine hell.

[Bhim]

Thank you for your reply Adam.
 

Hi Bhim,
 
"I generally believe in religious freedom, but I think that every developed nation should ban evangelical Christianity and burn to the ground any churches that act as centers of evangelism"
 
This reads like a contradictory statement.  Burning churches?  Come on, this sounds like something an extremist would say.

 
Well...I did preface my comment with "I generally believe...but..." precisely because I was citing an exception to my usual belief.

 

I stand by my comment that US evangelical churches should be burned down, literally or otherwise.  Evangelical Christianity is an extremist religion that threatens families.  I am disgusted by evangelical churches have the audacity to call themselves "X Family Church."  But is it extremist to burn down churches?  I don't think so.  Here in America, it is now in vogue to destroy perfectly functional buildings where horrible things have happened.  Two recent examples are Ariel Castro's house in Cleveland, OH, and Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newport, RI.  I wouldn't say that converting someone to Christianity is quite as heinous as extended kidnappings or murder.  But I would submit the following: how many lives on this forum alone have been ruined because someone converted to Christianity (whether as a child or in adulthood)?  This forum is pervaded by stories of divorce, depression, and mental health issues.  All because one person wanted to "share his faith" in Jesus the false Christ with someone else.  No, I think that demolishing evangelical churches is a proper and wise course of action.

 

Want to know what separates me from evangelicals?  Unlike them, I don't want my enemy to be inside his house of worship when I burn it down.

 

"8 in 10 evangelicals "absolutely" believe in hell."
 
I would question what this means.  I doubt 80% believe in a literal eternal torture. And US evangelicals and extremist groups are a minority amongst Christians worldwide.  I agree that this is an absurd and pervserse notion though.

 

Well you're free to question what it means.  As a scientist I'm trained not to make statements I can't justify with facts.  My personal intuition is that eternal conscious torment is what these people have in view, but I can't justify that.  I doubt that it's easy, from a statistical point of view, to ask the question "do you believe in eternal conscious torment of non-Christians?" and get a meaningful yes or no answer.  Maybe I'm wrong; I'm not a social scientist, after all.  If you have more specific statistics which delineate between different views of hell, please feel free to share them.  But there you have it: 80% of evangelicals believe in hell.  This is a fact (a word I don't use lightly), and needs to be taken seriously.

 

Yes, US evangelicals are a minority in the world.  But they are a major religious force here in the US, and the largest single Protestant denomination in America is an evangelical denomination.  Specifically it is the Southern Baptist Convention (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Baptist_Convention, first paragraph).  As an American I'll of course have an America-centric point of view here, but you should also keep in mind that Americans are economically powerful, and evangelical tithe dollars have the ability to project Christian power across the entire globe.  Case in point: the large number of Western missionaries in India.  I guarantee you they aren't there to serve the poor (unless by "serve" you mean destroy families through conversion).

 

"all evangelical worship sucks" - cant disagree on that one

 

Heh, I'm glad we agree on this!

 

"The fact that we don't condemn anyone to hell is probably why even most atheists I know who think all religions are fairy tales have few harsh words for this religion"
 
I agree, but all religion is a problem. The issue is if a God or gods has not given a revelation, then the contradictory religions, including Hinduism, are simply man-made nonsense.

Well, it might be helpful if you define "problem" here.  Sure, I recite the Gayatri Mantra every morning and go to a temple on Sundays.  But the fact that I do a prayer once a day doesn't require any cognitive dissonance when I go to work and do science (heck, I'm not even sure if I actually believe in this stuff).  And the dollars I give for my temple priest to do an archana on my behalf don't go to some vile purpose either in my own city or abroad.  Call it illogical if you like, or call it foolish (preferably not to my face in public).  But a problem?  If you have any incentive whatsoever to burn down the image of the Goddess Saraswati I've got in my home puja room, feel free to share...

[Bhim]

Bhim, I am loving what you wrote!  The megachurches, the effeminate take on xianity, the truly bad repetitive music with the even more vapid visuals, the personal anecdotes from preachers, the 1984-esque "family values" where love=hate, the awkward embarrassment of watching grown men wave their arms over their heads, that truly appalling xian mingle commercial with the teary woman clinging to her "second chance" while he smiles uncomfortably/smugly at the camera.  And let's not forget all the incarnations of hell, from eternal torment to separation from god, from babies burning to babies saved.  

 

Isn't Sunday morning lovely when you sleep in, be woken by the sun thru the window, and enjoy a leisurely breakfast?

 

Amateur, I heartily agree with you and must say that regaining my Sundays may be the very best part of not being a Christian anymore.  When I was a Christian I of course was happy to attend these worship services, despite my disdain for the actual worship.  But when I decided to deconvert and was still living with Christians, every Sunday was a living hell (well, so was the rest of the week).  I absolutely love falling asleep on Saturdays with no obligations on Sunday.  If I want to visit the temple on Sundays, I go.  If I want to go out to breakfast, I'm free to do that instead.  If I desire to veg out in front of the television...well, my wife has a problem with that, but the breakfast thing is just as good.

 

I've said it before, I will never enter a church again, save when it acts as a polling place.  I won't go for a wedding, a piano recital, and certainly not because someone wants to share the hate of Jesus with me!

[sdelsolray]

I stand by my comment that US evangelical churches should be burned down, literally or otherwise.  Evangelical Christianity is an extremist religion that threatens families.  I am disgusted by evangelical churches have the audacity to call themselves "X Family Church."  But is it extremist to burn down churches?  I don't think so.  Here in America, it is now in vogue to destroy perfectly functional buildings where horrible things have happened.  Two recent examples are Ariel Castro's house in Cleveland, OH, and Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newport, RI.  I wouldn't say that converting someone to Christianity is quite as heinous as extended kidnappings or murder.  But I would submit the following: how many lives on this forum alone have been ruined because someone converted to Christianity (whether as a child or in adulthood)?  This forum is pervaded by stories of divorce, depression, and mental health issues.  All because one person wanted to "share his faith" in Jesus the false Christ with someone else.  No, I think that demolishing evangelical churches is a proper and wise course of action.

 

 

 

Well, the morals and tolerances of the society in which I live would not approve of your proposed action of burning down particular religious buildings.  Indeed, attempting to do so or actually doing so would be felonious crimes.  But you appear to be backpedaling already, going from they "should be burned down" to they "should be burned down, literally or otherwise."  Please continue to backpedal, it will do you good, otherwise you can take your hate and proposed anarchy and shove it up a dark place.

[Bhim]

Well, the morals and tolerances of the society in which I live would not approve of your proposed action of burning down particular religious buildings. Indeed, attempting to do so or actually doing so would be felonious crimes. But you appear to be backpedaling already, going from they "should be burned down" to they "should be burned down, literally or otherwise." Please continue to backpedal, it will do you good, otherwise you can take your hate and proposed anarchy and shove it up a dark place.

You consider it backpeddling that I wish to allow for multiple mechanisms for the destruction of churches? I don't think you're familiar with the logical meaning of the word "or."

[francesco]

 

Well, the morals and tolerances of the society in which I live would not approve of your proposed action of burning down particular religious buildings. Indeed, attempting to do so or actually doing so would be felonious crimes. But you appear to be backpedaling already, going from they "should be burned down" to they "should be burned down, literally or otherwise." Please continue to backpedal, it will do you good, otherwise you can take your hate and proposed anarchy and shove it up a dark place.

You consider it backpeddling that I wish to allow for multiple mechanisms for the destruction of churches? I don't think you're familiar with the logical meaning of the word "or."

 

can you explain what is the other option of that otherwise?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

I generally believe in religious freedom, but I think that every developed nation should ban evangelical Christianity and burn to the ground any churches that act as centers of evangelism.

In theory (and in theory alone), I agree with this.  However, I understand that I feel this way because of the anger, frustration, depression, and general fuckitiness that evangelical christianity caused me over the years.  However, to use those emotions in such a destructive manner would be unhealthy and irresponsible.

 

In practice, I have to disagree with this (sorry Bhim, I mean no disrespect).  Not only do the laws of this country allow for religious freedom, but to initiate pogroms against any particular religion would reduce our society down to a totalitarian state equal to that of Nazi Germany or some of the more fundamentalist Islamic nations.  As unfortunate as it is, for now we are stuck with evangelicals as people are free to worship as they please, which is as it should be.

 

However, while I believe that adults should have the right to worship as they please, I most vehemently do not think adults should have the right to indoctrinate their children to believe as they do.  This is especially true when it comes to extreme fundamentalist religions of every stripe and flavor (to include Islam).  Psychologists are starting to conclude that indoctrination as such is a form of child abuse and I believe this line of thinking will be the catalyst that allows our society to start legislating against the more evangelical forms of christianity.

[sdelsolray]

 

Well, the morals and tolerances of the society in which I live would not approve of your proposed action of burning down particular religious buildings. Indeed, attempting to do so or actually doing so would be felonious crimes. But you appear to be backpedaling already, going from they "should be burned down" to they "should be burned down, literally or otherwise." Please continue to backpedal, it will do you good, otherwise you can take your hate and proposed anarchy and shove it up a dark place.

You consider it backpeddling that I wish to allow for multiple mechanisms for the destruction of churches? I don't think you're familiar with the logical meaning of the word "or."

 

A backpedal is a backpedal.  By changing your statement that Evangelical Christian churches "should be burned down" to "should be burned down, literally or otherwise", you opened the door to interpretation of what "or otherwise" means.  Certainly, it does not mean "literally" because of the "or" conjunction.  It must mean something other than "literally".   Accordingly, "or otherwise" means "not literally".  A reasonable interpretation of this could include actions such as (i) promote discourse with Evangelical Christians to see if their views will change, (ii) provide education to Evangelical Christians, (iii) attempt to pass laws that would close the doors of Evangelical Christian churches, etc.  Note that none of these possible "otherwise" examples suggest literally burning down Evangelical Christian churches.

 

Classic backpedal Bhim.

[Bhim]

A backpedal is a backpedal.  By changing your statement that Evangelical Christian churches "should be burned down" to "should be burned down, literally or otherwise", you opened the door to interpretation of what "or otherwise" means.  Certainly, it does not mean "literally" because of the "or" conjunction.  It must mean something other than "literally".   Accordingly, "or otherwise" means "not literally".  A reasonable interpretation of this could include actions such as (i) promote discourse with Evangelical Christians to see if their views will change, (ii) provide education to Evangelical Christians, (iii) attempt to pass laws that would close the doors of Evangelical Christian churches, etc.  Note that none of these possible "otherwise" examples suggest literally burning down Evangelical Christian churches.

I find it unfortunate that we need to discuss the definition of "or," but here we go...

 

In the context of logic, or requires that at least one of two statements be true.  Formally. speaking, a true or a false implies truth.  To use an example you may appreciate, if you ask me to shove my hate up my ass or another dark place, then any dark place including my ass would qualify.  By calling for evangelical churches to be burned down literally or otherwise, I am likewise amenable to any form of destroying evangelical churches which could be reasonably interpreted as burning them down, including literal incineration (which, for the record, I fully support).  Now admittedly, I am allowing for some interpretation on the part of the reader.  But to clarify, the first two suggestions you propose are not things I would equate with figuratively burning down evangelical churches, and your third option of closing the doors of churches via legislation does only barely.  But then, I think you chose such weak options for rhetorical purposes.

 

However, there's a more serious issue here.  In your earlier post, you have outright misrepresented my previous statements.  You stated:

 

"Well, the morals and tolerances of the society in which I live would not approve of your proposed action of burning down particular religious buildings. Indeed, attempting to do so or actually doing so would be felonious crimes."

 

You went on to charge me with promoting anarchy.  I'm not certain you read my original post on this topic, which is advisable when you are intending to make an antagonistic post.  For your convenience, here it is.

 

"I generally believe in religious freedom, but I think that every developed nation should ban evangelical Christianity and burn to the ground any churches that act as centers of evangelism."

 

See the problem here?  I advocate for legislation, and you accuse me of calling for the perpetration of felonies.  I'm not sure how much clearer I could have been in order to emphasize that I don't support anarchy or chaos.  Given this information that you seem to have passed over earlier, are you willing to retract your comment?  Feel free to do this, or to defend it if you think I am incorrect (or just a poor communicator).  But I don't think we should proceed with any other topic until this one is resolved, because there's no reason for me to make posts if they aren't read or properly understood.

 

Classic backpedal Bhim.

This is about as meaningful as a "mission accomplished" banner on an aircraft carrier.

[francesco]

"I generally believe in religious freedom, but I think that every developed nation should ban evangelical Christianity and burn to the ground any churches that act as centers of evangelism."

 

so you believe in religious freedom but promote that a certain religious denomination should be banned?

could you please tell me your definition of religious freedom?