Why We Should Attack Moderate Religiosity

[Greatest I am]

I wonder if the Christians ever debate good atheist vs bad atheist. My guess is they view all atheists, moderate and extreme, as a threat to their Christian Nation.

I had a mental picture of a fundy saying, "The only good atheist is..."

 

The blank part isn't flattering.

 

 

arhhh come on don't be shy ... "Shyone" .... Fundies say "The only good atheist is a dead one"!!

 

No.

 

Most Christians would think like Vigil and say the only good atheist is one who shuts up.

 

Regards

DL

[Greatest I am]

I can understand where both sides here are coming from. Of course, I do have an opinion.

 

I think that it will take those "liberals" or "liberal moderates" that do continue to want to go to church to be influential in bringing about change. We have a Christian here that attends a Lutheran Church (Open_Minded). The more liberal church-goers have different times they attend than the "regular" church-goers do. They seem to communicate with each other and how else can any change come about if not for communication?

 

 

 

Vigil will not agree. He does not believe in communication.

 

I like your view though.

 

Regards

DL

[Greatest I am]

 

 

I have mixed feelings about the group who put the board up. Part of me cringes that gays would fight so hard to be accepted by an organization that persecutes them. On the other hand, it's a positive message.

 

 

But is it really that surprising? African American Christians did the same thing when they fought for equal rights and MLK Jr. frequently quoted from the bible to give theological support to his protests.

 

 

Regards

DL

[Vigile]

 

 

I have mixed feelings about the group who put the board up. Part of me cringes that gays would fight so hard to be accepted by an organization that persecutes them. On the other hand, it's a positive message.

 

 

But is it really that surprising? African American Christians did the same thing when they fought for equal rights and MLK Jr. frequently quoted from the bible to give theological support to his protests.

 

Not surprising but both are cringe worthy.

[Vigile]

 

 

A good word for brain washing and murder.

Nuisance.

 

Not.

 

It must be the way I understand language.

 

That is like saying rape is just friction.

 

Regards

DL

 

It's called rhetorical sarcasm. It's a writing tool.

[Vigile]

Most Christians would think like Vigil and say the only good atheist is one who shuts up.

 

Huh? When did I ever write that or anything like it?

[Vigile]

Vigil will not agree. He does not believe in communication.

 

I really wish you wouldn't misquote me or attribute to me things I never wrote.

[Ouroboros]

It's called rhetorical sarcasm. It's a writing tool.

I don't think he understands what tone, style, or diction means.

 

No one here understands him, he does not understand anyone, and he blames us...

 

Huh? When did I ever write that or anything like it?

Welcome to my world of chaos and confusion.

[florduh]

Now, until someone finds another poll to refute that poll . . . maybe we're onto something!

 

I think the bottom line is that some of us think there is no good religion while others tolerate, perhaps even welcome, religious people as long as they don't vocally protest in secular society.

 

 

 

So much for the equality of citizens.

 

You would make a good Christian and would be quite happy top tell women to sit at the back of the church and shut up.

 

Take the log out of your eye.

 

Regards

DL

 

Huh? What the fuck is wrong with you? Do we need to use another language since you don't understand English?

 

Never mind.

 

Regards

FU

[Vigile]

It's called rhetorical sarcasm. It's a writing tool.

I don't think he understands what tone, style, or diction means.

 

No one here understands him, he does not understand anyone, and he blames us...

 

Huh? When did I ever write that or anything like it?

Welcome to my world of chaos and confusion.

 

Ah, it's ok with me. It's very easy to get things confused in a second language. His English is better than my Russian by miles. He's probably overconfident in his understanding though and might consider not jumping to so many conclusions.

[florduh]

I think it's more mindset and arrogance than language.

[Ouroboros]

I think it's more mindset and arrogance than language.

It's probably a combination.

 

We're all pretty arrogant on this website (me included), so he should be in good company.

[Greatest I am]

Vigil will not agree. He does not believe in communication.

 

I really wish you wouldn't misquote me or attribute to me things I never wrote.

 

Oops. My bad.

 

My comment should have been for florduh and his

"I think the bottom line is that some of us think there is no good religion while others tolerate, perhaps even welcome, religious people as long as they don't vocally protest in secular society."

 

I apologize for my error.

 

Regards

DL

[Ouroboros]

My comment should have been for florduh and his

"I think the bottom line is that some of us think there is no good religion while others tolerate, perhaps even welcome, religious people as long as they don't vocally protest in secular society."

Florduh doesn't say he doesn't believe in communication. Where do you see that in that sentence?

 

He's making a statement about that there are different kinds of people on this website.

 

Some of the people, group A, think there is no good religion.

 

Others, group B, tolerate, and some even welcome, religious people, but under the condition that they don't vocally protest in society.

 

Nowhere does Florduh say that he take a stand for group A or group B, or that communication is wrong, bad, or should be avoided.

 

This is a perfect example of how you completely misunderstand people here. You're not reading what they're saying, but reading in whatever you think they're saying.

 

Pay attention!!! If you're going to criticize people for not communicating, then perhaps you better start paying attention to what they actually are saying.

[NotBlinded]

What they are, however, may be completely different, and if you pry into their secret actions and beliefs (aside from the sexual impropriety) you find someone that would privately say gays are (put some derogatory word here).

 

I don't see moderates as interested in conflict or tranforming the world, but they would nod approvingly of measures to "put God back into schools" and other places religion doesn't belong. They like the public expression of Christianity at Christmas and high school graduations, and see nothing wrong with public prayer.

 

They think their religion is good, and what's good for them is good for everyone.

In all fairness Shy, this may be true with any ideology or just people in general.

[florduh]

In all fairness Shy, this may be true with any ideology or just people in general.

I agree. Moderate is moderate regardless of the context. Here, we're discussing religion, and Christian religion in particular. I like Shy's characterization of "moderate" in this context.

[NotBlinded]

In all fairness Shy, this may be true with any ideology or just people in general.

I agree. Moderate is moderate regardless of the context. Here, we're discussing religion, and Christian religion in particular. I like Shy's characterization of "moderate" in this context.

Yes.

 

I do tend more towards oddbird's previous comments about moderates though:

 

There have been comments that the moderates are the quiet ones who actually vote the conservative/fundamentalist agenda. But that sounds more like self-effacing fundamentalism than a moderate agenda.

 

I know we are speaking about religion here, but there is a tendancy in humans to say one thing and do/mean another.

 

Will the "real" moderates please stand up??

 

[Greatest I am]

My comment should have been for florduh and his

"I think the bottom line is that some of us think there is no good religion while others tolerate, perhaps even welcome, religious people as long as they don't vocally protest in secular society."

Florduh doesn't say he doesn't believe in communication. Where do you see that in that sentence?

 

He's making a statement about that there are different kinds of people on this website.

 

Some of the people, group A, think there is no good religion.

 

Others, group B, tolerate, and some even welcome, religious people, but under the condition that they don't vocally protest in society.

 

 

 

If that does not mean, so to speak, sit down and shut up, then what does it mean?

 

Regards

DL

[Ouroboros]

If that does not mean, so to speak, sit down and shut up, then what does it mean?

He made an observation, not a command. It's obvious. So what does it mean? It doesn't mean that anyone should sit down and shut up. It only means that he's making an observation. He said, "I think," meaning, he's contemplating. He also said "some of us," which is a reservation to his claim.

 

Considering that this simple sentence is so problematic for you, you really do need to read some literature and get used to English diction, tone, and style.

[Shyone]

In all fairness Shy, this may be true with any ideology or just people in general.

I agree. Moderate is moderate regardless of the context. Here, we're discussing religion, and Christian religion in particular. I like Shy's characterization of "moderate" in this context.

Yes.

 

I do tend more towards oddbird's previous comments about moderates though:

 

There have been comments that the moderates are the quiet ones who actually vote the conservative/fundamentalist agenda. But that sounds more like self-effacing fundamentalism than a moderate agenda.

 

I know we are speaking about religion here, but there is a tendancy in humans to say one thing and do/mean another.

 

Will the "real" moderates please stand up??

 

Ok, I concede all to you for this. That's the problem in a nutshell.

 

Sheesh, it's so obvious.

 

Well done.

[florduh]

The "moderates" are whomever we define as such. It only means they are not extreme. Likely some extremists consider themselves to be moderate.

[Shyone]

The "moderates" are whomever we define as such. It only means they are not extreme. Likely some extremists consider themselves to be moderate.

Which is ok, as long as they're moderately extreme.

 

Or extremely moderate.

[Greatest I am]

The "moderates" are whomever we define as such. It only means they are not extreme. Likely some extremists consider themselves to be moderate.

 

And if that moderate is a moderate suicide bomber then he can only be an extremist the one time. Unless he is incompetent that is.

 

Regards

DL

[NotBlinded]

The "moderates" are whomever we define as such. It only means they are not extreme. Likely some extremists consider themselves to be moderate.

Which is ok, as long as they're moderately extreme.

 

Or extremely moderate.

Or...a moderator for the extremes?

[Shyone]

The "moderates" are whomever we define as such. It only means they are not extreme. Likely some extremists consider themselves to be moderate.

 

And if that moderate is a moderate suicide bomber then he can only be an extremist the one time. Unless he is incompetent that is.

 

Regards

DL

I like this.