Finding tolerence in Christendom.. or nonsectarian educational institutions

[spartan]

JBear, you will find there are a number of RABID anti-Christians on this board. They say it's anti religion etc but most of the threads are anti-Christian. Easy target I guess and they can't be accused of being racist.

Considering there is no race that is also a religion, not sure where that's coming from ... and the intolerant Christians are the easiest target here because they are the ones most involved on this board. I'm pretty sure any nutcases from other religions get on here and they'd be just as targeted.

1. I could not agree more about the racist comment, but try criticizing anything other than Christianity and the accusations will soon fly. Not saying it is right, just that it is so.

2. So, all Christians are nutjobs? NYB said more or less exactly the same thing which pretty much makes my point for me.

[Col. Klink]

JBear, you will find there are a number of RABID anti-Christians on this board. They say it's anti religion etc but most of the threads are anti-Christian. Easy target I guess and they can't be accused of being racist.

Considering there is no race that is also a religion, not sure where that's coming from ... and the intolerant Christians are the easiest target here because they are the ones most involved on this board. I'm pretty sure any nutcases from other religions get on here and they'd be just as targeted.

1. I could not agree more about the racist comment, but try criticizing anything other than Christianity and the accusations will soon fly. Not saying it is right, just that it is so.

2. So, all Christians are nutjobs? NYB said more or less exactly the same thing which pretty much makes my point for me.

I didn't say that ..... in fact, my first post on this thread said just the opposite.

[nybuccguy]

In the end you can bake your imaginary invisible sky fairy up anyway you want...it's a myth.

I see those beedy little dalbuc eyes lurking once again.    Don't get me wrong here, I'm very much a skeptic even though I attend services there.  The main thing that got my attention was something I could think might be possible which happens to be one of the main thrusts of their message... Positive thought can have a physical and positive effect on your life or more simply thoughts can manifest themselves physically. It has to do with the law of attraction or (like attracts like) which is not a new idea by any stretch.  Perhaps you've heard of "the secret".  A book or movie that was fairly popular recently.  I don't believe all that.  Only that I've been convinced that there is something to the power of the mind.  I have only anecdotal evidence I've seen in my life that convinced me that there could be something to the power of thought.   Take the elderly couple who die within months of one another, the hospital patient who has no reason to die but a lack of will to live... and they die.  I don't know if I believe, but I think its possible that negative thoughts can make people sick or at least more sick than they would be if their mind was in a different, more positive place.  Clearly, being positive won't make you better if you are sick,  I'd never go that far but there was enough in what they said that I could at least beleive is possible to get my full attention. 

I can certainly see the point of those who say any form of god worship is nothing more than a magic act or parlor trick just as faith is not quantifiable.

 Im familiar with the law of attraction, and I actually do put some stock into it myself. What Im curious about is why you cant practice this concept without this church you discussed?  My personal opinion is that it is a placibo effect like others have suggested, yet believing that has not diminished its effectiveness in my life. For example, If I believe I will succeed at a task I am far more likelly to be resilient and fight through adversity, whereas the perimistic me would be more likelly to quit or lower expectations. In a similar fashion, having a high esteem will make me more attractive to females, employers, etc.

I have considered such a thing to be a form of energy that may be able to translate from person to person in some manner, but I have no evidence of this and cant put much conviction into such a concept.

While this church you speak of sounds very progressive to the point of barelly being Christian, I am still skeptical of its ties to organized religion. If it discusses things that are not based in reality it can still be cancerous to the overall public discourse on the topic. As I stated in my other post, all religions that practice irrational practices need to be condemned as a whole or else none can ever be adressed individually.  The extremist nature of Islam is spreading fast and it is impossible to condemn the opression of women and jihad if we are still opressing gays and pretending to eat Jesus every Sunday.  While a lot of religious moderates are good people, tolerance of their irrational beliefs opens up the can of worms for extremists. That is what Spartan means when he says that Christians are being "targeted". Most Christians are offended by the concept of thinking independently rather than repeating the dogma they are programmed with, and they act as if they arent offensive by condemning anyone who doesnt agree with them to eternal damnation . They take offense when you point out the fact that Jesus is basically a grown up version of Santa Claus and is no more credible than Amen Ra, Zeus, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

[jbear]

     I have no intention of hijacking your post, and this church you speak of sounds interesting. I would just like to comment on your question of whose intolerance is a bigger problem. I am an Atheist of the most voacl sort, but intolerance does not describe atheists in my mind.  Denying something that is irrational and unethical cannot be labeled by a word with such a negative connotation. Promoting the empirical method and the examination of the tangible world around us is the responsible thing to do as a human being, and dispelling primitive dogma and the circular logic of religion is no more intolerant than speaking out against other negative aspects of the human condition. There are many aspects of Christian dogma that have a negative effect in this world, and justify what you have labelled "intolerance" on the part of atheists. Just to name a few....

1. Christian missionaries and preachers deny access, and promote against the use of condoms which contributes to the spread of AIDS in Africa and higher teen pregnancy rates worldwide.
2..Christian beliefs are the main foundation for the denial of civil liberties for homosexuals, and hence, are un-American. It is not okay to opress someone and claim its okay because thats what god wants.
3. Tolerance of Christianity and other more "tame" religions makes it impossible to address the the more openly insane religions, namely Islam. No Christian has the right to condemn the insane beliefs of Muslims when their own belief system is equally irrational.
4. Christian denials of legitimate science slow down and interfere with human progress. The denial of evolution is one of many examples.

In summary, Christian intolerance is clearly more reprehensable because its dogma trumps ethics, rationality, and independent thought. Atheist intolerance is nothing more than the condemnation of such a flawed, destructive thought process.   

It is my experience  that atheists are the most intolerant of them all because they accept no argument other than their own, and consider anything else beneath contempt.

I was going to write more but to be honest it would serve no useful purpose.

I can see where you're coming from but my experience is that atheists and christians feel this way about each other because atheists reject the argument of faith.  Any discussion of the subject eventually comes down to faith because a christian cannot explain away every argument against their beleifs without admiting that at some point it comes down to faith.  Certainly a christian is going to become frusterated with the atheists unwillingness to accept something that while unquantifiable is a fact to a christian. 

You beleive what you beleive.  If you feel you have good reasons for beleiving what you do then more power to you.  Just don't expect an atheist to beleive what you can't prove. 

[nybuccguy]

JBear, you will find there are a number of RABID anti-Christians on this board. They say it's anti religion etc but most of the threads are anti-Christian. Easy target I guess and they can't be accused of being racist.

Considering there is no race that is also a religion, not sure where that's coming from ... and the intolerant Christians are the easiest target here because they are the ones most involved on this board. I'm pretty sure any nutcases from other religions get on here and they'd be just as targeted.

1. I could not agree more about the racist comment, but try criticizing anything other than Christianity and the accusations will soon fly. Not saying it is right, just that it is so.

2. So, all Christians are nutjobs? NYB said more or less exactly the same thing which pretty much makes my point for me.

  It depends how you define nutjob. Are all Christians crazy, clearly not. But they do use crazy fables as the foundation of their  belief system. For example.... virgins having babies, people rising from the dead, noah fitting billions of animals on a single boat, the earth is only 6000 years old,etc . Simply put, It is intelectual dishonesty. Either people are too lazy or unintelligent to establish their own beliefs, or they are too scared of death to avoid the lure of heaven.

  Your opinion that atheists dont change their beliefs is the exact opposite of the truth.  If science proves something I believe it. If it proves something is impossible (the dead coming back to life)  I dont believe it. if science is inconclusive I do something Christians dont, I admit I dont know!!! 

[Chief Joseph]

What Im curious about is why you cant practice this concept without this church you discussed?  My personal opinion is that it is a placibo effect like others have suggested, yet believing that has not diminished its effectiveness in my life. For example, If I believe I will succeed at a task I am far more likelly to be resilient and fight through adversity, whereas the perimistic me would be more likelly to quit or lower expectations. In a similar fashion, having a high esteem will make me more attractive to females, employers, etc.

I think that for some people the addition of an outside cause is necessary to achieve that placebo effect. And that outside cause doesn't have to be real, you just have to believe that it is. That is what a placebo is all about, after all. It also brings an abdication of personal responsibility and alleviates the anxiety it causes. There are both positives and negatives to this aspect. This phenomena is visible even in Eastern religions that don't believe in a specific deity.

[The White Tiger]

I always think it's funny when people assert that only Christians have issues with tolerance.

Christ himself said "I am the way the truth and the life, no man comes to the Father, but by me..." and later "...there is but one name under heaven given, that man might be saved...".

If you then attend a church that SAYS it is different in that it is "open to all beliefs" then that group is not being intellectually honest. Because if the founder of a belief says his is the only one name, and one way to redemption - you have a problem with Jesus Christ.

To my knowledge - every major religion has behavoiral standards that could be considered exclusionary and intolerant - including secular humanism.

You don't adjust a religion to fit your desires - sure the morality derived from our religious beliefs provide a basis for self-discipline/self-control - but a belief is more than that. A belief reconciles your relationship with the supreme being - and that realignment adjusts our desires.

For the anti-religion religious bigots - you prove my point with every post. nybucguy - I find you completely intolerant of the Christian thought process. How's that hypocrisy treatin' ya?

[jbear]

Im familiar with the law of attraction, and I actually do put some stock into it myself. What Im curious about is why you cant practice this concept without this church you discussed?  My personal opinion is that it is a placibo effect like others have suggested, yet believing that has not diminished its effectiveness in my life. For example, If I believe I will succeed at a task I am far more likelly to be resilient and fight through adversity, whereas the perimistic me would be more likelly to quit or lower expectations. In a similar fashion, having a high esteem will make me more attractive to females, employers, etc.

I have considered such a thing to be a form of energy that may be able to translate from person to person in some manner, but I have no evidence of this and cant put much conviction into such a concept.

Certainly you don't need this church to put into practice aspects of the law of attraction.  As I said in my disertation, (as Klink put it) I felt I needed to go to a church for my wife.  I did know some of the teachings before I went back but was actually surprised at how many of them had stuck with me (positive thinking and getting rid of negativity for starters) considering that as a teen I considered the church kindof a hippy church.  I didn't take it seriously back then.  I think now that perhaps my father did succeed back then in convincing me that aspects of the law of attraction are real and can manifest in physical form if you practice them regularly.  I can only say for sure that they do manifest themselves physically for me but not necisarrily in a magical way.  I wouldn't want to lead anyone to think I believe in magic.

While this church you speak of sounds very progressive to the point of barelly being Christian, I am still skeptical of its ties to organized religion. If it discusses things that are not based in reality it can still be cancerous to the overall public discourse on the topic. As I stated in my other post, all religions that practice irrational practices need to be condemned as a whole or else none can ever be adressed individually.  The extremist nature of Islam is spreading fast and it is impossible to condemn the opression of women and jihad if we are still opressing gays and pretending to eat Jesus every Sunday.  While a lot of religious moderates are good people, tolerance of their irrational beliefs opens up the can of worms for extremists. That is what Spartan means when he says that Christians are being "targeted". Most Christians are offended by the concept of thinking independently rather than repeating the dogma they are programmed with, and they act as if they arent offensive by condemning anyone who doesnt agree with them to eternal damnation . They take offense when you point out the fact that Jesus is basically a grown up version of Santa Claus and is no more credible than Amen Ra, Zeus, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

It's definatly progressive and barely christian.  The only reason I call them christians is because they call themselves christians.  Convinient for me since I was looking for a christian church.

Its ties to organized religion are basically that the founders were christian and at a time when it would have been unthinkable to diverge so far from christian thought as to exclude the bible and Jesus Christ.  Certainly they would have had less followers and even today I beleive many converts come from other christian churches so the focus on the bible and jesus christ seems necesary.  They certainly don't seem to focus much on it.  There are no bibles I've ever seen unless someone brings their own although they do quote scripture but only the positive ones. 

As for irrational beleifs, the areas that come to mind for me, like exclusion of medical care because of faith healing do not happen to my knowledge.  They recognise that faith healing is not to take the place of real medical care.  It seems to me that they are rational about what they would expect from something like prayer.  On the wikipedia link I read earlier that prayer is not intended to change god or get something physical from him but to change you in a positive way.  This I've seen with my own eyes although I can't vouch for every person.  I've met seveal nurses who attend there and they don't seem crazy.  I've not seen anything irational yet.

[nybuccguy]

I always think it's funny when people assert that only Christians have issues with tolerance.

Christ himself said "I am the way the truth and the life, no man comes to the Father, but by me..." and later "...there is but one name under heaven given, that man might be saved...".

If you then attend a church that SAYS it is different in that it is "open to all beliefs" then that group is not being intellectually honest. Because if the founder of a belief says his is the only one name, and one way to redemption - you have a problem with Jesus Christ.

To my knowledge - every major religion has behavoiral standards that could be considered exclusionary and intolerant - including secular humanism.

You don't adjust a religion to fit your desires - sure the morality derived from our religious beliefs provide a basis for self-discipline/self-control - but a belief is more than that. A belief reconciles your relationship with the supreme being - and that realignment adjusts our desires.

For the anti-religion religious bigots - you prove my point with every post. nybucguy - I find you completely intolerant of the Christian thought process. How's that hypocrisy treatin' ya?

    You believe in insane stories and then try to project these irrational beliefs on others, and you need to be called out for it.  Id do the same to someone who claimed pink unicorns fly out of his butt or that god says its okay to poop in the shower on thursdays.  Labeling crazy as crazy does not equate to bigotry.    It is a question of reality vs. fantasy.  Denying reality and portraying yourself as a victim doesnt make your insanity any more tangible, and you certainly arent exmpt from criticism.

[nybuccguy]

  Well jbear, Im glad you found something that pleases your wife and suits you as well. It is not my thing but I am intrigued by your description. You seem like an open-minded guy who could hopefully contribute just as much to that group as they provide for you. If your still around in a few months, I might hit you up for an update on your experience.

[Chief Joseph]

You don't adjust a religion to fit your desires

You killed anyone for working on Sunday recently? Or have you made a few adjustments of your own?

[jbear]

What Im curious about is why you cant practice this concept without this church you discussed?  My personal opinion is that it is a placibo effect like others have suggested, yet believing that has not diminished its effectiveness in my life. For example, If I believe I will succeed at a task I am far more likelly to be resilient and fight through adversity, whereas the perimistic me would be more likelly to quit or lower expectations. In a similar fashion, having a high esteem will make me more attractive to females, employers, etc.

I think that for some people the addition of an outside cause is necessary to achieve that placebo effect. And that outside cause doesn't have to be real, you just have to believe that it is. That is what a placebo is all about, after all. It also brings an abdication of personal responsibility and alleviates the anxiety it causes. There are both positives and negatives to this aspect. This phenomena is visible even in Eastern religions that don't believe in a specific deity.

I think the placebo effect is a bit too simple of an explanation it this case.  There are even new theories in physics (string theory) that in some ways seem to support the law of attraction.  Admittedly I got this information from my father who is a fully indoctrinated member of the cult.  However, while I'm not a physisist, I did watch an interesting television show about string theory on discovery recently that in some ways did seem to confirm some of what my father said. 

[jbear]

I always think it's funny when people assert that only Christians have issues with tolerance.

Christ himself said "I am the way the truth and the life, no man comes to the Father, but by me..." and later "...there is but one name under heaven given, that man might be saved...".

If you then attend a church that SAYS it is different in that it is "open to all beliefs" then that group is not being intellectually honest. Because if the founder of a belief says his is the only one name, and one way to redemption - you have a problem with Jesus Christ.

They don't beleive in redemption as you do White Tiger.  My understanding is that they don't beleive in heaven and hell in the bilical sense.  "Salvation in the Unity view, is found in conscious understanding of one's innate divinity and then putting this knowledge into practice in everyday life.[27]" From the wikipeida article which is much the same as what I've heard there.  My understanding is that Unity does not beleive it is the only path to god or as it seems to me to be their real message...  enlightenment.

[jbear]

  Well jbear, Im glad you found something that pleases your wife and suits you as well. It is not my thing but I am intrigued by your description. You seem like an open-minded guy who could hopefully contribute just as much to that group as they provide for you. If your still around in a few months, I might hit you up for an update on your experience.

Yes thanks.  Peace be with you.   

Sorry that was the tolerent catholic in me. 

And why the hell does my spell check keep insisting I capitalize "christians" and "catholics" but not atheists? 

[Chief Joseph]

There are even new theories in physics (string theory) that in some ways seem to support the law of attraction. 

I'm afraid you've been misled. I'm guessing that the line of reasoning supporting this fallacy may fall along the lines of the 'What the Bleep Do We Know!? silliness. You may want to do some reading on it, or more importantly, on some logical critiques of it. Although it's usually best to just smile and nod other than engage in intellectual discourse with believers.