(March 2, 2014 at 9:52 am)discipulus Wrote: I never have stated that these perpetrators were not really Christians. So that is really a strawman.

What I said was that these actions of a few people (few in relation to the total number of Christians existing in the world today) are not to be consider as either representative of or exemplifications of them that adhere to the central tenets of Christianity.

That's a very fine line, though. You didn't say they weren't true Christians, you're just saying they didn't do truly Christian things. Which means that the rest of my comment still applies. It seems that Christian teachings don't really amount to much if they are incapable of keeping so many from committing such terrible acts and so many others from doing nothing to stop it, to the extent of helping the perpetrators continue to commit those crimes.

And while you can attribute certain actions to people who were/are atheists, you may find it much more difficult to attribute them to atheism. At best, you might claim that this is what happens when you forsake god, which brings us back to the horrible things done by people who claim to represent god's organizations on Earth. If both theist and atheist commit the same horrible crimes, then nothing differentiates them.

(March 3, 2014 at 11:44 am)Tonus Wrote: That's a very fine line, though.

However fine the line may be in your opinion, you nontheless rightly conclude that it is a line. And I maintain it is one that cannot be justifiably crossed.

(March 3, 2014 at 11:44 am)Tonus Wrote: You didn't say they weren't true Christians, you're just saying they didn't do truly Christian things.

Exactly. Since no where in the new testament will you find it written that adults should molest children and then conceal the matter, nor is this anywhere in the new testament even implied, it is not controversial to say that if adults molest children and then conceal the matter that they are not acting in accordance with what Jesus or His disciples taught. They simply are acting contrary to what the new testament teaches. Anyone who has read the new testament will understand what I am saying.

If Christ taught that we should molest children and conceal the matter then those who do such things would be acting in accordance with that teaching and then you would be justified in saying that Christians (followers of Christ) act in accordance with what Christ taught when they do such things.

So if I hear accounts of priests molesting children I say to myself, my goodness, these priests have done very bad things that are CONTRARY to Christ's teachings. They are not doing things followers of Christ should do.

This should not be controversial or hard for you to understand.

(March 3, 2014 at 11:44 am)Tonus Wrote: Which means that the rest of my comment still applies. It seems that Christian teachings don't really amount to much if they are incapable of keeping so many from committing such terrible acts and so many others from doing nothing to stop it, to the extent of helping the perpetrators continue to commit those crimes.

In the new testament you must remember that Christ said that His followers would receive power once The Holy Spirit came. The Power of God and the teaching of God cannot be seen as independent of one another but rather contingent. If a priest reads that he is to love his neighbor as himself the teaching in and of itself has no power. It is a doctrine or a moral prescription about how one should live. The teaching is a moral prescription not a volitional agent. The priest is the one responsible for denying himself and living a life of self denial and love for he is the moral agent to which the teaching applies. If the priest acts contrary to the teaching we say HE failed, not that the teaching failed. He is the moral agent who chooses to molest.

(March 3, 2014 at 11:44 am)Tonus Wrote: If both theist and atheist commit the same horrible crimes, then nothing differentiates them.

I have stated no where here that a theist who molests and an atheist that molests are different. I would happily agree that when committing the act they both do so out of an evil lustful desire in their heart.

So, since we hear lots of folks tout how the US was founded on Christian principles, is that why slavery and the oppression of women lasted so long?

Christian principles. Yep.

Let's not forget those "contributions."

(March 3, 2014 at 1:29 pm)discipulus Wrote: However fine the line may be in your opinion, you nontheless rightly conclude that it is a line. And I maintain it is one that cannot be justifiably crossed.

In what way do you mean?

Because I think it comes down to whether or not a person can be called a Christian if he is committing such acts, or condoning them in some way. If you are saying that a person cannot be a Christian and still commit such acts, then it's the No True Scotsman fallacy. If you are saying otherwise, then we must determine where you are drawing the line. Or you may simply leave the question hanging.

Quote:I have stated no where here that a theist who molests and an atheist that molests are different. I would happily agree that when committing the act they both do so out of an evil lustful desire in their heart.

Is that theist a True Theist?

(March 3, 2014 at 2:03 pm)Deidre32 Wrote: So, since we hear lots of folks tout how the US was founded on Christian principles, is that why slavery and the oppression of women lasted so long?

Christian principles. Yep.

Let's not forget those "contributions."

Yes, I've heard that the bible was used to defend slavery, and we probably wouldn't have the 50's traditional housewife without religion. I can't think of another reason why anyone would think the man needed to be the head of the household, or why there needed to be a head of the household at all, instead of an equal partnership. Of course people like to promote biblical family values when defending lifelong monogamous relationships as the only way, despite the fact that monogamous marriages weren't biblical. Not to mention that nowadays a woman does not need a man to get by in life. Or at least shouldn't need one.

(March 3, 2014 at 2:03 pm)Deidre32 Wrote: So, since we hear lots of folks tout how the US was founded on Christian principles, is that why slavery and the oppression of women lasted so long?

Christian principles. Yep.

Let's not forget those "contributions."

Again, it is a simple fact and not in dispute that some men have used the new testament to give credence to their particular practices and views which were called into question by their peers.

I do not deny this. In fact I positively affirm that this has happened. It still happens today.

For example, some slave masters in the ante bellum period used the new testament as sort of a "God has said it that means I can do it and nothing you say will move me" justification for participating in the slave trade.

The question remains: was their use of scripture in regards to the slave trade a justifiable application of said scriptures? Clearly not. The letter of Paul to Philemon is a letter written specifically for the purpose of telling us how Christians are to treat one another within the historical context of societies that engaged in indentured servitude and slavery.

You err in equating the transatlantic slave trade of the antebellum period with the indentured servitude and slavery of New Testament times. The two are to say the least, dissimilar.

(March 3, 2014 at 2:25 pm)discipulus Wrote:

(March 3, 2014 at 2:03 pm)Deidre32 Wrote: So, since we hear lots of folks tout how the US was founded on Christian principles, is that why slavery and the oppression of women lasted so long?

Christian principles. Yep.

Let's not forget those "contributions."

Again, it is a simple fact and not in dispute that some men have used the new testament to give credence to their particular practices and views which were called into question by their peers.

I do not deny this. In fact I positively affirm that this has happened. It still happens today.

For example, some slave masters in the ante bellum period used the new testament as sort of a "God has said it that means I can do it and nothing you say will move me" justification for participating in the slave trade.

The question remains: was their use of scripture in regards to the slave trade a justifiable application of said scriptures? Clearly not. The letter of Paul to Philemon is a letter written specifically for the purpose of telling us how Christians are to treat one another within the historical context of societies that engaged in indentured servitude and slavery.

You err in equating the transatlantic slave trade of the antebellum period with the indentured servitude and slavery of New Testament times. The two are to say the least, dissimilar.

That's a lot of "misinterpreting" of "scripture," wouldn't you say? Considering that the majority of US Presidents have been Christian. Some of them owning slaves, themselves. Hmmmm....

And then there's the question of homosexuals not being permitted to marry, legally. Was the law that put into place that only one man and one woman be legally allowed to marry, ANOTHER "misinterpretation?"

And women weren't legally given the right to vote until roughly 100 years ago.
Another "misinterpretation?"

Or could it be that the Bible has been a useful tool for heterosexual white men who have been running the US, to excuse away their own immorality, bigotry and hatred?

Given how confusing the bible is, and that whatever deity you guys are worshiping doesn't seem to put much effort into making things clear, it seems the bible is a very poor source of wisdom, morality, or really anything else. It's not helpful in getting across what it wants to get across. It doesn't even help people find evidence for Yahweh/Jesus, since we're 2-3000 years after people started writing it and we're still debating over and over if he's real or not. Not everyone believes Yahweh is real, and those that do are split amongst tens of thousands of different denominations. Some differences being minor, and some major.

And "Paul" should he be real or fictional, is the epitome of misogyny. Not a great example for people to follow unless of course you are a heterosexual male interested in keeping women oppressed. Which many Christian men still do to this day, using the Bible to undermine the feminist movement.