[Serious] Over the top

[GrandizerII]

Forgot to add that misanthropy isn't just about disliking human beings. It's an attitude that sees them in a contemptible light. Reread Romans, and you'll see just how lovely the remarks Paul makes about us human beings. The Good News does not change the fact that human nature is seen as shameful.

[Athene]

Well the crux of Christianity IS that all humans are BORN dirty and wrong, somehow. Unclean and deserving of eternal torment by virtue of simply being, irrespective of their acts.

That could definitely be interpreted as misanthropic don't you think? Lol

That's not a characterization that all Christians would agree with, but I see what you mean.

Well, it doesn't really matter if a 4 out of 5 hippy, cafeteria Christians don't agree. Mankind being inherently sinful, and thus requiring salvation in to avoid eternal torment for simply being born human IS a core tenet of Christianity. 

Athene wrote:

I mean, sure the story goes that God loved us so much that he was willing to have his Son murdered just so he tolerate looking at our our fugly, sinful mugs...But that still doesn't change the fact that the Yahweh character does indeed regard humans to be utter fucking garbage no matter what they actually do, until they ADMIT IT.

Again, you're describing YOUR view of Christian theology.

Again, I think that's an unpleasant, yet remarkably accurate description of the Christianity's core tenets.
Agree to disagree, I suppose.

But let's take your description here as true: it still leaves things a little ambiguous. It seems to be saying that while Christians inherently and essentially view people as bad, nonetheless they think it is inherently and essentially good to save them. Is that hating people (misanthropic) or loving people despite all their flaws? 

Um...I'm gonna go with Hates People, Yet is Pretty Fucking Psyched at the Thought of Receiving Praises and Glory for All of Eternity for $500, Alex.

(Misanthropy is defined as a dislike of people, not a judgment that they are bad and could be better. The first is a matter of taste, the second is pretty undeniable. If you like -- even love -- people while admitting they are bad and could be better, I don't think that qualifies as misanthropic. 

I understand the definition of misanthopy just fine, thank you. I have for years. Your reframing God's blanket disdain for mankind as a simple judgment that they "could be better" sounds like some pretty desperate phenagling when considering that the Yawweh character adamantly refuses to take acts or individual moral compasses into account. His only standard is for you to ADMIT that you, as his alleged creation, SUCK and to apologize for it...and give props to his kid.

If that sounds like love to you then I don't know what to tell you other than "Good luck" at life. Especially in the romance department.

I mean, think about your own taste -- you strike me as someone who would be bored by someone who is always good, and someone who likes people who are a mix of good and bad. But please correct me if I'm wrong about that.)

Wait....Are you suggesting that Biblical God possesses the attributes of a wild, immature, woman-child? That he likes a little Bad Boy in his flock just for the excitement? LMFAO

And for the record, you've got me pegged wrong.

[Belacqua]

@Belaqua:
The quote is about Christianity, and implicitly about how it started out. You could have a "clean" version of Christianity without the whole human nature is bad thing, but it would still be based on a Christianity that was about that thing.

Furthermore, there's context. The guy who said that quote was responding to a Catholic person who was going on about how sinful we are, how there's no such thing as a good Christian. And this is a Catholic saying this, not a Calvinist or a Protestant of some other type.

First you'd have to prove that this is actually how Christianity started out. I'm not sure it is. For example, the idea of an eternal hell became dogma some centuries after the Gospels were written. Some important church fathers didn't believe in an eternal hell. So your assumption that "Christianity was about that thing" may not be as certain as you think. 

In fact it may well be that what you consider to be "essential" to Christianity came in later, including some of the worst, most misanthropic parts. As I said, eternal hell was not dogma for a long time, and though Original Sin is rooted in something Paul wrote, it took a lot of time and interpretation to get to what we think of it today. And there have always been Christians who rejected these ideas, to some degree. 

Second, the context of the quote doesn't determine whether it's crazy or not, since the crazy part is included in the quote, not contingent on the thing it's answering. Again, the quote says this:

Exhibit one of the sickening misanthropy without which there can be no Christianity.

He asserts that there is no Christianity without sickening misanthropy. He's referring to an example, but no matter what the example is, he still asserts that misanthropy. 

We could make a similar statement like this: "Star Wars is exhibit one of the fact that Hollywood is totally incapable of making a good movie." You can change out "Star Wars" with any other example there, and the statement is equally over the top. (I'm assuming people think that there is nothing essentially bad about Hollywood, now and forever, which prevents good movies. 

So you could make excuses for the statement, by claiming that he's only talking about another time, or that he's only talking about some specific type, but that's not what he said. 

And if we can point to one Christian who was not misanthropic, we have disproved the claim.

---

isn't it amazing that you have succeeded in discerning the true teachings of Christianity, while the most influential thinkers in the history of your faith failed?

This is not what I have claimed.

---

Forgot to add that misanthropy isn't just about disliking human beings. 

That's what the word means. 

If you'd like to change the quote I'm sure you can make it better.

---

Well, it doesn't really matter if a 4 out of 5 hippy, cafeteria Christians don't agree. 

It does matter if 4 out of 5 people who say they are Christians aren't misanthropic. Because that would prove the falsity of the quote. Because the quote says that Christianity is impossible without misanthropy. 

If 4 out of 5 people who say they are Christians aren't misanthropic, it means that Christianity is possible without misanthropy. And that means the quote is false.

It is not for you or me to declare what True Christianity is, and then do the No True Scotsman thing when we are presented with 4 out of 5 Christians who don't match that. 

So we've got a lot of different ideas about what True Christianity is here among us atheists, but that doesn't change the fact that the quote is clearly over the top.

[Athene]

The quote was a scathing assessment of Christianity, @Belaqua ....not Christians.
I imagine there are quite a few folks here, myself included, who would agree that's is unfair and quite shitty to broadbrush and callously attack all Christians.

But you're taking it step too goddamned far if you expect that everyone here should start showing "respect" for the religion itself.

That's not going to happen.

[Belacqua]

The quote was a scathing assessment of Christianity, @Belaqua ....not Christians.

It was a false statement about what Christianity must be.

But you're taking it step too goddamned far if you expect that everyone here should start showing "respect" for the religion itself.

I have not said we should show respect for the religion. That's a separate issue. I have not said that people should be more like me -- as you asserted earlier. 

I have been very narrow and clear in my claims. 

I want people to say things that are true. I honestly think that we have a duty to speak accurately.

[Belacqua]

Reread Romans, and you'll see just how lovely the remarks Paul makes about us human beings. The Good News does not change the fact that human nature is seen as shameful.

Reread 1 Corinthians, and you'll see how he wants us to deal with the fact that people are so often bad. Hint: not through hating them. 

Then there was Jesus, who had a lot to say about loving one's neighbor, one's enemy, etc. Loving people is not hating people, by definition, and misanthropy is hating people. 

This means, I guess, that according to certain definitions of True Christianity recently seen in action, we can judge that Jesus wasn't Christian.

[brewer]

The quote was a scathing assessment of Christianity, @Belaqua ....not Christians.

It was a false statement about what Christianity must be.

But you're taking it step too goddamned far if you expect that everyone here should start showing "respect" for the religion itself.

I have not said we should show respect for the religion. That's a separate issue. I have not said that people should be more like me -- as you asserted earlier. 

I have been very narrow and clear in my claims. 

I want people to say things that are true. I honestly think that we have a duty to speak accurately.

"True" is often subjective and it sounds like you want people to only say things that YOU consider true. 

That is an unrealistic expectation and quite frankly sounds like a childish wish. Please take your ball and go home now.

[Mister Agenda]

You know how in the USA non-whites get tired of saying 'not all whites' when they make an observation about white people? And most white people don't take a criticism of white people as applying to them if it doesn't apply to them? But a similar observation from a generic American white person about an ethnic minority is considered a sign of bigotry? There's a reason for that. The white person is punching down, the ethnic minority is punching up.

There's a similar dynamic going on in America between atheists and Christians. We know not all Christians are alike in every respect. You know not all Christians are alike in every respect. But the Christians in America are represented by 90% of our legislatures and 100% (at least professedly while in office) of our presidents. We're punching up, and we're doing it in a space where the vast majority of us are atheists and 99% of us get than when we say 'Christians' we rarely mean 100% of them without exception.

But I'm sure there are guys on 'black twitter' admonishing people to be more accurate when talking about white people, they're not all alike, you know. Even the ones named Becky.

---

[quote='Grandizer' pid='1928277' dateline='1566452807']
Reread 1 Corinthians, and you'll see how he wants us to deal with the fact that people are so often bad. Hint: not through hating them.

Then there was Jesus, who had a lot to say about loving one's neighbor, one's enemy, etc. Loving people is not hating people, by definition, and misanthropy is hating people.

This means, I guess, that according to certain definitions of True Christianity recently seen in action, we can judge that Jesus wasn't Christian.

I think the judgment that follows from that is that few Christians are Christian. Jesus is supposed to have said that we would know his people by their love. A lot of the representatives of Christianity in America don't fit that description.

[GrandizerII]

Reread Romans, and you'll see just how lovely the remarks Paul makes about us human beings. The Good News does not change the fact that human nature is seen as shameful.

Reread 1 Corinthians, and you'll see how he wants us to deal with the fact that people are so often bad. Hint: not through hating them. 

Then there was Jesus, who had a lot to say about loving one's neighbor, one's enemy, etc. Loving people is not hating people, by definition, and misanthropy is hating people. 

This means, I guess, that according to certain definitions of True Christianity recently seen in action, we can judge that Jesus wasn't Christian.

Well, Jesus wasn't a Christian. He was a Jew.

And here's a more complete definition for misanthropy from Wikipedia:

Misanthropy is the general hatred, dislike, distrust or contempt of the human species or human nature

The stuff said in the Epistles would certainly meet this definition.

Passages on love don't erase the fact that the human nature is seen as contemptuous in the Epistles.

[LastPoet]

The quote was a scathing assessment of Christianity, @Belaqua ....not Christians.
I imagine there are quite a few folks here, myself included, who would agree that's is unfair and quite shitty to broadbrush and callously attack all Christians.

But you're taking it step too goddamned far if you expect that everyone here should start showing "respect" for the religion itself.

That's not going to happen.

Yes it's not going to happen. On a previous post you said you crossed swords with other atheists. I believe I have clangued sabres with you before. That's the big difference. We are not a tribe, as you said, the only thing that we have in common is disbelief in gods, it doesn't inform about anything really except for that fact.

Take an example of these days: OLB, I greatly disagree with his stance on guns and he is an atheist. It is quite known.

This fact blows the double standard proposed by Belaqua out of the water in a split second.

Altough, seeing Drich, Dmitry, etc, pissing and shitting over any moral construct the more moderate theists try to show, they stand in silence when they say the abominable shit they vomit. Like we say in Portugal, Belaqua is calling others whore, before we call him. Who holds double standards after all?