tunnelcat wrote:CUDA, I don't really hate Christians. I do have some very nice Christian friends that I LIKE! I think that Jesus was one of the most important and influential human beings to have ever been born. I think he was one of the wisest men to have ever lived and I do believe in a lot of what he taught.
What I don't like is hypocrisy. Christians revere life, but will not hesitate to call for the death of a criminal, or someone they think is a criminal. They're for helping the poor, but only when it's their choice and then NOT when it becomes something a government runs and delivers to reach a wider group. They're now sanctifying obtaining wealth and riches, when Jesus championed the poor and was poor himself. They will fight wars with the righteous fervor that they are right, but cry terrorist murderer when those evil Muslims kill in the name of Mohammed because they think they are right. Our own Air Force Academy is a bastion of Christian Warriors that shun or push out anyone else who is not of the faith. Twisted, for a religion that draws it's beliefs from a man of peace.
This may be a HUGE generalization on my part, but a lot of it fits to those who are outside the religion. Try looking from the outside in sometime for a different perspective.
TC, I think Cuda's right there with you with his disdain for hypocrisy. I know that I am. Here's where I have a problem with your conclusion - I think that it's a human problem, not a "religion" problem. I think that people of all creeds are just as capable of hypocrisy and hate as anyone else. This gets my second angle on the matter: I think that "religion" is also a human condition. Everyone makes choices based on some construct of beliefs - in the broad sense, that's how I define religion.
So.... that's where I see the hypocrisy in your position. You are fine with being willing to separate yourself from the wackos that claim very similar beliefs to yours, but draw the conclusion that they should go kill people because of it; but you don't allow the church to do the same. (Picking on Roid's response to me earlier) You define a belief system within which you're expected to conveniently cherry-pick as you like, but you feel the right to criticize others flavor of cherry picking - while at the same time condemning others who are criticizing.
It comes back to logic and consistency to me. If you are willing to give up logic and consistency, then you can do as you like, think as you like, and post accordingly; but don't expect to be taken seriously by those to do like the idea of logic and consistency. If you want to hearken to logic and consistency, then the same should apply to yourself. If you're going to believe in tolerance and be logically consistent, then you paint yourself into a corner where you personally have to be tolerant of everything,
including others intolerance.
Maybe I'm missing something... if you don't agree tell me upon what basis we can debate if logic and consistency are off-bounds. To put it in another way... how can we have debate when your stance can take upon whatever inconsistencies and changes prove to be convenient while mine can't?
