(Not that I’m a Christian myself, but I live in the US and I’m a pragmatist.)

Just as you are attempting to force your beliefs on society, in your own small way, by telling them that they are wrong.

” Believe whatever you want, but leave the rest of us alone.”

Quite.

“If a person is not homophobic, they believe in equal rights for all, they are not a misogynist, and they are pro-choice, yet continue to belong to the Catholic church, then they are not Catholic, they are simply a hypocrite.”

NO, they are NOT.  They are simply not practicing the same sort of catholicism as the official line of the catholic church — which does not have a copyright on belief, or christian belief, or even catholic belief.  You might as well say, with equal inaccuracy, that the catholic church is being hypocritical for not representing *their* views.

You can’t have it both ways — if you criticise (rightly, in my mind) the church for their odeous views on certain matters, but then criticise any lay member of that church for NOT having those views, then you lay your own self open to claims of hypocrasy.

Now, I personally, would not care to call my religion by the same name as an organised religion that had a take on such issues that opposed my own.  But I’m not everyone.  And neither are you.

By representing catholicism (and why just catholicism? Never mind) as if it were a political party or a club, where the chairman makes the decisions and  the rules, you are doing yourself and the perfectly valid cause of outing religious hatred and stupidity a major disservice. 

The truth of the matter is that belief — even a belief in the supremacy of rational thought — is of infinite variety; it comes one-to-a-customer.  There is a sort of atheist that reads the bible, koran, or whathaveyou and decides that he now knows what everyone who reads that book as a holy book believes.  You would do yourself a great service if you worked hard to avoid such a petty mistake.

I read up some more on the recent Methodist general conference (just a couple weeks ago), and sadly confirmed this. Next time I’m looking for a church, I’ll look elsewhere if nothing’s changed.

“Harrison said delegates left unchanged the church’s policy opposing gay marriage and practicing gay clergy, despite a strong lobbying effort by gay-rights advocates.”

The comments I’ve been replying to are the ones who take this as an excuse to by extension bash all Christians as agreeing with that hateful stance, since as of the time I posted, none had argued against that.

This does result in a lot of interpretation and (in Protestant sects especially) a lot of variation and veering from official doctrine. Protestantism specifically emphasizes a personal relationship, and reading the Bible and coming to your own conclusions. My personal conclusion is that the New Covenant supersedes the Old Covenant, and thus I can safely disregard much of Leviticus and similar passages. Others will not come to that conclusion. This doesn’t mean they’re any more or less Christian, as long as they are following Jesus’ teachings as a base.

If you want to call it out as irrational, contradictory, harmful even – fine. Those assertions you can easily back up, reason through, and make people think – even convert them (un-convert them?). Furthermore, if you really want Christians to listen to you and help marginalize the fuckwits in the article above (you know, to bring this back on topic), then you probably don’t want to piss off your potential allies.

The people you speak of are not a problem, unless they continue to support an organization that wishes to use their membership and donations to influence government.

For me the issue is that many people, of every dangerous religion, view themselves as moderates. They profess not to believe in the more extreme positions taken by the leadership of their respective organizations, but they remain in the organization. By remaining in the organization they are in effect supporting positions they do not believe in personally. At this point they are just as dangerous as the most fanatical leader of their organization.

If a person is not homophobic, they believe in equal rights for all, they are not a misogynist, and they are pro-choice, yet continue to belong to the Catholic church, then they are not Catholic, they are simply a hypocrite.

“Humor can be dissected, as a frog can, but the thing dies in the process and the innards are discouraging to any but the pure scientific mind.”
— E. B. White
In short, explaining the punchline of a joke just makes it not funny, whether or not it would be otherwise. Jokes can be hard to do, and sometimes not everyone will get it, but while explaining the context might help, the punchline should stand on its own.

But feel free to keep generalizing, and ignoring those who would otherwise be your allies.

Marja, you are obviously a far more knowledgeable and intelligent person than I. My knowledge of the early church is almost non-existent, but I don’t believe this is the issue. If you are correct and the earliest theologians’ opinions are at odds with modern Christianity, do you really believe there is any hope of returning to those positions?

For me the issue is what is the state of Christianity today. That anyone in this day and age still believes in the supernatural seems absurd. To be a member of what is no more than a group of cults seeking to influence modern opinions and control governments based on supernatural beliefs is dangerous. Because, even the most reasoned argument, based upon solid evidence, will never convince those who believe in the supernatural that they are wrong.

These people believe in an invisible, omnipotent entity. Worse than that, they believe to know the mind of this invisible entity. Worse than that, they believe this invisible omnipotent entity needs their help in carrying out those plans. And finally, worse than all that, anyone who disagrees is unworthy of this life until they repent and accept that all of this is true.

Jesus said only through me. This simple statement is enough to condemn the entire enterprise as absurd and provides its adherents with a dangerous arrogance.

Just how many people have been slain by “righteous warriors of god” (what a ridiculous concept anyway) because they held other beliefs. (And yes both sides of this coin are equally guilty of being barbarous idiots.)

How many cultures have been shoved in the hole by missionaries converting the locals to their western brand of mythological bullshit(and dragging along guns, disease, and white western hubris).

How many kids have been buggered and tortured by church authorities.

How many women’s lives have been hijacked by backward fucktards who think they know better what is good for them.

How many major and minor atrocities were either ignored or actively enabled by The Church? (The Holocaust is a good example of the Catholic church “turning the other cheek” instead of combating evil. Suppressing scientific progress by destroying and imprisoning scientist who dare offer a better explanation of how the universe works that doesn’t necessarily include god is another.)

That’s just the tip of the ice-burg too.

So you may be just a guy who happens to identify as Catholic. And you may be one of the nicest persons you know. However, when you hitch your wagon to a train of faith-based hegemonic thugs who have a proven track record for doing awful nasty things to people because they can then you are really no better than those you choose to associate with and support (I assume you still tithe). After all, it’s not like you were bullied into the church right?

Are you saying that some of the most respected theologians of early Christianity were not Christians?

“Lets look at the teachings of Jesus, if the Bible is not to your liking. Where did Jesus ever say slavery is wrong? How is it that this living word of god got slavery wrong. Of all the moral issues of any time, how did this great thinker fail in this respect?”

I think it’s implicit in Mark, where Jesus contrasts the hierarchies of the nations with the egalitarianism of the movement. I suspect that Jesus explicitly denounced slavery, but it’s been lost or distorted at some point. In the Pauline letters, the incompletely-preserved Gothic version explicitly denounces the slave trade; most other versions instead denounce gay men. It’s a real what-the moment to compare them.

How difficult is this to understand? Anyone may call themselves a christian if they feel that they identify with the label.  The pope can’t stop them, the local priest can’t.  Passing atheists might find this awkward, but that, I’m afraid, is their problem.   (And of course, this applies equally to all the other religions … although for some reason this particular sort of atheist is only interested in christianity.) 

It’s refreshing to remember that the majority of atheists are not like this, just as the majority of christians are not like The Illinois Family Institute, et al.

(I am, BTW, neither christian nor atheist.)

It seems to me that *who you are (sexually) attracted to* is not a choice.  And for most people that includes gender.   You do get some choice about who you actually sleep with, though. 

Of course, so long as you are sexually attracted to consenting adults, I certainly fail to see why there should be any dissonance.  But I wonder whether one or more sides of this debate are having problems because of conflating those two.

The Gospels are (to whatever level of accuracy) primarily histories, whereas the rest of the anthology is primarily a How-To section.

They don’t read like histories.  There’s no reference to sources of information, no hints as to the identity of the narrator…some scenes could not have been witnessed by anyone who might later narrate the story…the gospels actually have all the textual hallmarks of fiction. 

I don’t get any extra points for bullying people into the Church

Actually, I’m pretty sure Catholic doctrine says you do.

You’d go a lot farther in convincing other Christians to marginalize and ignore these asshats if you weren’t busy painting everyone with the same brush.

Better yet, “other Christians” should go ahead and marginalize and ignore these asshats, and then I wouldn’t have a reason to paint them all with the same brush.  I’d have a reason not to.

Oh, but I suppose that’s terribly unfair of me, asking Christians to stand up for moral behavior before I give them credit for doing so.

So yeah, I know exactly what it means. 

Though, I see no reason to follow Jesus. He was not all that great a man if he did not repudiate the biblical god of the Hebrews. Jesus did not say, all that stuff is wrong. Jesus did not say free your slaves. Jesus did not say anything new at all, other than I’m the only way to the father.

Why not follow Gore Vidal? He is infinitely wiser. The words he wrote are in fact words he wrote. There will never be any question as to what he meant.

The only reason people follow Jesus is out of fear and in the belief of some divinity. These common miracles, were a dime a dozen. Resurrections were also quite common, in fact Jesus met some in his travels.

To follow Jesus is to know Jesus will return and the only way to escape the wrath of the father and son is through Jesus.

I think I prefer Gore Vidal.

If the word “Christian” does not mean “follower of Christ”, then what use is that word? Let’s judge them by the words of the person they claim to be following, rather than by whatever perversion political power mongers have corrupted it into.