Texas parents don't like nude sculpture
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/4214639.html
This caught my eye especially because of that trip to the Metropolitan Museum I took with my daughter (that was when the picture of me with the sphinx over in the dwellar photo thread was taken). The point of going was to see a special ancient Egypt exhibit that was only there through the end of June. However, once we were there, we went around some of the rest of the museum. And we saw several examples of Greek statues of nude males. It was very amusing because of my daughter's reaction. Revulsion would not, I believe, be too strong a word. I do not, however, believe any psychological trauma was induced. (By the statues, I mean. The cab ride back to Penn Station? That could be another story.)
I, for one, am very disappointed that pictures of the offending statues were not posted, with suitable warnings, so that the readers could make their own decision as to whether this is, or is not porn.
Show of hands ... who immediately thought of the Simpson's episode where Marge gets her panties in a bunch over Michelangelo's David?
I've never understood why all the greek scultpures, even the ones that are supposedly 'ideal' representations, all have, like, micropenii.
For the artist's self-esteem.
For the audiences' self-esteem?
Lots of 'em broken off. Just be glad that doesn't happen to real flesh.
Wait a minute....big headline;
Teacher reprimanded after student sees nude art on museum trip
Following that 10 paragraphs saying she was being canned(not renewed) after 28 years of teaching because of this trip.
Then it says;
District officials have said the museum field trip didn't spark reprimands of the teacher. They have repeatedly pointed to other performance issues.
The district rejected McGee's request in August to transfer to another Frisco school. They said they didn't want to give her a chance to move elsewhere without addressing other issues, including lesson-plan preparation.
Well, which is it?
Is the teacher trying to build a case for the trip being the cause of her trouble, in advance of the written report?
Is this just media sensationalism, Texas style?
Or is the school board covering their butt after being stupid?
:confused:
Of course it's impossible to tell from the outside. But apparently she's taught there for 28 years and they never failed to renew her contract before. That doesn't make the incompetence issue impossible, but it sure makes it look odd. Also, she has been put on administrative leave with pay for the remainder of the school year. Those must be some hellaciously bad lesson plans.
Nobody denies, however, that at least one parent did complain, and that the principal did get on her case about it. They're just denying that that's why she was put on leave and her contract not renewed.
Man, I hate hearing about shit like this happening in Texas. We're not all this way!
I saw something this morning that made me think of this thread, now for the life of me I can't find it. It was an article about a teacher in China who stripped for her students. I think she got fired or suspended, too.
I think I would prefer the nekkid sculptures
Edit to add:
Found it!!
cnnActually, it's pretty hard for a school to do alot to a teacher who's slacking off unless a big incident happens they can nail them for. That's probably the case here, the school might have been looking for an excuse to can her that wouldn't get them sued by the teachers union (bastards), this just happened to be their opportunity whether it was related to the original problem or not. We had a few teachers in my highschool that the board probably wanted to give the boot to but couldn't.
If a nuke body is a problem, then you have no business being into art. Nudity was normal for man. Who are these people so harmed by nude art? Therefore when they see blood, these same people also die of fright? Nonsense. Nudity is normal for art - especially ancient art. Nudity was considered beauty before irrational fears were imposed by religious extremism. Its art - no different with or without clothes.
If nudity is so harmful, then stop studying art.
Hair, hair, hair hair, hair, hair hair
Flow it, show it
Long as God can grow it My hair
Let it fly in the breeze
And get caught in the trees
Give a home to the fleas in my hair
A home for fleas
A hive for bees
A nest for birds
There ain't no words
For the beauty, the splendor, the wonder
Of my...
Hair, hair, hair, hair, hair, hair, hair
Back then, even long hair was somehow evil, corrupt, godless ...
Its only nudity - a completely normal event that harms no one.
I have a fear of people who equate nudity with sex.
I think of them as perverts.
Whatever religion attempts to repress only festers beneath the surface, becoming something worse.
...
the teachers union (bastards),
...
Now, why would you say that?
I actually, though a 100% union supporter, have some sympathy for that position. As I was growing up, the degree of union alignment seemed directly proportional to the degree of crappiness of a teacher. An obvious reason for this is that a teachers' union is designed to benefit teachers, not students, and therefore they make it difficult to fire teachers. As a result, bad teachers may find that vocal union support is easier than improving their teaching.
But the fact is that teachers get royally shafted on a consistent basis. They need union representation and, what's more, they need union representation that is made up of royal bastards if they're not going to be run roughshod over in every negotiation. And even with this situation, it's a myth that bad teachers can't be fired. They can be. There's a process defined in every union negotiation. What really stops bad teachers from being fired isn't the union process, it's the fact that the principal has no reason to believe that the next person will be any better, so they stick with the devil they know.
Man, I hate hearing about shit like this happening in Texas. We're not all this way!
Whatever religion attempts to repress only festers beneath the surface, becoming something worse.
I hate hearing ppl blaming religion for radical behavior. It is not always the religion in of itself that represses certain human behaviors. It is the humans who interpret that religion that do the repression. The Christian Bible for example says one should treat their body as a temple; meaning you should respect yourself. But that doesn't mean it is saying that showing the human body is bad. ADAM AND EVE WERE NAKED!!! It was after they ate the apple and sinned that they were
ashamed of being naked. GOD gave humans sex for pleasure and procreation, otherwise sex wouldn't be pleasurable, although the Bible does restrict sex, labling many things sexually immoral (I.E. incest).
Unfortunatly many "Christians" interpret this differently. I love my sister for being a smart, logical and insightful Christian and teaching me to think the same way about things...but not necessarily thinking the same things as her.
I hate hearing ppl blaming religion for radical behavior. It is not always the religion in of itself that represses certain human behaviors. It is the humans who interpret that religion that do the repression.
That's what religion is. People's interpretations. That's why there are Catholics and Protestants.
Whatever religion attempts to repress only festers beneath the surface, becoming something worse.
Yeah...politics.
GOD gave humans sex for pleasure and procreation, otherwise sex wouldn't be pleasurable, although the Bible does restrict sex, labling many things sexually immoral (I.E. incest).
How come I've been hearing my whole life that sex is "Original Sin", then? And that it is only okay within the bonds of "Holy Matrimony"?
Did I miss a new interpretation somewhere?
I've subbed during a strike with a COMPLETELY clear conscience. Kids come first, at ALL times. (no BS about the "long-run, either)
That's what religion is. People's interpretations. That's why there are Catholics and Protestants.
These are the definitions that a search at dictionary.com came up with
re-li-gion  /ri-lij-uhn/
–noun 1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
7. religions, Archaic. religious rites.
8. Archaic. strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one's vow.
I am using definition #2: a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
I know that religion is
shaped by people's interpretation, but most religions are based in a text which gives the guidlines for the religion. THAT is what religion is. Guidelines or "a specific fundamental set of beliefs or practices."
Catholics and Protestants started with the same text. Then there was a schism based on differing interpretations. There are hundreds of religions based on the Bible, but with different interpretations. Things that are fundamental in one may not be in another.
What can I say, I'm a realist. We could theorize "what religion is" all day long. Then, there is reality . . . (IE, thousands of years of human history)
How come I've been hearing my whole life that sex is "Original Sin", then? And that it is only okay within the bonds of "Holy Matrimony"?
Did I miss a new interpretation somewhere?
You didn't miss a new interpretation...you were taught a very misguided interpretation. It is considered sin outside marriage, I don't refute that. If it was sin why would God make it our means of procreation and why would He make it pleasurable so that we would want to? For ALL creatures, other than A-sexual reproducers. Well only humans and dolphins have sex for pleasure but thats irrevalent.
Catholics and Protestants started with the same text. Then there was a schism based on differing interpretations. There are hundreds of religions based on the Bible, but with different interpretations. Things that are fundamental in one may not be in another.
Catholics and Protestants are STILL Christians! Christianity is a religion. NOT Catholism that is a branch of Christianity. Islam is a religion, Sunni and Shi'a are branches of Islam.
ANY religion based on the Bible is essentially, by definition Christian!I think we're all pretty well-informed on the subject...
And which religion is screwing that art teacher in China? :confused:
And which religion is screwing that art teacher in China? :confused:
China is a communist country and therefore technically aethiest...
The why the fuck are we talking about religion?:eyebrow:
The why the fuck are we talking about religion?:eyebrow:
Because I felt a need to respond to this statement
Whatever religion attempts to repress only festers beneath the surface, becoming something worse.
From there it just became a topic
I have a fear of people who equate nudity with sex. I think of them as perverts.
Whatever religion attempts to repress only festers beneath the surface, becoming something worse.
It was the natural course for a discussion based this:
a parent complained about a student seeing nude art [SIZE="2"]
(When is this kind of thing
not caused by religion?)[/SIZE]
[SIZE="2"]
(When is this kind of thing not caused by religion?)[/SIZE]
Well you already have the counterexample of the teacher in China. But I'll add that it is never caused by religion. It is caused by prudes who use religion as an excuse to restrict people from seeing something they're afraid of.
I'm Christian and at the same time just fine with naked bodies thank-you-very-much.
Well only humans and dolphins have sex for pleasure but thats irrevalent.
Then why do dogs hump legs? ;)
It was the natural course for a discussion based this: a parent complained about a student seeing nude art [SIZE="2"]
(When is this kind of thing not caused by religion?)[/SIZE]
When its caused by a parent who signs the permission slip without first being sure that they will really approve.
And when ppl become irrational about their beliefs, which I will admit seems to happen often with the "religious." They ignore the parts of their doctrine that aren't convenient for them. IE
Leviticus 19:18 (New International Version)
18 " 'Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD.
Its not the religion itself that causes the problem, but those who only follow the convenient parts of the doctrine. How many Christians do you know who would allow themselves to be condemed for being Christian? And YET that is a major part of the doctrine...else Jesus could have avoided the cross.
Well you already have the counterexample of the teacher in China.
I wasn't really discussing that, but, at a glance, let's see, I believe that is a teacher that stripped in front of her class, right? I'm sorry, I don't see the connection. It has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. A teacher stripping in front of her class has nothing whatsoever to do with a teacher taking her students to an
art museum. Apples, oranges.
When is "this kind of thing" (meaning: a problem with nude art) not caused by religion? Please note: I am not asking whether it is mandatory for religion to have this effect, but rather, when it
does happen, when is it
not religion causing it?
when is it not religion causing it?
See my second point.
But I'll add that it is never caused by religion. It is caused by prudes who use religion as an excuse to restrict people from seeing something they're afraid of.
Maybe "casued by" is overly restrictive, in a semantic sense. Rephrase: if you removed religion from the equation, would it still be happening? Another way: would this be happening without the involvement of religion? You yourself have stated the cause as being involved with religion. My point (sorry if I garbled it) was simply that.
I'm not big on hair-splitting between "religion, ideally" and "religion, in practice" - as I said, I'm a realist. When I say
religion, I assume everyone knows that I am referring to
the actual thing that exists in the world.
And when ppl become irrational about their beliefs, which I will admit seems to happen often with the "religious." They ignore the parts of their doctrine that aren't convenient for them...Its not the religion itself that causes the problem, but those who only follow the convenient parts of the doctrine. How many Christians do you know who would allow themselves to be condemed for being Christian? And YET that is a major part of the doctrine...else Jesus could have avoided the cross.
Perfect example, finely stated. When I say "religion" I mean ^these people^ (the majority, in my anecdotal observation...)
Then why do dogs hump legs? ;)
hmmm...good question...perhaps they do it for pleasure as well. Most of its just an overwhelming instinct, and normally my male dog is fine unless there is a bitch in heat on the street. I've always heard that only humans and dolphins do it for fun...but maybe I'll look it up some more.
Perfect example, finely stated. When I say "religion" I mean ^these people^ (the majority, in my anecdotal observation...)
"These people" though are NOT the religion and that has been my point. I respect the Christian and Islamic and other such doctrines but I mostly don't respect those who "follow" the doctrine.
...but maybe I'll look it up some more.
Look up:
bonobo chimps.
I don't think that I could be fascinated enough with another animal to actually study its sexual activity. But then again I'm not into porn either perhaps thats somehow connected.
penis fencing.
makes me think of sword fencing....
"These people" though are NOT the religion and that has been my point.
I understand, and we disagree. As I said, I'm a realist, and I'm not discussing
ideal religion but
actual religion.
(IE what people are doing with religion
is religion...)
I understand, and we disagree. As I said, I'm a realist, and I'm not discussing ideal religion but actual religion.
(IE what people are doing with religion is religion...)
And that makes me terrible sad, angry and confused. Just know that not all people are like that about religion. Thank God I have my sister.
Just know that not all people are like that about religion.
I
do know that, and I never said anything to the contrary. I know many people who consider themselves religious which I have no problem with. I enjoy having cordial discussions about the message of Jesus, who I think was great. To be specific,
this is what I have been trying to say (not very well, I guess): #1 not
all religious people have nudity-phobia,
but #2 when a person
does have this psychological disorder, I propose that
religion (the actual thing, not the theoretical thing) is at the base of the issue. Is that more clear?
#2 when a person does have this psychological disorder, I propose that religion (the actual thing, not the theoretical thing) is at the base of the issue. Is that more clear?
I guess I just defer and think that it is the idiotic misuse of the religion that causes the problem that all...truce?
I guess I just defer and think that it is the idiotic misuse of the religion that causes the problem that all...truce?
I agree 100% with that. But I add: "idiotic misuse of the religion" is the norm, not the exception.
I agree 100% with that. But I add: "idiotic misuse of the religion" is the norm, not the exception.
True /cry /roleupundercoversandnevercomeoutagainIhateppl
:::smacks you::: cut that shit out (unless you have a laptop under there)
:::smacks you::: cut that shit out (unless you have a laptop under there)
LOL not a laptop, but a book and a flashlight! You don't think my mother will come take my book away and tell me to go to sleep like she used to when I was younger do you?
I meant: a laptop, so you can keep posting at The Cellar!
I meant: a laptop, so you can keep posting at The Cellar!
hmmm I guess I'll have to carry my blanket to the dining room and just cover me and the computer with it...but I will still read under the covers.
Dogs hump as a part of pack activity, to show dominance.
When I had two dogs, they would hump when people were around, because that's when they had to sort out their pack order.
Naturally, a dog with a rather dominant personality will hump new people that enter the house. They are trying to assess where the new pack member ranks. If the new pack member allows the humping they are submissive and lower on the pack order.
A naturally submissive dog will crouch their hind end down to strangers and may even pee to show they are low on the totem pole.
Those Bonobo monkeys have got it going on!
And that's what we would be doing too (without religion to save us from ourselves...)
And that's what we would be doing too (without religion to save us from ourselves...)
:biglaugha
Catholics and Protestants are STILL Christians! Christianity is a religion. NOT Catholism that is a branch of Christianity. Islam is a religion, Sunni and Shi'a are branches of Islam. ANY religion based on the Bible is essentially, by definition Christian!
Not all Christans would agree with you. Some Baptists don't think Catholics are Christian, for example. And some branches of Christianity are different enough to be considered different religions, not just sects. Mormonism comes to mind.
NOT Catholism that is a branch of Christianity.
Wait...Catholicism a branch of Christianity?
Catholicism and Orthodoxy are the root of all Christianity (that exists today). The majority of Christian practices in the USA are "Catholic-Lite" (meaning Catholicism minus the parts they found inconvenient). If anything, "Christianity" is a "branch" of
Catholicism.
Wait...Catholicism a branch of Christianity?
Catholicism and Orthodoxy are the root of all Christianity (that exists today). The majority of Christian practices in the USA are "Catholic-Lite" (meaning Catholicism minus the parts they found inconvenient). If anything, "Christianity" is a "branch" of Catholicism.
Actually Christian and Catholic are sometimes used interchangeably. Catholicism as it stands today though is far removed from how it began, in my opinion, and many others making it into a different form of the religion.
Homo neanderthalensis or Neanderthals or cavemen were one of the original humans but yet modern men are known as
homo sapiens...they are still in the same family but they are of a different species. Does this explain my meaning?
I understand that you mean Catholicism has strayed from it's roots, if you understand that those roots are the roots of all Christianity (minus Orthodoxy). Some Catholicism strayed so far they had to call it something else, that's where all these other versions came from to begin with.
You're drawing examples of antisocial behavior by radical Christians and saying that these people dictate the essence of Christianity, care to make the same generalizations with Ali-Q and all muslims? Of course not, muslims are protected within the Black Book of Political Correctness Laws but *thumbs through pages*... yep! Christians aint in here, have at em!
No, I wouldn't care to make generalizations about things I know essentially nothing about. But, observations of things happening right in my backyard, those are fair game to me. Suffice it to say your interpretation is a contrived stretch, and coincidentally a custom fit for your pet rant! What are the odds? You can force a square peg into a round hole, but expect some resistance. I don't own "the book" you mention, and if I did I would use it as toilet paper. I calls 'em as I sees 'em.
I wasn't really discussing that, but, at a glance, let's see, I believe that is a teacher that stripped in front of her class, right? I'm sorry, I don't see the connection. It has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. A teacher stripping in front of her class has nothing whatsoever to do with a teacher taking her students to an art museum. Apples, oranges.
Of course you don't, because even you can't twist religion into that one like you do with every other thing in the world that bugs you.
It's not apples and oranges, it's art teachers offending students sensibilities. Both articles were about an art teacher being canned for allegedly offending some students sensibilities.
When is "this kind of thing" (meaning: a problem with nude art) not caused by religion? Please note: I am not asking whether it is mandatory for religion to have this effect, but rather, when it does happen, when is it not religion causing it?
Short answer, usually. You're so hung up on religion, you can't see the difference between social mores and religious teaching. Apparently every time people disagree with your standard of behavior it's because of their religion. Every time somebody does something you consider stupid, you say it's because of their religion. That's bullshit, but you just throw that out and challenge anyone that disagrees, to prove your wrong.
Well, I challenge you to back up, your allegations. Prove the offended child was offended because of her religion. Or the mother of the offended child was offended because of her religion. :eyebrow:
It's nowhere near that complicated, Bruce. I simply think that opposition to nude art is probably based on an a person's attempt to adhere to the confused teachings of their religious institution (IE, sex is bad, the human body is dirty). That, I base on two points: #1 this is the teaching of these institutions (is it not?) and #2 I can't think of any other possible reason for someone to be opposed to nude art. You cite "social mores and religious teaching" as if they exist in a vacuum. I "can't see the difference"? Maybe you "cant see" the connection. I think it's obvious that "social mores and religious teaching" are closely intertwined, so closely intertwined that if ""social mores" caused an opposition to nude art, I would simply point out that if "religious teaching" was the basis for these "social mores" then, would you not say that religion was the initiator? This appears to be self-evident, to me.
This analysis doesn't require me to be "hung up" on religion. I do frequently observe the workings of religion in society, and take an interest in them. This doesn't require me to put forth much of an effort, considering how predominant religion is in all aspects of our lives. How could I miss seeing it's influence? This too appears to be self-evident, to me.
I'm not interested in your aggressive "challenge to prove my manhood" or whatever it is. I will simply keep speaking the truth as I see it, and you are free to offer rebuttal on any tangible point. I won't "defend myself" against character attacks.
Apparently every time people disagree with your standard of behavior it's because of their religion.
Every time somebody does something you consider stupid, you say it's because of their religion.
I'm sure you wouldn't mind providing some concrete examples to back up this inflamatory accusation? (How ironic would it be if you couldn't?)
I would remind you that you don't have 'Christianity' in your backyard so to speak. Personally I dislike even saying that in its current state we are the Christian country that so many claim us to be. If you want to look at Christianity I suggest you look at Greece, and Ukraine as far better examples in the modern world. Pre-soviet Russia would be even better, but the damage done under the Bolsheviks is so widespread you have to look hard to find the survivors. American Christianity is so many steps removed that it really isn't even based on the same things anymore, the illogic and inconsistancies stem from them having lost the heart of the religion and desparately trying to find something to replace it with.
But the fact is that teachers get royally shafted on a consistent basis.
Personally, as soon as I saw that she had been a teacher for 28 years I immediately assumed that this was an excuse to screw her out of her full pension, assuming they offer one.
Personally I dislike even saying that in its current state we are the Christian country that so many claim us to be....American Christianity is so many steps removed that it really isn't even based on the same things anymore, the illogic and inconsistancies stem from them having lost the heart of the religion and desparately trying to find something to replace it with.
I agree. But I'm not discussing "ideal" or "theoretical" Christianity, I'm discussing what people are
actually doing, in
reality, when they claim to practice Christianity. I don't pretend to refer to a theoretical construct when I use the word Christianity. When I say Christianity, I mean the actual thing we can witness unfolding right before our eyes, in our society.
And I'm a foaming-at-the-mouth anti-Christian for the sake of being anti-Christian. And I'm not ill-informed on the subject. I have close ties to several local churches, playing drums in a praise and worship band, and helping manage a vegetable co-op. I don't agree with everything they believe, but I'm not opposed to healthy discussion. It helps that I have a great deal of respect for the teachings of Jesus.
You might say that I'm so critical of them
because I spend so much time around them, trying to understand where they are coming from.
Personally, as soon as I saw that she had been a teacher for 28 years I immediately assumed that this was an excuse to screw her out of her full pension, assuming they offer one.
Texas teachers don't have a pension plan in that sense, their retirement pay is based directly on how many years they've worked, be it two or thirty.* More likely it's because the unions have gotten pay scales to be linked to seniority as well, and if they fire her they can hire two young teachers for the same money.
[size=1]*Note, however, that if they are a teacher for 15 years and something else for 15 years, they may collect either teacher retirement, or Social Security, but not both. [/size]
It doesn't matter if someone calls themselves a Christian, if you look up what Christianity was originally and it doesn't match what that person is doing then, I'm sorry, their aren't a Christian. You can't change the original and then claim it's the same thing. I'll lay this out flat, all those hundreds of weird demonations in the States? Not Christian. Sort of a bunch of hippie Christian wannabes who are too self absorbed to actually practice the religion. I'm not saying they can't do what they do, its just that what they do resembles Hinduism about as much as Christianity.
It doesn't matter if someone calls themselves a Christian, if you look up what Christianity was originally and it doesn't match what that person is doing then, I'm sorry, their aren't a Christian. You can't change the original and then claim it's the same thing.
I can't state this any more plainly: I'm
NOT discussing Christianity
on paper - I
AM discussing Christianity
in practice. If someone calls themselves a Christian then
that is who I am discussing. The fact that they are not "true" Christians? I agree with you, they really aren't.
And, it's completely irrelevant.
I am not arguing the "concept of" Christianty.Then why are you calling them Christians!? For convenience? I'm saying it's not even Christianity in practice! It's some sort of religion but it sure as hell isn't Christianity. Just because some loon says he's a Christian doesn't mean anything, 'true' or 'untrue' is irrelevent because if it isn't 'true' then it has no connection with it. The people who beat drums and sing songs are exactly that, people who beat drums and sing songs, not 'Christianity in practice'. I think this is stemming from the assumption that there is such a thing as a concept of Christianity that is separate from what Christians practice. There is what it is, and what is not it. What you are calling the 'concept' is Christianity. What you are calling Christianity in practice is nothing of the sort.
Then why are you calling them Christians!?
Because they call themselves Christians.
What you are calling the 'concept' is Christianity.
Yes, ideally, or in theory. I'm not discussing theoretical ideas.
What you are calling Christianity in practice is nothing of the sort.
They call it Christianity, I'm not imposing this definition upon them.
I think it's clear what I mean when I say Christianity: I let them
define themselves. I can't imagine what could be more fair (or more clear...)
Alright then, from now on I consider myself an Afro-American. My inner black-ness shall not be for others to judge and I will of course, be expecting all perks that come with my newly claimed minority status. Peace out yo.
That's just silly. When I refer to Christians, I refer to the millions of people who call themsleves "Christians" and go to "Christian" churches. You know, all the "Christians" - that's who I mean when I say Christians. The obvious, staring-you-right-in-the-face definition of the word. Christians. Who? Christians. Oh, Christians. Who did you think I meant? (We're not discussing Greece, Ukraine, or Pre-soviet Russia...) We're discussing America. Christians in America. Not theoretical Christians. Real, actual Christians. Christians practicing Christianity in America at Christian churches.
It's nowhere near that complicated, Bruce. I simply think that opposition to nude art is probably based on an a person's attempt to adhere to the confused teachings of their religious institution (IE, sex is bad, the human body is dirty). That, I base on two points: #1 this is the teaching of these institutions (is it not?)
No, it is not. Having been raised in a Christian (protestant) Church, Sunday School, age divided youth groups, confirmation, etc, until I left home, I never once was told by any clergy, church official or religious teacher, that sex is bad or the human body is dirty. NOT ONCE.
Since the various religions did not condemn or destroy nude art, but in fact commissioned, paid for and displayed, most of the nude art until the past 200 years or less, your logic doesn’t hold water.
and #2 I can't think of any other possible reason for someone to be opposed to nude art.
Why yes, yes I can....women. When people are naked, men do bad things to women. Keeping everyone clothed reduces men’s propensity to bad behavior against women and by extension, families. It’s about control and distribution of power.
You cite "social mores and religious teaching" as if they exist in a vacuum. I "can't see the difference"? Maybe you "cant see" the connection. I think it's obvious that "social mores and religious teaching" are closely intertwined, so closely intertwined that if ""social mores" caused an opposition to nude art, I would simply point out that if "religious teaching" was the basis for these "social mores" then, would you not say that religion was the initiator? This appears to be self-evident, to me.
The jump from “Love thy neighbor as thyself” to “Naked is Naughty” is self evident? If so, you have a serious problem.
When the whalers returned from Tahiti or Hawaii, to New Bedford and Mystic, women wanted them to behave in a civilized manner.....clothing and temperance helped.
When women moved to the frontier, then to the wild, wild west, they wanted to tame the town to make it safe for themselves and their children......also safer for the bread winner they were so dependent on. The main thrust of their effort was the elimination of drinking and prostitutes. Hard to reason with a drunk or use sex as a weapon when the man had alternatives.
The Pilgrims are often blamed for a repressive US society. However, the majority of the immigrants bypassed Plymouth Plantation, where religion and their social mores were intertwined, for Boston’s looser attitude. Boston flourished and Plymouth died. But the women of Boston worked hard to make it safe for themselves and their children, the only way they could. Fighting things they saw as a threat to the family. Establishing social mores.
Social mores have evolved and will continue to do so, but the teachings of the church haven't changed significantly in a very long time. How can that be? Because they are as separate as any other two aspects of society can be. Everything is connected but not necessarily dependent.
This analysis doesn't require me to be "hung up" on religion. I do frequently observe the workings of religion in society, and take an interest in them. This doesn't require me to put forth much of an effort, considering how predominant religion is in all aspects of our lives. How could I miss seeing it's influence? This too appears to be self-evident, to me.
If you put forth more effort, you'd see that religion is trivial in most peoples daily lives.
OK, you meet Joe Blow and determine he’s an asshole.
Joe went to Central High, does that mean Central High taught him to be an asshole?
Joe was in the Navy, does that mean the Navy made Joe an asshole?
Joe is a Mason, does that mean all Masons are assholes?
Joe says he’s a Christian. So you believe the Christian Church taught Joe to be an asshole. Your observations are misguided.
Professed Christians don't act like Jesus, don't really turn the other cheek, are as likely to screw you like anyone else? What a shocker, they're people like everyone else.
The reality is that going to church on Sunday, is most often just a social function except the dude up front will tell a story about somebody being good or bad and the consequences of their deeds. He will
not say sex is bad or the human body is dirty.
I'm not interested in your aggressive "challenge to prove my manhood" or whatever it is. I will simply keep speaking the truth as I see it, and you are free to offer rebuttal on any tangible point. I won't "defend myself" against character attacks.
I didn’t mention, nor do I give a damn about your manhood, so can that red herring.
I’m only addressing your poo flinging attacks, without facts or even anecdotal, evidence.
Occam’s Razor tells us to stick to the facts at hand and not extraneous shit stirring.
Shit stirring will always be challenged.:eyebrow:
This post is a replacement for a longer one I made this morning that is apparently floating around the internet somewhere.
Define "poo flinging attacks." Define "shit stirring."
Please be specific, and provide specific examples.
Otherwise, there is nothing tangible to discuss.
Oh, you don't understand? But you understand Christans....right.:right:
Equating nudity with sex has nothing to do with Christianity, it has to do with being a deviant.
My theory is that deviance develops when a natural instinct is surpressed. Fill in the blanks...
Civilization and society also seemed to spring from that...
... mothers don't let your babies
grow up to be nude sculptures...
If you say that you are a doctor but have never been to med school and recieved the proper training and liscenses, are you still a doctor because you say that you are?
If a law suppresses violent crime does that make violent crime worse?
If a politician says that they are democratic but always supports republican agendas, is he still a democrat because that is what he calls himself?
If a parent suppresses selfish behavior, does that make the child even more selfish?
Sometimes it is necessary for the better of the world to suppress certain behavior. And if you say you are one thing but act differently than the guidlines that define that thing, then you are a hyprocrite. Unfortunatly most of the "Christians" today are hyprocrites and therefore not Christians.
snip ~ And if you say you are one thing but act differently than the guidelines that define that thing, then you are a hyprocrite. Unfortunatly most of the "Christians" today are hyprocrites and therefore not Christians.
Who defines what a Christian is, or should I say what a Christian should be? Non Christians? The "church"?
Most Christian Religious Organizations define guidelines for member churchs.
The Roman Catholics take it further and define strictures for their followers.
But the basic idea is, to be a Christian is to accept God and Jesus as his local rep.
Catholics have their own set up with power at the top but for Protestants the power is at the bottom.
Protestant organizations suggest behavior that they feel will put you in better graces with God when you die.... but concedes it's your choice and in the end, between you and God.
They also suggest you give them lots of money, but hey, business is business.
That said, there are local preachers who take their position to be authoritarian and try to direct peoples personal lives. But in reality, they are employees of the local church and can be replaced if they clash with the congregation. Keep in mind, like any organization, the people that are most active in the organization have more clout than the ones that show up on occasional Sundays, pay their share and leave the rest to others. It's kind of like local government that way.
If you have a local preacher that's all hellfire & brimstone, and active in the community affairs, he's reflecting what his congregation, or at least the vocal members of it, want in their church leadership. If the members of the church, allow people who are bossy, petty and vindictive to control the business end, they'll probably get a preacher that reflects that. Again, like politics.
Christians come in all flavors, you can't pigeon hole them by race, color, ethnicity or behavior. You can't nail them down to what you think their behavior should be..... ain't happenin' baby....they don't listen to each other, why should they listen to you?
The bottom line is, it's an arrangement between them and their God. :angel:
If you say that you are a doctor but have never been to med school and recieved the proper training and liscenses, are you still a doctor because you say that you are?
Doctors are licensed and legally responsible for making life-and-death decisions.
Christians are self-defined as having made an optional lifestyle choice.
If a law suppresses violent crime does that make violent crime worse?
Did Prohibition stop people from drinking, or did the suppression of that urge create a bigger problem (organized crime)?
And if you say you are one thing but act differently than the guidlines that define that thing, then you are a hyprocrite.
Unfortunatly most of the "Christians" today are hyprocrites and therefore not Christians.
I’ve said it again and again, but let me say it once more: I agree 100% with this. My point is one of practicality. We could invent a new word to refer to hypocrites who claim to be Christians, but I am not aware of such a word. Therefore I define Christian to mean the millions of people who call themselves Christians. I assume this to be the standard definition in the demographic sense. Otherwise, we would have millions of people in the "other" catagory of religious preference. If Christianity is a word that means strictly an ideal adherance to a theoretically perfect set of guidelines, and there is an admitted scarcity of people who meet this standard, then does it not lead to the conclusion that Christianity itself is something that exists only in scarcity? Being a realist, I can observe that Christiniaity exists not in scarcity, but at a great magnitude. It's simply a matter of words having clear meanings. When I refer to Christianity I mean the observable Christianity that is defined as Christianity. When I refer to Christians I mean the observable Christians that are defined as Christians. It isn't a theological analysis, it's simply a matter of words having clear meanings.
You can't nail them down to what you think their behavior should be...
I agree, and it was never my intention to do so. It would be ridiculous to stereotype any large group of people in that way.
What I believe that I can make observations of, however, is a standardized set of guidelines having a similar effect on a population of the same species, who therefore have the same psychological mechanisms, and who therefore would react similarly, in theory, to a standardized set of moral regulations. My theory is that when the attempt to regulate morality comes into conflict with biological instincts, the inevitable drive of nature will find one way or another to assert it's dominance, in one possible scenario through the development of undesiarable deviant behavior.
It doesn't matter if someone calls themselves a Christian, if you look up what Christianity was originally and it doesn't match what that person is doing then, I'm sorry, their aren't a Christian. You can't change the original and then claim it's the same thing.
All denominations of Christianity have changed from the original.
That sounds like a wonderful thesis...but
But there is no standardized set of guidelines.
If there were guidelines, guidelines are not rules.
If there were rules, rules are not laws.
If there were laws, a lot of people would treat them like guidelines.
Having wrangled sheep, cattle and people on occasion, I know the herd mentality is strong but there is alway a big chunk of uncertainty when it comes to individuals. More so with people because they have all sorts of social pressures to cope with besides the situation at hand. You never know if the person you're dealing with is on the verge of combustion or a state of grace. Personally, I think the latter is more unpredictable, hence dangerous. Just ask any cop. :cool:
All denominations of Christianity have changed from the original.
Right. It's was called reformation, something the Muslims never had. But even after that, it evolved and continues to do so. :thumbsup:
But there is no standardized set of guidelines.
[SIZE="1"][COLOR="Blue"]1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. [/COLOR]
[/SIZE]
If there were guidelines, guidelines are not rules.
If there were rules, rules are not laws.
If there were laws, a lot of people would treat them like guidelines.
Call them guidelines, rules, laws, or
insert the word of your choice...
What are the Ten Commandments? What is
The Bible? What is "Christianity"
??? (Do you just make it up as you go along?)
Hey Flint, you
make a big, fundamental mistake. By insisting to draw conclusions, to make connections, to assign a causal relationship between the actions of an individual and concept as large and varied and intangible as Christianity, your arguments are weak and unsupportable. When you make unfounded assumptions, use unfair and irrelevant stereotypes, people are likely to react to the inflammatory speech and not to the facts of your point of view. That's great if you're trying to "energize your base" or whatever, but it's not a valid foundation for a fruitful discussion of factual events.
Saying "why" somebody did something is a difficult exercise at best, and the difficulty is multiplied when the somebody is a group of people, like a school board. It's rarely, effectively never, because of "X", and almost always the sum, or better the net effect of many forces.
xoB nailed it when he described Joe Blow, the asshole. Generalizations like yours are as useful as they are specific. You want to say something about a group, fine. It may have some traction. But the harder you try to apply that concept to a specific target, the less traction it has. You just can't persuade reasonable thinking people that someone's
opposition to nude art is probably based on an a person's attempt to adhere to the confused teachings of their religious institution (IE, sex is bad, the human body is dirty). That, I base on two points: #1 this is the teaching of these institutions (is it not?) and #2 I can't think of any other possible reason for someone to be opposed to nude art.
because the conclusions you're jumping to are just too far from the facts we're all using as the same takeoff point.
btw, xoB, that guy, JB...it was the
Navy.But the harder you try to apply that concept to a specific target, the less traction it has.
I never tried to apply my theory to a specific target. I purposefully stated it as a generalization:
Whatever religion attempts to repress only festers beneath the surface, becoming something worse.
My theory is that when the attempt to regulate morality comes into conflict with biological instincts, the inevitable drive of nature will find one way or another to assert it's dominance, in one possible scenario through the development of undesiarable deviant behavior.
__________________
Hey Flint, you are a big, fundamental mistake.
Did you mean I
made a "big, fundamental mistake"
??? (I hope so!)
ha ha haQuote:
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and [COLOR="Magenta"]often[/COLOR] containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
Often not always. I mentioned the Roman Catholics do this.
I've never heard any religion define the purpose of the universe.
Call them guidelines, rules, laws, or insert the word of your choice...
Each of those words have different meanings...it would make your life simpler to learn the difference.
What are the Ten Commandments? What is The Bible? What is "Christianity" ??? (Do you just make it up as you go along?)
The Ten Commandments were the rules of a covenant between God and the JEWS.
The Bible is a quasi-historical record of a time span ending thousands of years ago.
Christianity is name given to a vast group of religions that believe Jesus Christ was the son and agent of God.
Christianity must necesarily have a basic premise. Otherwise, the word describes something that doesn't exist. (Christianity
does exsist...)
The Ten Commandments were the rules of a covenant between God and the JEWS.
Do Christians not read the Old Testament?
The Bible is a quasi-historical record of a time span ending thousands of years ago.
#1 Is the Bible an
optional text, as a Christian? #2 Does The Bible contain moral guidelines (albeit interpretable)?
Christianity is name given to a vast group of religions that believe Jesus Christ was the son and agent of God.
Is that the entirety of the similarities between various forms of Christianity?
I never tried to apply my theory to a specific target. I purposefully stated it as a generalization:
__________________
Did you mean I made a "big, fundamental mistake" ??? (I hope so!) ha ha ha
Yes. That is an embarassing and unfortunate typographical error. I apologize for the unintended insult. I have corrected my original post, but you certainly may keep your evidence of my mistake in yours. I am very sorry, please forgive me.
Clearly, I am deeply and irrevocably offended. I often remark "ha ha ha" to denote dead-seriousness.
[/sarcasm] now we arm-wrestle . . . to the death
Christianity must necesarily have a basic premise. Otherwise, the word describes something that doesn't exist. (Christianity does exsist...)
Do Christians not read the Old Testament?
#1 Is the Bible an optional text, as a Christian? #2 Does The Bible contain moral guidelines (albeit interpretable)?
Is that the entirety of the similarities between various forms of Christianity?
I think Wolf mentioned the Roman Catholics don't use the Bible, they use Catechism texts. Most Christians don't read the Bible other than select passages assigned to them in (usually youth) studies. The big question is, does it say in the translations what it said in the original texts.:confused:
Mother Goose contains interpretable moral guidelines. The Bible, covering thousands of years and multiple societies, contains many conflicting morality lessons. There's a passage in the bible that can be quoted to cover just about any behavior imaginable.
There are many similarities between many Christian religions, but that's the one that's common to all of them.
I often ask people why they feel the need to define themselves as Christian. I ask people what is gained by attributing the classification of Christian to themselves. Now, more than ever, I ask this question, considering that we have just exhaustively established that the word Christian has no demonstrable meaning whatsoever.
I often ask people why they feel the need to define themselves as Christian. I ask people what is gained by attributing the classification of Christian to themselves. Now, more than ever, I ask this question, considering that we have just exhaustively established that the word Christian has no demonstrable meaning whatsoever.
The Egyptian Pharohs, Roman Ceasers, Mystery cults, and the followers of various gods (Greek, Roman, Egyptian, ect) no longer have living representatives on this earth but we still study them and know what their basic beliefs were, how they practiced ect ect. Just because Christianity doesn't have that many genuine followers in this country doesn't mean we can't understand who they are supposed to be and how they are supposed to act. We even have histories of them outside the Bible, which is the most complete definition or representation of what Christianity is. Why do say that the word Christian has no demonstrable meaning? There are authentic Christians you just have to turn over a few rocks. I know a few I can give you their phone number...:-)
I often ask people why they feel the need to define themselves as Christian. I ask people what is gained by attributing the classification of Christian to themselves. Now, more than ever, I ask this question, considering that we have just exhaustively established that the word Christian has no demonstrable meaning whatsoever.
The best thing about being a Christian is not having to explain it to other Christians because they already know and not having to explain it to non-Christians because they'll never understand.
You only have to know that you can't attribute any behavior by someone to them being a Christian. Even if it's fervent religious activity, it's personal choice on their part, not an attribute of Christianity alone.
Disclaimer....may not apply to Texas.:D
Having studied religion for as long as I have, I am constantly amazed at how readily people who have not read their Bible in ... years (or not all of it at ALL), never read a concordance, or studied the history of the times from the
Roman perspective, readily get into a disagreement with me on finer points of dogma or just historical aspects of Cannon Law or just what happened and how... it is sad.
99% of that "Religion" is pulpit here-say and most of those guys have little to no real training.
When I point this out I always get "but its about faith".... how can you have faith in something you don't even know the basics of. Sure, if you really know what you are CHOOSING to believe in, warts and all... that I can see.
But, just saying you have faith and not knowing what you are talking about... cult.
Nor do they know that the concept of papal infallibility and dogma of Immaculate Conception, didn't exist before the mid 1800s. ;)
Sounds like "having your cake and eating it too" . . .
Either "Christianity" means something or it doesn't exist.
It's just a bit too convenient that anyone who questions the meaning of a word is deemed unable to understand a distinction which has never been made to begin with. That doesn't apply in any other area of life, and the necessity of "special rules" of logic should be a red flag. [SIZE="1"]Just an observation...[/SIZE]
Not everything that counts can be counted and not everything that can be counted counts, or something like that, is a Cellar cookie.
Not every word has the same meaning to everyone. Even dictionary's sometimes don't jibe.
Instead of being frustrated, just stop trying to pigeon-hole people, sorting them by categories. Everyone is different. :cool:
Not every word has the same meaning to everyone. Even dictionary's sometimes don't jibe.
Let's see. We are talking about nudity, sex, and "having your cake and eating it too" . . .
Are you thinking what I am thinking?
Instead of being frustrated, just stop trying to pigeon-hole people, sorting them by categories. Everyone is different.
How many goddamn times are you going to insist on mis-characterizing my statements?
I correct you every time, so I don't know where the confusion could be coming form.
What I comented on initially was the institution of Christianity, and subsequently we've been debating whether the institution exists, and, if so, what it's defining characteristics are. You insist it has none, and I disagree. (How do you define yourself as something which has no characteristics?)
If I'm "frustrated" it's because
you won't stop putting words in my mouth.
Despite my repeated clarifications,
you continue to "pigeon-hole"
me (which is ironic as hell...)
Christianity must necesarily have a basic premise. Otherwise, the word describes something that doesn't exist. (Christianity does exsist...)
Do Christians not read the Old Testament?
#1 Is the Bible an optional text, as a Christian? #2 Does The Bible contain moral guidelines (albeit interpretable)?
Is that the entirety of the similarities between various forms of Christianity?
They read the OT, as a history of where their religion came from, not a place to get dogma.
To call one's self a Christian one must follow the teachings of Christ... pretty much it. How is this not clear?
That is the
only similarity between them. Many that call themselves Christian do not follow His teachings, quite the opposite, most teach the dogma of Us and Them.
To call one's self a Christian one must follow the teachings of Christ... pretty much it.
How is this not clear?
It's perfectly clear.
The teachings of Christ, as represented by the Bible, are the "
standardized set of guidelines" that define Christianity.
No, Christ taught one "guideline". Love thy neighbor as thyself. That's it...there ain't no more. Someone that follows that "guideline" is a Christian. It's that simple.
Stop confusing the churches(business of religion) that use his name(usually in vain), with his teaching or followers.
You try to tie anyone claiming to be a Christian with the sins of the churches, is the equivalent of blaming me for the institution of slavery. I assure you, neither is my fault.
If you have issue with one of the aforementioned churches/businesses, take if up with them specifically and stop trying to blame the rest of us, in your personal dispute.
If you don't want me to put words in your mouth, shut your mouth and open your ears, then the words will go where they were intended. :p
If you're not putting words in my mouth, then quote
one example to back this up:
Apparently every time people disagree with your standard of behavior it's because of their religion.
Every time somebody does something you consider stupid, you say it's because of their religion.
...or apologize. "It's that simple" Bruce. Back up what you said by quoting me.
...shut your mouth and open your ears...
I hear you perfectly well. You're accusing me of stating things I've never stated.
If I have stated these things, you can easily quote me to demonstrate that I have.
When I criticize the
institution of Christianity, all you have to do is take the words I am posting
at face value, without attaching any additional meanings. Accusing me of stating additional meanings does not make it so, no matter how many times you repeat the accusation.
Sorry for jumping in at this late date. I thought the thread was about nude sculpture.
But if
...To call one's self a Christian one must follow the teachings of Christ... pretty much it...
and
No, Christ taught one "guideline". Love thy neighbor as thyself. That's it...there ain't no more.... :p
Then there aren't many Christians around, IMHO. :earth:
Matthew 517
Jesus:
“Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill."
Jesus, himself, said to obey the laws of the old testament.
Catholicism and being a follower of Christ/Christian have nothing to do with each other.
Abominations have no place in our world, you cannot pick and choose what you want to be and not want to be laws from the OT....
If you want to live that lifestyle and call that the Law fine, but I don't want to see someone naming it that, pointing fingers at homosexuals and then later eating shrimp, working on Saturday, wearing mixed fiber shirts or practicing ANY other abomination. You don't get to pick and choose.
Like I said... I have been studying this for a long time and did study with Catholics in Seminary Prep in college... they agreed with this.
The Pope has agreed that he is not infallible.
All that Calvinist stuff like Rapture was made-up and has no Biblical basis.
It is all smoke-&-Mirrors to take away from Jesus' message... it is to bring people to the business of Church.
I live by the message of Jesus. The "business of the Church" is Christianity. Christianity is the thing I am criticizing.
"Going to church doesn't make you a Christian anymore than standing in a garage makes you a car."
Jesus, himself, said to obey the laws of the old testament.
Said to Jews of that time. The OT is the covenant with the Jews. ;)
As far as I can tell, the OT is obeyed whenever it coincides with prejudices or wishes of the Christians, and ignored when it doesnt.
For example, stance on gays...
"Going to church doesn't make you a Christian anymore than standing in a garage makes you a car."
Nothing
makes you a Christian.
You have to conciously decide to classify yourself as such.
I follow the teachings of Christ, and I do not classify myself as a Christian.
So, you could also say "following the teachings of Christ doesn't make you a Christian."
Since it has no bearing on my inner feelings, calling myself a "Christian" would be just like joining any other club. And what does joining a club accomplish? You gain the wordly benefits of your membership, you have strength in numbers, and you are implicitly casting your vote for whatever that club stands for. I have no interest in those things. A nominal classification isn't going to accomplish anything of value for me.
That was nutty and contradictory.
Freaking out at teachers and administrators because their kids saw a tit kinda' does show that they are not Christians.
Christians are not busybodies.
Christians very often are busybodies, and they very often use their Christianity to justify it.
That was nutty and contradictory.
Which part? Are we done with civil discussion, and on to name-calling now?
...Are we done with civil discussion, and on to name-calling now?
Would that be considered good Christian behavior?
Christians very often are busybodies, and they very often use their Christianity to justify it.
The same can be said for every religion and also those that eschew it, but the sentence must start with SOME, in all cases.
Anyone claiming to belong to a religion or non-religious segment, that contains no assholes, is a fool, liar or both. :cool:
You're well aware the prejudice against lawyers is unfairly painting a large group with the broadest possible brush. Same, same.
...the sentence must start with SOME...
Or, include qualifiers like "anecdotal", "probably", "possible", "I think", "to me", "appears", "in theory", or "often."
When you operate on the basis of "words having clear meanings" it allows you to take them "at face value."
The kind of language that begs to be substantiated includes statements of the absolute, like "every time."
The same can be said for every religion and also those that eschew it, but the sentence must start with SOME, in all cases.
Anyone claiming to belong to a religion or non-religious segment, that contains no assholes, is a fool, liar or both. :cool:
You're well aware the prejudice against lawyers is unfairly painting a large group with the broadest possible brush. Same, same.
Christians very often are busybodies, and they very often use their Christianity to justify it.
I read the sentence as:
It is very often (not always, approximately equal to "some"times) the case that (a given) Christians act like busybodies. When this happens, the justification for being a busybody is based on their ideas about Christianity.
Whatever. I'm tired.
Christians very often are busybodies, and they very often use their Christianity to justify it.
I read the sentence as:
It is very often (not always, approximately equal to "some"times) the case that (a given) Christians act like busybodies.
When this happens, the justification for being a busybody is based on their ideas about Christianity.
There really isn't any other way to read that sentence, without adding "extras" to "customize" the meaning.
Like this:
(all)
Christians very often (in every case)
are busybodies, and they very often (always)
use their Christianity to justify it.
[SIZE="1"]note: this is not my opinion, so please don't make me waste my time over the next 50 posts explaining and re-explaining this[/SIZE]
note: this is not my opinion, so please don't make me waste my time over the next 50 posts explaining and re-explaining this
Even though it was not your idea, you made two posts explaining/clarifying, then post a disclaimer? Jesus loves you. :lol:
The same can be said for every religion and also those that eschew it, but the sentence must start with SOME, in all cases.
Anyone claiming to belong to a religion or non-religious segment, that contains no assholes, is a fool, liar or both.
I said "very often" twice, so adding "some" would have been overkill. I was resonding to someone making a sweeping claim, so your correction should probably be steered that way.
You're well aware the prejudice against lawyers is unfairly painting a large group with the broadest possible brush.
Huh? I mean, I'm aware of that, I suppose, but I'm not a lawyer.
I was resonding to someone making a sweeping claim, so your correction should probably be steered that way.
While "Christians are not busybodies"
is an absolute generalization, it is a
positive description of Christianity, and therefore okay.
It's only when someone says
anything negative about Christianity that a problem arises. Not that this reveals a glaring bias or anything.
When you say "Christians are not busybodies" you're making the same mistake. Some Christians are busybodies, annoyingly so. But it's not because they are Christians, it's because they're assholes. Even if they are trying to shove their flavor of religion down your throat, it's not because they are Christians. In that case I'd say not very good ones, but that's just my opinion.:2cents:
I said "very often" twice, so adding "some" would have been overkill. I was resonding to someone making a sweeping claim, so your correction should probably be steered that way.Huh? I mean, I'm aware of that, I suppose, but I'm not a lawyer.
I apologize if I misinterpreted your remark to mean Christians are busybodies and sometimes very much so.
The reason I'm pursuing this, is I see what's happening to the Muslims. They are being lumped in with the assholes in their midst, and their silence is damning them all.
I'm aware you're not a lawyer. I used that example because you're aware of the broad condemnation of lawyers as a group and you know it doesn't apply to all. :D
You're drawing examples of antisocial behavior by radical Christians and saying that these people dictate the essence of Christianity, care to make the same generalizations with Ali-Q and all muslims? Of course not, muslims are protected within the Black Book of Political Correctness Laws but *thumbs through pages*... yep! Christians aint in here, have at em!