American Arrogance Rooted in Christian Beliefs

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by loinburger

So "having a discourse" on something is tolerance, and "attacking" something is intolerance? This would mean that it is only possible for two people to "have a discourse" on a subject if they are already in agreement -- otherwise they'd be "attacking" each other's opinions/beliefs.

You obviously have issue then with dissenting opinions and debate if you define such things so broadly.

I on the other hand realize it quite possible to have dissenting opinions without it resulting in hatred of the other cause due their steadfast holding to their opinions.


Were that the case I would hate pretty much everyone here at 'poly.

[Jon Miller]

hating someone is a different thing then attacking their opinions and beliefs

I do not see him mentioning hating at all

JM

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Point taken hatred was overreaching perhaps I should have used the word despise or dislike. OTOH use of the word hatred may not be completely beyond the pale.

I do not hate Christianity , in the abstract .

Please note the qualifier 'in the abstract' which would imply he does indeed have hatred for Christianity in practice, the reasons for which follow:

But I do despise its agents , and what they have attempted to do in India . I also dislike the fact that it allows only one method of reaching what it claims to be God , and also that it asks you to believe on faith , not experience .

The last portion being an active dislike for simply believing and beleiving theirs is the Truth (capital T). A point which for the umpteenth time marks Christiainity no differrent than any other religion.


Had Aneeshm stuck only to his active dislike, despising, and/or hatred for activities Christianity undertook including forced conversion I would grant that, as that does mark a position in opposition to a groups (in this case Evangelical Christians) intolerance, but to merely despise a group for holding a position marks his own position as one of intolerance.

[Boris Godunov]

Aneeshm was saying he despised the agents who perpetrated misdeeds in India, not all Christians. He explicitley said he hates the doctrine, not the followers. I don't see that as much different than Christians saying they hate the sin, not the sinner.

I despise many of the doctrines of Christianity (among many other religions). I don't see how disliking the doctrines of a religion makes one an intolerant person. Tolerating things doesn't mean liking them.

I despise religious zealots who sow hatred like Pat Robertson, Fred Phelps, etc.

I don't have any hatred for Christians in general, even devout ones, so long as they don't partake in activities I find despicable.

I don't see how that makes me in any way intolerant, unless you want to get into an infinite loop of "intolerance to intolerance," which is a miserable one to be in.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Aneeshm was saying he despised the agents who perpetrated misdeeds in India, not all Christians.

Not really. You are correct he said the first part. A point which I take no issue with. The second part is where he shows intolerance. Namely:

I also dislike the fact that it allows only one method of reaching what it claims to be God , and also that it asks you to believe on faith , not experience .

That simply is intolerance because of a strongly held belief set by Christians.

He explicitley said he hates the doctrine, not the followers. I don't see that as much different than Christians saying they hate the sin, not the sinner.

So now you are equating having a strongly held belief set as sin. For shame.

I despise many of the doctrines of Christianity (among many other religions). I don't see how disliking the doctrines of a religion makes one an intolerant person. Tolerating things doesn't mean liking them.

If you truly despise them that marks intolerance. If you strongly disagree that marks a subtle yet distinctive difference. It comes down to the equaivalent of what is taught in every diversity class. Given all you know of a person is X what is your default feeling on the person. If you despise the doctrines of Christianity and all yo ukow of me is that i am Christian your default treatment (conscious or subconscious) of me would be that of despite.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by aneeshm
What has this to do with a comparison of religions ?

Well, you said that increasing education would banish the caste system, but then you admitted that the caste system is (at least partly) responsible for India's poor primary education.

A rather self-serving state of affairs. You can claim to welcome the 'imminent' demise of the caste system, whilst at the same time enjoying its benefits for as long as possible.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
I despise religious zealots who sow hatred like Pat Robertson, Fred Phelps, etc.


I don't have any hatred for Christians in general, even devout ones, so long as they don't partake in activities I find despicable.

As do I, but I dislike them for their activities not for their beliefs. Or should I say more to the point I recognize their right to hold strongly held beliefs in contrast to my own. The time to hold them accountable to feeeling of antipathy come when they partake in activities not to my liking.

Take for example my well known jousting with Communists on this board. I hold no dislike for those people. I find their philosophy severely flawed albeit good intentioned. Those however that have claimed they will cause me and mine harm I do hold in low regard because of their actions.

I don't see how that makes me in any way intolerant, unless you want to get into an infinite loop of "intolerance to intolerance," which is a miserable one to be in.

I wasnt implying you to be intolerant 'cept if you hold in disdain a group because they hold stongly held beleifs as Aneeshm indicated.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
That simply is intolerance because of a strongly held belief set by Christians.

No, it isn't. It's disliking a particular doctrine of a religion. He said--explicitley, I remind you--that he doesn't hate the practitioners of Christianity in general.

So now you are equating having a strongly held belief set as sin. For shame.

Not on my part (since I reject the concept of sin entirely). But considering religions often declare ludicrous things as "sinful," it's not necessarily a condemnation.

If you despise them that marks intolerance.

Despising people who sow evil is intolerance? How morally relativistic of you. No, I fully tolerate their right to say hateful, evil things. I just despise it. That's not intolerance.

If you despise the doctrines of Christianity and all yo ukow of me is that i am Christian your default treatment (conscious or subconscious) of me would be that of despite.

This is admission that "Love the sinner, hate the sin" is a bogus concept. That one must, by default, hate someone who believes things you find to be repugnant. That flies in the face of fundamental Christian doctrine, you know.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

Despising people who sow evil is intolerance? How morally relativistic of you. No, I fully tolerate their right to say hateful, evil things. I just despise it. That's not intolerance.

I never said otherwise. I said in fact the same. As soon as they have incited hatred they have committed an act that I find reprehensible. It again is not the point that thepersonholds said beleifs but the actions that result.

This is admission that "Love the sinner, hate the sin" is a bogus concept. That one must, by default, hate someone who believes things you find to be repugnant. That flies in the face of fundamental Christian doctrine, you know.

Why?

If you can't diffentiate true despisal and hate from disagreement then therein lies the issue.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
As do I, but I dislike them for their activities not for their beliefs. Or should I say more to the point I recognize their right to hold strongly held beliefs in contrast to my own.

Is this even a point of debate? Did anseehm say he didn't think Christians had a right to hold their beliefs? Not that I can see.

Despising the doctrines of a religion does equal advocating people not be allowed to believe said doctrines. Tolerance is letting them believe what they want, which isn't a question here.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
I never said otherwise. I said in fact the same. As soon as they have incited hatred they have committed an act that I find reprehensible. It again is not the point that thepersonholds said beleifs but the actions that result.

You're saying anseehm is intolerant for not liking Christianity's doctrines. As I said above, he has said nothing about prohibiting those beliefs. So how again is he being intolerant?

Why?

If you can't diffentiate true despisal and hate from disagreement then therein lies the issue.

So when Christians say "love the sinner, hate the sin," they really mean, "love the sinner, disagree with the sin?" Hardly--Christians hate sin, and they believe god does so as well. Not disagree, hate. So if they hate the actions of others, then your logic leads me to believe they must hate those people, yes? Ergo "love the sinner, hate the sin" is bogus.

I'll add that many Christians believe those who are sinning are going to face everlasting torture for being sinners. That makes anseehm's dislike of Christian doctrine pale in comparison.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Did anseehm say he didn't think Christians had a right to hold their beliefs?

He specifically said he disliked them for doing so.

Despising the doctrines of a religion does equal advocating people not be allowed to believe said doctrines. Tolerance is letting them believe what they want, which isn't a question here.

Its more than that. I can let gays have homosexual relations (or for that matter tendencies/fantasies never acted upon) but if I hate them for being gay that certainly does not make me tolerant in my book.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

So when Christians say "love the sinner, hate the sin," they really mean, "love the sinner, disagree with the sin?" Hardly--Christians hate sin, and they believe god does so as well. Not disagree, hate. So if they hate the actions of others, then your logic leads me to believe they must hate those people, yes? Ergo "love the sinner, hate the sin" is bogus.

I unfortunately have not heard the saying as you put it. Must be you've been exposed to many more intoerant individuals than I. But more to the point all teachings I normally hear go along the lines of Judge not lest ye be judged.

I'll add that many Christians believe those who are sinning are going to face everlasting torture for being sinners. That makes anseehm's dislike of Christian doctrine pale in comparison.

Again you must have been exposed to a sect of Christianity I have not, for I was always taught be repentant and truly believe and through Jesus you will be redeemed for we are all sinners. And since we are all sinners no one shall cast the first stone as it were.

And since we are all sinners shall I hate all mankind as a result? Does this not go against the teachings of love thy brother as thyself?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
He specifically said he disliked them for doing so.

Where did he say this? I see him saying he disliked the agents of Christianity who did bad things in India, which I can't argue with (and neither do you, apparently). He then says he dislikes an aspect of Christian doctrine. But he doesn't make the connection to disliking that to hating Christians. You are the one making that connection.

Its more than that. I can let gays have homosexual relations (or for that matter tendencies/fantasies never acted upon) but if I hate them for being gay that certainly does not make me tolerant in my book.

The bolded section is the crux. No one is talking about hating Christians for being Christian. Being Christian doesn't require one to be a douchebag a la Pat Robertson. So the situation is not analagous.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
I unfortunately have not heard the saying as you put it. Must be you've been exposed to many more intoerant individuals than I. But more to the point all teachings I normally hear go along the lines of Judge not lest ye be judged.

That's odd, since "love the sinner, hate the sin" is one of the most common Christian concepts I've heard. And that you find it an intolerant belief is bizarre. Why shouldn't Christians hate sin? To them, sin = evil. Hating evil isn't a bad thing, is it?

The phrase is meant to highlight Christian tolerance. Christians use it all the time to point out that their disagreement with things like homosexuality on a moral level doesn't mean they hate gay people--that they can hate the sinful actions of people while not hating the people themselves. Do you not think it's possible for Christians to do this?

Again you must have been exposed to a sect of Christianity I have not, for I was always taught be repentant and truly believe and through Jesus you will be redeemed for we are all sinners. And since we are all sinners no one shall cast the first stone as it were.

This has little to do with what I was saying, as my implication was that these "sinners" were A) not repentant, and B) not Christians. That Christianity says all Christians will be saved isn't at issue, it's what it says will happen to the rest. And it's not very nice in that regards.

And since we are all sinners shall I hate all mankind as a result? Does this not go against the teachings of love thy brother as thyself?

Indeed, if one believes hating sin equates to hating sinners. But that's not what most Christians claim to believe, AFAIK. I'm arguing against that very notion...