Fractelle, I don't see where R0bert or I curtail your right to comment. In fact, I specifically said that I agree that when people try to claim Christianity is a morally superior way of life, then examples such as Falwell do indeed play a role in bringing them back to reality.

Myself and R0bert were just making the point that Falwell isn't representative of the whole religion - I really don't see how you can say this is curtailing your right to comment, especially seeing as we appear to be in agreement over the virtues and vices of certain posters.

When someone makes the point that a religion is inherently good or bad, I think it's fair to point to examples of the opposite.

Which applies just as much for your post as the ones we made in response - apologies if you feel as though you're being curtailed, though it would seem we're in agreement that Christianity isn't inherently good or bad.

I was just about to post that I understand where Fractelle is coming from, as I didn’t think the premise of the thread is about the moderate religion but rather about dogma when I refreshed the page and it appears I must’ve read Fractelle’s mind.
In that regard, Fractelle was right to mention Falwell.

Loose from that, RObert is right to say that Falwell doesn’t represent the Church and I agree that there have been many Christians that have done good work.

I find it a little amusing that “Mother” Teresa is mentioned as an example of a good Christian.
She is an example of someone who used the many millions of donations (some of it, at least a million was stolen money) to proselytise the most extreme interpretation of Catholic doctrine.
She did nothing about birth control even though infants and their mothers were dying by the truckload at her hospice.

She said, “I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people.”
She glorified suffering and perhaps that was the reason why she did nothing with the millions that were donated to improve the disastrous state of her very primitive hospice facilities but wasn’t afraid of using the money to extend her order by opening convents and institutions in about 120 countries in her name.
What was good for the goose was apparently not good enough for the gander, because when she became ill herself she didn’t hesitate to admit herself to a modern hospital with proper facilities.

Ah and if anyone is still in doubt how she loved fundamental Christian doctrine think about how she campaigned to prevent Ireland from ceasing to be the last county in Europe with a ban on divorce.

Celivia

Thank you for your support and your understanding of what this thread is about.

TRTL, I reiterate, this thread is about dogma - not the moderate religious. Therefore my use of Falwell as an example of the religious dogmatic is completely appropriate in this context. Without religious dogma, the likes of Falwell could never have occurred. I never stated that Falwell was representative of all christians. I don't think for a moment that he is.

The lack of critical scrutiny of religion, enables people like him or paedophile priests, or the 9/11 bombers to proceed to hurt people and cause much of the disturbance in this world.

Also, if you have been reading my posts you would know that I do make clear distinctions between dogma, moderate religion and spirituality. For example, on earlier posts to this thread I discussed being spiritual without following any formal religion. Seems to me that, like R0bert, you have just jumped in with your opinion without looking at the full context of this thread.

I think you have completely misunderstood the points I have been trying to make here. Oh well. I will try to be more succinct in future.

BTW Mother Teresa - what a peach, when she finally succumbed to illness she received the very best of medical care and technology, unlike the poor she 'helped' so much. Another example of where a lack of scrutiny can give a different impression on so-called 'good' christians.

Fractelle - I suspect we're in agreeance, by and large - though ultimately, I think perhaps you're a little quick to accuse people of curtailing freedom of speech.

It's something I myself take quite seriously, and even when I find posters comments abhorrent (not that yours are) I'd never attempt to have them banned, even though some of the posters I've criticised for hostile attitudes, have accused me of doing so (without basis).

I think the accusation that people are attempting to curtail freedom of speech can only genuinely be levelled when an attempt has been made at preventing someone from speaking their view - not mere disagreement.

Thread context is a difficult one - often threads head into other subjects. Most of the time it's depressingly repetitive as they all get streamed into a few narrow topics (any anti-feminists reading?) though other times, the topic shift can be quite productive.

In terms of context, I guess I'm just saying it's fair for Christians to defend the point that their whole religion isn't dogmatic - even though we all accept that that's the case.

Just as I'd also say you're quite justified in making the point that yes, some Christians are indeed like that.

Since I’ve dissed ‘Mother’ Teresa as a no-good Christian I thought I should come up with an example of the kind of Christian I can respect.
My preferred Christian would be someone like Jim Reiher.
http://www.evangelicalalliance.org.au/election/aGreens.htm

What I like about him as an example is:
- that he doesn’t blindly adhere to dogma- the man actually thoughtfully has shifted between denominations as he seeks to live as a Christian in our contemporary world (not a world of 2000 years ago).
- he is not a one-issue Christian.
- he thinks that all sinners should be treated equally since everyone is a sinner.
- he believes we are meant to care for the earth- not destroy it.
- he believes that medical treatment should be equally available to all.
- he values multiculturalism and fairly distributed funding for schools.
- he advocates us to do unto others (including refugees) like you would have them do unto you.
- he thinks it’s un-Christian to start wars. War should be for defensive purposes.

TRTL

I get where you're coming from. However, I'm not so sure about R0bert.

Now perhaps I was a little heavy-handed in my post to Boaz (like it's OK for him to be heavy-handed all the time) and perhaps I should have written something a little more obvious like "not all Christians are moral, for example Falwell; therefore believing in god doesn’t guarantee high morals".

However, like, Celivia I acknowledge that there are some very decent Christians and their faith seems more a part of their natures than a mere way to be ‘good’. For example Tim Costello, Shelby Spong and our own Foxy spring to mind as very sincere people.

Fundy-type Christians like BD & Philo, believe that we start out as sinners. Little babies are innocent and I find this notion of being tainted by original sin rather nasty. But this is where they get their idea that without religion we have no inherent moral ability.

We learn to behave badly, either through our parents, our teachers, other children and may be some of us are more susceptible to immoral behaviour than others; a mixture of nature and nurture. And science is providing evidence of this.

So when some evangelising, dogmatic, disrespectful religious extremist starts telling me I am somehow evil because I don’t share his faith, ‘fairness’ simply doesn’t enter into it. Boaz never ‘turns the other cheek’. I figure, if he likes to dish it out, then he should be able to take it.

All religions at some point have done some good. Problem is the good is outweighed by the bad. Not just the inquisitions, bad clergy, intolerance etc but the kind of bad that stops people from learning; from thinking for themselves; from rational thought processes: Critical Thinking.

We will continue to be held back by religious dogma for as long as religion is given special exemption from accountability. We expect responsible behaviour from other organisations – why not religion?
.