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.

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.
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.

"I challenge you to back up your allegations"
 

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.

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.

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.

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.

*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.

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.

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.

Because they call themselves Christians.Yes, ideally, or in theory. I'm not discussing theoretical ideas. 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...)