NationStates Jolt Archive

I don't know. This kind of reversal-trolling seems to be all the rage, so I thought I'd try it out.

But seriously. People very often do very stupid and intolerant things and cite religion as the motivation. Crashing airplanes into World Trade Towers is an extreme example, but less egregious cases include denying homosexuals civil rights and taking a strong stand against condoms as a means of preventing HIV transmission.

Now because we theoretically respect freedom of religion in the U.S., people aren't willing to stand up and say, "I don't care what your Big Book of Whoever says, your faith does not promote the well-being of the population. Your freedom to practice your faith does not include the freedom to enact policy that burdens the nation with your socially irresponsible screed."

This is also in reaction to the "Why do people think Christians hate homos?" thread. I don't care how you want to interpret the scripture or whether you want to analyze whether the Bible is specifically against men screwing men or men screwing women when they're on the rag. The point is whatever the book says, certain folks (like Swaggart) use it to justify their discrimination and then use it as a shield to deflect criticism of their bad behavior. I don't care if they found another book of the Bible in which the Almighty himself delivered a singing telegram to the effect of "Don't be kind, discriminate / Hate on gays and you'll feel great!" He'd be a dick in any translation and people should be willing to call out bad behavior even when veiled in faith, regardless of whether it's the Taliban blowing up ancient statues or folks in our own country pushing abstinence-only sex ed.

I think that the title of this thread is very apt. You said anti-Christianism, not anti-Christianity. That shows that what people are really irritated at are some of the Christians, not the religion itself. Kind of like the way that all forms of government are perfect, it's just the people in them that make them not work.

You have my support! Here here!
Although secularism is technicly a dream that has yet to be realised in the US.
Or that's the way I see it.

This is great....now we get to bash stupid people.

Well, considering they're 1/3rd of the world's population, I'd say Anti-Christianism isn't doing nearly enough.

This is great....now we get to bash stupid people.

Except for the really stupid among us, they bash themselves

Why doesn't everyone like Marmite? Or peanut butter? Or anchovies?

I could have sworn that there was enough angst to go around for every topic!

This is also in reaction to the "Why do people think Christians hate homos?" thread. I don't care how you want to interpret the scripture or whether you want to analyze whether the Bible is specifically against men screwing men or men screwing women when they're on the rag. The point is whatever the book says, certain folks (like Swaggart) use it to justify their discrimination and then use it as a shield to deflect criticism of their bad behavior. I don't care if they found another book of the Bible in which the Almighty himself delivered a singing telegram to the effect of "Don't be kind, discriminate / Hate on gays and you'll feel great!" He'd be a dick in any translation and people should be willing to call out bad behavior even when veiled in faith, regardless of whether it's the Taliban blowing up ancient statues or folks in our own country pushing abstinence-only sex ed.

1) Who is to judge what is and isnt "Bad behaviour"? "Society"? The same thing that will be completely indistinguishable from what it is now in say fifty years time?

2) If you read any translation of the Bible while it may be debateable that homosexual sex is a sin, whats not debatable is that if it is then it is not a cause to start hating commiters of said sin. Jesus hated sin but loved everyone. Since we were all sinners, that proves the "Love sinner, hate sin" idea correct.

1) Who is to judge what is and isnt "Bad behaviour"? "Society"? The same thing that will be completely indistinguishable from what it is now in say fifty years time?

2) If you read any translation of the Bible while it may be debateable that homosexual sex is a sin, whats not debatable is that if it is then it is not a cause to start hating commiters of said sin. Jesus hated sin but loved everyone. Since we were all sinners, that proves the "Love sinner, hate sin" idea correct.


And who's to say these ideas are correct?

Since we were all sinners, that proves the "Love sinner, hate sin" idea correct.
Nope. I am only a sinner if i chose to accept the guidelines that set them. If i read the Bible, disregard it and do what is fine by my code of honor and beliefs, i am a sinner maybe in your eyes. But who are you to weigh my worth and spell judgement over me?

2) If you read any translation of the Bible while it may be debateable that homosexual sex is a sin, whats not debatable is that if it is then it is not a cause to start hating commiters of said sin.

"30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them." ~ Romans 1

Thinking of someone as "worthy of death" isn't hating them?

This is not my opinion, interpretation, or viewpoint, this is what the Bible says and the above scripture cannot be understood any other way.

Keru, you forget the "salad bar" effect.

Followers of any religion treat their religious books like salad bars. They take what they want and leave the rest.

Consider the number of schools of thought in any religion, including Islam.

You can't possibly make me believe that each religion is a monolithic block of unanimous thought.

This is not my opinion, interpretation, or viewpoint, this is what the Bible says and the above scripture cannot be understood any other way.
I'm assuming that's from the Old Testament. I haven't read the Bible yet, but I intend to. But I do know that the Old Testament and New Testament God is kind of schizophrenic. He is wrathful in the Old, and merciful in the New.

Keru, you forget the "salad bar" effect.

Followers of any religion treat their religious books like salad bars. They take what they want and leave the rest.

Consider the number of schools of thought in any religion, including Islam.

You can't possibly make me believe that each religion is a monolithic block of unanimous thought.

Ok so why is it still in there?

If the Bible is the Word of God and people are allowed to pick and choose which of God's Word they want to listen to, why are bits like that still in the Bible? Why not just edit them out, say "sorry about that part", and move ahead with the new Bible in tow?

Every version of the Bible has that passage still in it. Why?

I'm assuming that's from the Old Testament. I haven't read the Bible yet, but I intend to. But I do know that the Old Testament and New Testament God is kind of schizophrenic. He is wrathful in the Old, and merciful in the New.

Of course not ... if I were to quote Old Testament, say Leviticus 20:13, people could too easily say, "Oh that's just OT and doesn't count anymore".

Romans is an NT book.

Romans is an NT book.
Oh...well then I guess even the New Testament God still has some wrath to spare.

Keru, it always warms my heart when folks reply to scriptural arguments with scripture. Personally, I feel that it doesn't really matter what the textual basis for one's actions are, it's how we behave in the world that matters. It's irrelevant that Allah told Mohammed to write a book that could be interpreted as a call to arms in the war against the infidel. Or that God told Moses where people should and shouldn't put their weenies. What matters is that people are being major jerks and they shouldn't be doing that, no matter who told them to.

All the same, props to you line-sifters.

Ok so why is it still in there?

If the Bible is the Word of God and people are allowed to pick and choose which of God's Word they want to listen to, why are bits like that still in the Bible? Why not just edit them out, say "sorry about that part", and move ahead with the new Bible in tow?

Every version of the Bible has that passage still in it. Why?

Do you believe every word of the Hadith? Do all Muslims interpret all of the Koran in exactly the same way? Do some ignore parts of it and still call themselves Muslim?

As I am both atheist and British, I find this debate absolutely fascinating. There is an absolutely bizzare difference between the UK and US: Britain, the secular nation, has a "constitution" in which church and state are linked. However the US constitution has a complete divorcing of state and church, but (maybe this is rash stereotyping) the US seems to be much more religious, in government and in society in general. We also seem to be much more liberal in the UK. Anything that interferes with individual, religious and racial freedoms is not alllowed. Maybe there should be a rise in anti-christianism to the extent that it would prevent the dogmatic justification for things like conflict, major and minor, but a certain ammount of Liberalism would cause a greater amount of cooperation and closer ties between all religions (or anti-religions). Then perhaps the whole world will get somewhere. (Sure, call me a bleeding heart:))

Since people all have very different ideas of what is "right" and "wrong", I think it is the duty of a government to be completely indifferent when it comes to religion. Here in the UK, although we've got an allegedly secular government, they're still playing footsy under the table with the C of E and christianity in general.

In the house of lords, I believe there is an exclusive section dubbed "the bishops". These guys get special access to the law-making process, not by election, but because they are leaders in the christian church. There's no "the ayatollas" or "the rabbis" or whatever. Not that I think there should be, I reckon the state should stay utterly free of religion, to prevent this kind of favoritism.

State schools over here are required by law to participate in a certain amount of "collective worship" every week, and this inevitably ends up being directed at the christian God. I find this appauling since the activities of these educators are payed for entirely by taxation from a very much multi-faith country. So in a sense, muslims, hindus, sikhs, buddhists, atheists, are paying involuntarily for people to worship a deity that they don't believe in.

What people believe or do by themselves is their own concern, but to my mind it is vital that the state remains impartial and secular.

Do you believe every word of the Hadith? Do all Muslims interpret all of the Koran in exactly the same way? Do some ignore parts of it and still call themselves Muslim?

The Hadith is merely how Muhammed interpreted what he was told. It's basically a big Q&A. For example, the Qur'an only requires 4 rakha at evening salat, but Muhammed would add a couple of extra, so some folks do what Muhammed did.

Another example, Muhammed covered his hair when he prayed, so some Muslims consider that proper, even though it doesn't say in Qur'an to do so.

I would give a good 95% of all Muslims interpret Qur'an in the same way. Some splinter groups have ignored parts of it and still call themselves Muslim, yes.

However, we're not talking about splinter groups in Christianity. I'd be willing to bet that an overwhelming majority of Christians do not believe that homosexuals are "worthy of death". Why not just take that out of the Bible then?

The Hadith is merely how Muhammed interpreted what he was told. It's basically a big Q&A. For example, the Qur'an only requires 4 rakha at evening salat, but Muhammed would add a couple of extra, so some folks do what Muhammed did.

Another example, Muhammed covered his hair when he prayed, so some Muslims consider that proper, even though it doesn't say in Qur'an to do so.

I would give a good 95% of all Muslims interpret Qur'an in the same way. Some splinter groups have ignored parts of it and still call themselves Muslim, yes.

However, we're not talking about splinter groups in Christianity. I'd be willing to bet that an overwhelming majority of Christians do not believe that homosexuals are "worthy of death". Why not just take that out of the Bible then?

I believe your estimate of 95% compliance with traditional Islamic dogma is accurate. Unfortunately, true academic examination of the Qur'an and the foundations of Islam are generally not tolerated in the Muslim world. Criticism of Islam is forbidden, and is punishable by death, as in the fatwas issued against Salman Rushdie and Taslima Nasrin. Islam also condemns blasphemy. Dr. Younus Shaikh (a humanist) was sentenced to death by a Pakistani court for blasphemy (he said he doubted that the parents of Mohammed were Muslims since they died when he was very young). There are hundreds of other cases of blasphemy. The most dreadful crime in Islam is unbelief, and especially apostasy for former Muslims, again punishable by death.

Islam needs its own "Reformation" to drag it out of the 8th century and into the modern world. Toleration of religious dissent is the foundation for other types of dissent, including political, which the Muslim world is in such desperate need.

I'm assuming that's from the Old Testament. I haven't read the Bible yet, but I intend to. But I do know that the Old Testament and New Testament God is kind of schizophrenic. He is wrathful in the Old, and merciful in the New.
I set up a thread asking for clarification on why the Old Testament is still part of the Christian Bible when Christians (in many cases) claim that its rules are irrelevant. I'd appreciate the Christian point of view on the issue. http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=382188

I have no idea why you made a topic like this. It proves you are childish and intolerant to Christians. I have no idea why you hate us or our faith, it’s your loss and you will loose. Christianity has survived hard times, you’re a troll and I find it sad that you sink to this level...

I think Anti-Dogmaticism is not on the rise enough.

Of course, because christians are the most numerous here in America, they'll obviously be targetted more. And then they'll whine and complain and tell us all how we're damned.

But I can live with that :D

Unfortunately, true academic examination of the Qur'an and the foundations of Islam are generally not tolerated in the Muslim world.

That's not true. We discuss Islam, the Qur'an, and all manner of such things in Mosque all the time.

Criticism of Islam is forbidden, and is punishable by death, as in the fatwas issued against Salman Rushdie and Taslima Nasrin.

There's that 5% I was talking about. The people who put out such things do not represent Islam.

Islam also condemns blasphemy.

So does Christianity and Judaism.

Dr. Younus Shaikh (a humanist) was sentenced to death by a Pakistani court for blasphemy (he said he doubted that the parents of Mohammed were Muslims since they died when he was very young).

Meh ... one country's laws do not symbolize all of Islam. It's like saying that because there's a law in Wisconsin against throwing babies out a 3rd story window that Americans in California want to throw babies out of 3rd story windows.

Anyway ... you'll also find that Dr.Younus Shaikh is alive and free and doing just fine. His sentencing was not legal in Pakistan or in Islam.

The most dreadful crime in Islam is unbelief

Actually, murder is the most dreadful crime in Islam. Not sure what Qur'an you're reading.

Islam needs its own "Reformation" to drag it out of the 8th century and into the modern world.

8th century, eh? So all of the astounding acheivements in mathematics, medicine, technology, and the sciences during the 9th-17th centuries didn't really happen?

I'm a Muslim ... I'm on the internet same as you ... how am I stuck in the 8th century?

I have no idea why you made a topic like this. It proves you are childish and intolerant to Christians. I have no idea why you hate us or our faith, it’s your loss and you will loose. Christianity has survived hard times, you’re a troll and I find it sad that you sink to this level...

Childish and intolerant? No, my dear, I believe you are talking about yourself, or other 'followers' of your beloved faith. Ever hear of a little thing called the Crusades? How about the Spanish Inquisition? Oh dear, it seems I may have stepped on some Christian toes! Oh no! Now they're going to burn me at the stake! Sound familiar yet? Historically, Christians have been childish and intolerant, unapologetically killing anyone who stood in their way. How many died in the Crusades? The Inquisition? How about the beheadings sanctioned by the Church?

Get over it. No one hates you OR your faith. It is the ignorance and narrow-minded preaching that we hate. Is it not enough that you have churches springing up every two feet in this country, but you have to televangelize,invading our homes through TV, Jehovah's Witnesses have to come to our doors, invading our own personal sanctuaries, and with the increased usage of the internet, forums such as these are infected with your false sensitivity and feigned moral outrage? Avoiding people such as you in an effort to protect our religious freedom, the very FOUNDATION of this country, is most definitely not a loss, and ,for your information, we will NOT lose.

My pagan faith has survived hard times, but I don't hop around throwing it in people's faces. For ages, and still today, anyone who dares to claim that he or she is pagan can be labeled with a multitude of terms that have collected throughout the ages, one of the most common (and, personally, most insulting) being 'heathen'. Do you know who is believed to have come up with this word? Christians. It's a pretty dirty thing to do if you're a religion preaching love to everyone.

Finally, you have no right to go about labeling someone a 'troll' merely because of a difference of opinion. You say we are 'sinking' to this level? No, my dear, it is you who is sinking. No one held a gun to your head, forcing you to read or post in this forum. You felt the need to read our posts and submit a reply. So, my dear, if we are 'trolls', then you are sinking to our level.

.

I just wanted to say ... that's one of the coolest NS names I've seen.

grrrrrrr! fear me! I'm fruity and salady! grrrrrrr!

:D :D :D :D

love it!

I just wanted to say ... that's one of the coolest NS names I've seen.

grrrrrrr! fear me! I'm fruity and salady! grrrrrrr!

:D :D :D :D

love it!

Why thank you. It is from the Hacker Jargon dictionary.

angry fruit salad: n.
A bad visual-interface design that uses too many colors. (This term derives, of course, from the bizarre day-glo colors found in canned fruit salad.) Too often one sees similar effects from interface designers using color window systems such as X; there is a tendency to create displays that are flashy and attention-getting but uncomfortable for long-term use.

Someone mentioned this to me one day because I had set the lab computers' color schemes to a hideous lime green, hot pink, and yellow combination, making them virtually unreadable to any normal human being. I found it amusing, and it stuck!

I have no idea why you made a topic like this. It proves you are childish and intolerant to Christians. I have no idea why you hate us or our faith, it’s your loss and you will loose. Christianity has survived hard times, you’re a troll and I find it sad that you sink to this level...

Hey, can anyone smell a hypocrite? Seriously though, not everyone who has posted here is anti-Christianity; personally I'm just against the idea of a "one true faith", or the concept of having to be a Christian to be capable of good deads. Seems to me to be a very limited mindscape, especially when you consider that humanists do several good acts every year, but just don't want to rely on the existance of a god to do good deads.

Hey, can anyone smell a hypocrite? Seriously though, not everyone who has posted here is anti-Christianity; personally I'm just against the idea of a "one true faith", or the concept of having to be a Christian to be capable of good deads. Seems to me to be a very limited mindscape, especially when you consider that humanists do several good acts every year, but just don't want to rely on the existance of a god to do good deads.

It all comes from Augustine - arguably the worst thing to ever happen to the Christian religion.

According to Augustine, human beings have free will - but only the free will to do bad things (because of the fall). If God chooses you (Augustine was also a strict predestinationist) to be saved, God will grant you grace. At that point, you can actually choose to do good things. Everyone else can still only do evil.

Of course, Augustine also said that babies sin by crying for food.

It all comes from Augustine - arguably the worst thing to ever happen to the Christian religion.

According to Augustine, human beings have free will - but only the free will to do bad things (because of the fall). If God chooses you (Augustine was also a strict predestinationist) to be saved, God will grant you grace. At that point, you can actually choose to do good things. Everyone else can still only do evil.

Of course, Augustine also said that babies sin by crying for food.

Yeah, I know about Augustine and his theodicy. Perhaps not the worst thing to happen to Christianity: Aquinus was a bit off with the Natural Law argument:

* Everything has a final cause which cannot be interupted at all.
# Ok Aquinas, I can see that, but...
* Therfore abortion is wrong, as it prevents the final cause of sexual intercourse.
# Alright, but what about if the mother will die of her pregnancy?
* Ah, that's different, as the mother has the potential to have more children. She should be saved.
# Isn't that a contradiction in terms? And by your argument, that means rape is justified, as it attempts to carry out the final cause of sexual intercourse.
* (Long silence)
# You were wrong, weren't you.
* Shut up.
# Go on, admit it
* Go away.
# Oh go on, admit...
* I SAID SHUT UP. (Storms off angrily to re-think his argument)

Whoops. Got a bit carried away there :)