NationStates Jolt Archive


Christians

Rath de Ort
04-10-2005, 14:15
Ok, I am going to rant a bit. Please don't give me grief about it either, because everyone not of my same beliefs seem to go on tirades quite often. I am sick of holding my tongue, so I am going to speak up.

Quit using Christians as whipping boys. It is as much not ok to rail on us as it would be to verbally bash an agnostic, buddist, hindu or any other religion. The fact of the matter is all the ignorance and tripe just shows the person speaking it to be utter fools. There comes a time in every life where we choose what we believe. Whether or not you are raised in one religion or train of thought, you must choose for yourself what you trust to be real. We have that freedom. You can marginalize God and even say he dosen't exist... you can draw up your own gods and cling to old ways and the worship of the earth... you can spout profane ignorance and name it philosiphy (pardon the spelling)... But the fact is no matter how you live on earth, we will all die. Death is certain and eternal. Would you rather build up your walls of unimaginative lack of faith or cover yourself in what men say to be true OR would you rather take the chance... that leap of faith that lets you believe that God exists and loves you and has a plan for your life? It's up to each and every one of us. You are entitled to your beliefs and be sure that I know there are people who use and abuse my faith just as in any religion, creed or political persuasion. But like my grandmother used to say, "If you let the hippocrites keep you out then eventually you'll spend eternity with them." So choose, I already have. Be on your side... I am on mine. But DO NOT label my faith and the true followers of Christ as fanatic, lunatic or any of the other monikers I so often hear. It shows you as the equivalent of a racist. We are more intelligent than that, I hope.


P.S. This is not directed at any one person, but the general public as I have increasingly noticed the rampant hatred that brews.
Sierra BTHP
04-10-2005, 14:19
If you haven't noticed, here on NS General, every group is a whipping boy. Democrats, Republicans, Communists, Fascists, Anarchists, Christians, Muslims, blacks, whites, you name the group they get whipped here.

If you don't like the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
Kyott
04-10-2005, 14:20
Bravo. Now do to others as you would have them do to you.
UpwardThrust
04-10-2005, 14:22
If you haven't noticed, here on NS General, every group is a whipping boy. Democrats, Republicans, Communists, Fascists, Anarchists, Christians, Muslims, blacks, whites, you name the group they get whipped here.

If you don't like the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
Agreed … Christians are brought up a bit more … but for most of us they are both the prevalent religion that we interact with not to mention the one most people are more familiar with (not to mention part of a lot of our pasts)

Not to mention that they are the ones USING THEIR FAITH to justify modifying MY freedoms. I reserve my right to question ANYTHING that decides to impose itself in my life.
Balipo
04-10-2005, 14:23
An interesting rant. I will respond to the only question there.

Why not take the leap of faith and believe in god and an afterlife?

Because I have this life. This life has led me to believe that there is no need to wait to have a good time and enjoy the things presented before me. I have never seen anything in all the world that has convinced me that it is all controlled by one (or a few, or many) all powerful entity. I have seen nothing that has led me to believe in an afterlife. We live, we die. It's just the way things work.

And while you don't wish to be labeled a lunatic or fanatic, you must be willing to admit that there are members of your faith that are lunatics and fanatics, and therefore, we argue. That is the nature of most debates, those who cling to their beliefs so closely that they cannot be as understanding as you seem to be with the above statement.

As an atheist, I appreciate your open view and find it refreshing. But remember, you are not in the majority of the people you are a part of.
Smunkeeville
04-10-2005, 14:33
okay. I do put up with a lot of crap on here because I am a Christian, I do realize that I am not the only subgroup that gets picked on either.

I do respect your right to hate me just because of my beliefs (I don't like it, but if I liked everything that went on it wouldn't be a free country)

I would like to see less of the

Christianity is evil
fundies are bad
Christains are stupid
and the "you all believe in fairy stories and are complete idiots"
stuff.

I would never attack anyone else that way, and you know why? even if I think that stuff to say it would get me in major trouble for flaming, but when it is said about Christians it is fine.
I don't get it.

to be honest I haven't really reported it because the Mods have too much to deal with anyway, but maybe I should.
Tekania
04-10-2005, 14:36
Agreed … Christians are brought up a bit more … but for most of us they are both the prevalent religion that we interact with not to mention the one most people are more familiar with (not to mention part of a lot of our pasts)

Not to mention that they are the ones USING THEIR FAITH to justify modifying MY freedoms. I reserve my right to question ANYTHING that decides to impose itself in my life.

The same is true the other way around.... There is little in the realm of objective mentality on many of the "groups" in here when it comes to making such a decision.

It's always THEY ARE, SUCH AND SUCH GROUP IS, THEY WANT TO...

It really should be PERSON X IS, PERSON X WANTS TO... etc.

It's not much in the way of objectivism to make the illogical leap of "Person X wants to do Action Y, and belongs to Group Z; therefore Group Z wants to impose Action Y...."... That's like trying to group me and Grave-n-Idle together, merely because we may agree on one or two things.... We are an individual society, and ideas and opinions should be handled on an individual basis... and all this THEM/US/WE GroupX/GroupY bullshit doesn't take anything anywhere, no matter what side keeps using it...
Keruvalia
04-10-2005, 14:37
Quit using Christians as whipping boys.

Dear Sir or Madam:

After careful consideration of your proposed removal of whipping boy status, the Board of Trustees for the Elders of Zion has denied your request. While we understand your dilemna at how the Christian has been kept down over the centuries and never been allowed to hold any real power in any nation on the planet and we further understand that your freedom to teach and spread your religion and religious ideals to other nations has been repressed to the point of keeping you limited to a few small island city-states, we have deemed it necessary to keep you in your position for the time being.

We invite you to reapply at a later date. As part of the application process, please make sure you complete the following checklist:

1] Have one or more of you come to the rank of President of a large industrialised nation. We realise this may be difficult for you but we need a greater majority of public office holdings from your group to consider your proposal. After all, our records indicate - on just a cursory glance of the United States - that you've only had 43 men acheive this goal.

2] Replace and/or assimilate an indigenous peoples. While we are aware that you have done this effectively for no less than 187 nations, we do not feel you've really put forth your best effort.

3] We do not feel that being the largest religion on the planet is enough to allow you to cast off the bonds of your oppression at this time. Please reapply after obtaining at least 1/3rd of the world's population.

Sincerely,

They

..... oh wait .....
Balipo
04-10-2005, 14:59
okay. I do put up with a lot of crap on here because I am a Christian, I do realize that I am not the only subgroup that gets picked on either.

I do respect your right to hate me just because of my beliefs (I don't like it, but if I liked everything that went on it wouldn't be a free country)

I would like to see less of the

Christianity is evil
fundies are bad
Christains are stupid
and the "you all believe in fairy stories and are complete idiots"
stuff.

I would never attack anyone else that way, and you know why? even if I think that stuff to say it would get me in major trouble for flaming, but when it is said about Christians it is fine.
I don't get it.

to be honest I haven't really reported it because the Mods have too much to deal with anyway, but maybe I should.


You knew I would have to pick this up...you cutie with a hidden agenda...

I think sometimes that people misinterpret was is said. Here is what i think may be meant at times (I could be wrong, but maybe not). Hear me out as these are just explainations and not attempts to debate:

Christianity is evil - while christianity doesn't profess the tenets of anything inherently evil, there have been times when the ideas of christianity have been misinterpreted for evil purposes. So essentially, it would be more right to say that some who refer to themselves as christians can be evil.

Fundies are bad - generally any kind of fundamentalism is bad, religious or otherwise. Why? The reason why is that fundamentalism zeroes in on one aspect of anything and takes it literally to the point of shunning any other possibilities. This does not leave room for intellectual growth, which is necessary to human development.

Christians are stupid - some christians are stupid. Some atheists are stupid. Hell, I think 75% of the US is stupid (but unfortunately they keep showing up on election day). I don't think someone is stupid because of their philosophy, but people are stupid in general.

The fairy stories thing I can't make look better. It is an opinion held by many opponents of religion.

And that's my 2 cents... ;)
Smunkeeville
04-10-2005, 15:15
You knew I would have to pick this up...you cutie with a hidden agenda...

I think sometimes that people misinterpret was is said. Here is what i think may be meant at times (I could be wrong, but maybe not). Hear me out as these are just explainations and not attempts to debate:

Christianity is evil - while christianity doesn't profess the tenets of anything inherently evil, there have been times when the ideas of christianity have been misinterpreted for evil purposes. So essentially, it would be more right to say that some who refer to themselves as christians can be evil.

Fundies are bad - generally any kind of fundamentalism is bad, religious or otherwise. Why? The reason why is that fundamentalism zeroes in on one aspect of anything and takes it literally to the point of shunning any other possibilities. This does not leave room for intellectual growth, which is necessary to human development.

Christians are stupid - some christians are stupid. Some atheists are stupid. Hell, I think 75% of the US is stupid (but unfortunately they keep showing up on election day). I don't think someone is stupid because of their philosophy, but people are stupid in general.

The fairy stories thing I can't make look better. It is an opinion held by many opponents of religion.

And that's my 2 cents... ;)

I know what they meant it still doesn't make it right to say it the way they do.

face it if I said any other religion or ethnic group was evil, even if what I meant was that sometimes some people of that religious group or ethnicity were doing things I percieve as evil, then I would get in major trouble.
I would be 'racist' or 'intolerant'

that was my point, people think just because we are in the majority it is okay to bash us, but if we say anything like that about anyone else, it causes huge problems.
UpwardThrust
04-10-2005, 15:34
The same is true the other way around.... There is little in the realm of objective mentality on many of the "groups" in here when it comes to making such a decision.

It's always THEY ARE, SUCH AND SUCH GROUP IS, THEY WANT TO...

It really should be PERSON X IS, PERSON X WANTS TO... etc.

It's not much in the way of objectivism to make the illogical leap of "Person X wants to do Action Y, and belongs to Group Z; therefore Group Z wants to impose Action Y...."... That's like trying to group me and Grave-n-Idle together, merely because we may agree on one or two things.... We are an individual society, and ideas and opinions should be handled on an individual basis... and all this THEM/US/WE GroupX/GroupY bullshit doesn't take anything anywhere, no matter what side keeps using it...
Ok person X is using Christianity as a justification
My statement still stands that I reserve EVERY right to question that justification
Druidville
04-10-2005, 15:38
There is a lot of ignorance here, really, about the real Christian life. It's sad to see only hate spread, rather than any attempt to understand each other.

It's too easy to hate.
Fenland Friends
04-10-2005, 15:49
I know what they meant it still doesn't make it right to say it the way they do.

face it if I said any other religion or ethnic group was evil, even if what I meant was that sometimes some people of that religious group or ethnicity were doing things I percieve as evil, then I would get in major trouble.
I would be 'racist' or 'intolerant'

that was my point, people think just because we are in the majority it is okay to bash us, but if we say anything like that about anyone else, it causes huge problems.

I'm using the word "you" as a collective pronoun for the sake of this argument. Nothing personal Smunkeeville.
"You" (the Christian Majority) do call other people evil. All the time.

You condemn abortion, because your beliefs tell you that it is a sin, ergo evil. Fine. Don't do it.

You condemn premarital sex, because it is a sin, ergo evil-Fine. Don't do it.

You condemn some/most/all of the teachings of science because it doesn't suit the way that you interpret the teachings of a book written thousands of years ago. Fine, don't do science. It'll take care of itself.

You interfere in science classes because you don't like evidence based thinking.

So whilst there are still "Christians" who will interfere with other peoples' rights and freedoms, refuse to countenance their intellectual freedom and generally get on the case of anyone who doesn't think like "you" do, get used to being reviled and ridiculed by certain elements of the population who don't beleive in your interpretations. Pretty simple really.
Kyott
04-10-2005, 15:50
I'm using the word "you" as a collective pronoun for the sake of this argument. Nothing personal Smunkeeville.
"You" (the Christian Majority) do call other people evil. All the time.

You condemn abortion, because your beliefs tell you that it is a sin, ergo evil. Fine. Don't do it.

You condemn premarital sex, because it is a sin, ergo evil-Fine. Don't do it.

You condemn some/most/all of the teachings of science because it doesn't suit the way that you interpret the teachings of a book written thousands of years ago. Fine, don't do science. It'll take care of itself.

You interfere in science classes because you don't like evidence based thinking.

So whilst there are still "Christians" who will interfere with other peoples' rights and freedoms, refuse to countenance their intellectual freedom and generally get on the case of anyone who doesn't think like "you" do, get used to being reviled and ridiculed by certain elements of the population who don't beleive in your interpretations. Pretty simple really.


Amen
Eutrusca
04-10-2005, 15:54
Ok, I am going to rant a bit. Please don't give me grief about it either, because everyone not of my same beliefs seem to go on tirades quite often. I am sick of holding my tongue, so I am going to speak up.

Quit using Christians as whipping boys. It is as much not ok to rail on us as it would be to verbally bash an agnostic, buddist, hindu or any other religion. The fact of the matter is all the ignorance and tripe just shows the person speaking it to be utter fools. There comes a time in every life where we choose what we believe. Whether or not you are raised in one religion or train of thought, you must choose for yourself what you trust to be real. We have that freedom. You can marginalize God and even say he dosen't exist... you can draw up your own gods and cling to old ways and the worship of the earth... you can spout profane ignorance and name it philosiphy (pardon the spelling)... But the fact is no matter how you live on earth, we will all die. Death is certain and eternal. Would you rather build up your walls of unimaginative lack of faith or cover yourself in what men say to be true OR would you rather take the chance... that leap of faith that lets you believe that God exists and loves you and has a plan for your life? It's up to each and every one of us. You are entitled to your beliefs and be sure that I know there are people who use and abuse my faith just as in any religion, creed or political persuasion. But like my grandmother used to say, "If you let the hippocrites keep you out then eventually you'll spend eternity with them." So choose, I already have. Be on your side... I am on mine. But DO NOT label my faith and the true followers of Christ as fanatic, lunatic or any of the other monikers I so often hear. It shows you as the equivalent of a racist. We are more intelligent than that, I hope.
Well said. Unfortunately, few will listen to your request to avoid Christian-bashing. But don't get the idea that Christians are the only group that comes under fire on here ... virtually everyone gets verbally assaulted on General sooner or later. :)

If you choose to stay and participate, one of two things will happen: either your faith will be greatly strengthened, or you will leave in anger and disgust. I hope you choose to stay. I don't bash faith of any sort, per se, but I do love a good "discussion." :D
Sierra BTHP
04-10-2005, 15:55
I'm using the word "you" as a collective pronoun for the sake of this argument. Nothing personal Smunkeeville.
"You" (the Christian Majority) do call other people evil. All the time.


And here's where you're painting with a broad brush.

Not all Christian churches or organizations do what you say.

If I was to say that the actions and beliefs of a few Muslims could be applied to the rest of them by using a collective pronoun, I'm sure that people would say that I was wrong.

As you are, for painting with such a broad brush.
Nayadica
04-10-2005, 15:57
We invite you to reapply at a later date. As part of the application process, please make sure you complete the following checklist:

1] Have one or more of you come to the rank of President of a large industrialised nation. We realise this may be difficult for you but we need a greater majority of public office holdings from your group to consider your proposal. After all, our records indicate - on just a cursory glance of the United States - that you've only had 43 men acheive this goal.

2] Replace and/or assimilate an indigenous peoples. While we are aware that you have done this effectively for no less than 187 nations, we do not feel you've really put forth your best effort.

3] We do not feel that being the largest religion on the planet is enough to allow you to cast off the bonds of your oppression at this time. Please reapply after obtaining at least 1/3rd of the world's population.



this is possibly the best thing i've read in the last year. thank you, thank you!

i don't promote bashing other people's religious beliefs, because i feel so marginalized as an atheist that it would be utterly hypocritical for me to go around telling people what they should or shouldn't believe. however, i do feel that it's perfectly fine to defend my own beliefs, and in my short time on this board i have seen plenty of references to atheists being unimaginative, short-sighted, stupid, and more. it's really easy to feel slighted about something as important and central to our personalities as religion, or the lack thereof. when your religion has been one of the most powerful on earth for a long, LONG time, though, it's hard to take a complaint like feeling like christians are whipping boys too seriously.
BerkylvaniaYetAgain
04-10-2005, 16:04
So whilst there are still "Christians" who will interfere with other peoples' rights and freedoms, refuse to countenance their intellectual freedom and generally get on the case of anyone who doesn't think like "you" do, get used to being reviled and ridiculed by certain elements of the population who don't beleive in your interpretations. Pretty simple really.

This sounds like you're saying so long as a single "Christian" acts like a tool, it's perfectly understandable and acceptable to respond to the entire group as condoning and even supporting that individual's actions?

You know, it's interesting. One of the chief charges against theism is that it leads to sloppy thinking, making blind assumptions about life and those living it without individual thought in the matter or individual consideration.
Fenland Friends
04-10-2005, 16:05
And here's where you're painting with a broad brush.

Not all Christian churches or organizations do what you say.

If I was to say that the actions and beliefs of a few Muslims could be applied to the rest of them by using a collective pronoun, I'm sure that people would say that I was wrong.

As you are, for painting with such a broad brush.

Well given that the Christians on here refer to themselves as Christians, and given that we are being asked not to Christian bash, what would you suggest?
I'm genuinely interested. It is very difficult to argue with people who describe themselves as part of a collective, then ask one not to criticise that collective, when their response is "but that's a sweeping generalisation". They, in effect, geralise themselves, then want to argue as an individual.

When people appear to speak on behalf of the "majority", it's unfortunate that they will be classed as exactly that-part of every rag bag focus group with a deathwish for freedom of thought. After all, I don't notice too many of the Conservatives on here restricting their use of the term "liberal" to describe anything they disagree with.

FWIW, I was brought up in a presbyterian househould, and I firmly believe that Christianity has done much good in the world. However, I was taught that it was about finding your own, personal relationship with God, and not forcing your beliefs onto others.

I can understand the annoyance of people like Smunkeeville and other reasonable religious believers to the level of sarcasm and ridicule they encounter. But perhaps it might be better for them to counsel their "bretheren" rather than complaining at impersonal invective that they can choose to take or leave.
Sierra BTHP
04-10-2005, 16:08
Well given that the Christians on here refer to themselves as Christians, and given that we are being asked not to Christian bash, what would you suggest?

At the very least, you might want to ask which denomination they are.

If I'm talking to a Muslim, it makes a huge difference. Heterodoxy makes it an act of ignorance for someone to apply something collectively.
Fenland Friends
04-10-2005, 16:10
This sounds like you're saying so long as a single "Christian" acts like a tool, it's perfectly understandable and acceptable to respond to the entire group as condoning and even supporting that individual's actions?

You know, it's interesting. One of the chief charges against theism is that it leads to sloppy thinking, making blind assumptions about life and those living it without individual thought in the matter or individual consideration.

See previous. Most people on here refer to themselves as Liberals, Republicans, Neo Cons etc. then ask for consideration of the individual. Religious belief is no more important than political or philosophical belief. It is also no less important. If you choose a collective standpoint, live with it.
You know, it's nearly as funny as the hundred varieties of Socialist/Communist complaining that "ah, but he's a Trot" or "he's a Stalinist revisionist".

I agree with you, but it was not me that asked for the general dispensation. And in fact , that was really what my first post was all about.
BerkylvaniaYetAgain
04-10-2005, 16:11
As for the OP, speaking as a theist...calm down and get over it. It's not worth getting worked up about. There are intelligent, interesting and coherent people on this board, both athiest and theist, who are willing to enter a religious discussion in a spirit of communication and understanding rather than an out of control high school policy debate. Listen and learn from those people to broaden and deepen your understanding of faith as well as theirs and let the others enjoy their rhetoric.

In my experience, it seems to me the problem is many Christians have never had to truly deal with a critique of their faith because, most of the time, they're in the majority. True, in terms of world numbers, they may not be a majority (I can't remember what the numbers actually are), but we do seem to group together and travel in packs. So when a critique happens, it appears to register as a personal attack when it may have just been an observation or an invitation to dialogue. Of course, sometimes they are just personal attacks, but those can be safely ignored.
Tekania
04-10-2005, 16:12
Ok person X is using Christianity as a justification
My statement still stands that I reserve EVERY right to question that justification

his/hers, not THAT.... Some people use evolutionary theory as a backdrop justification for racism..... That does not mean that I question the backdrop, I question the process by which they arrive at their justification (that is, question their process of justification....) Which then is viable...

The problem with attempting to attack back-drop group classifications, is that you become absolutely no different than the people you are opposing; and then you wonder why the rest of us can no longer distinguish you from Jerry Falwell (because both of you end up relying on the same faulty PROCESS) as far as HOW you are opperating...

I do have a beef with some people who are Atheists, however, I do not have a beef with Atheism in general....
I do have a beef with some people who are Christians, however, I do not have a beef with Christians in general....
I do have a beef with some people who are socialists, however, I do not have a beef with socialism in general...
I do have a beef with some people who are capitalists, however, I do not have a beef with capitalists in general...
I do have a beef with some people who are libertarians, however, I do not have a beef with libertarians in general...

The beefs I have are with INDIVIDUAL PARTICULAR IDEOLOGIES SPOUTED BY INDIVIDUAL AND PARTICULAR PEOPLE... I do not automatically transfer such to attack other people who are not even involved by laying the fault on an entire group of people who aren't even present at the time...

I'll give you an example....

Jerry Falwell and all his BS rhetoric.... Sure, it is fine to note his use of Christianty as false justification for the stuff he would impose...

However to use Falwell to make a blanket statement that "Christians want to do (such-n-such)" is not valid, proper, and in fact is a lie... Since the statement is not unilaterally true, and not all (read few, really) Christians would support Falwell's beliefs [Falwell barely represents Baptists in general, let alone the entirety of Christendom]...
Fenland Friends
04-10-2005, 16:13
At the very least, you might want to ask which denomination they are.

If I'm talking to a Muslim, it makes a huge difference. Heterodoxy makes it an act of ignorance for someone to apply something collectively.


Fair enough, except the person who started the thread didn't ask to be taken as a Catholic, Methodist or anything else. If you want to describe yourself as a Christian, the onus (it might be said) would be on the person to explain what that means to them. After all, I'm the one that's being accused of generalising.

Of course I'm ignorant of their denomination. I'm European. Want to call me a Frenchman? If I didn't tell you that I was Scottish, you might be right or wrong about me, but you wouldn't know unless I made it clear.
Sierra BTHP
04-10-2005, 16:15
Fair enough, except the person who started the thread didn't ask to be taken as a Catholic, Methodist or anything else. If you want to describe yourself as a Christian, the onus (it might be said) would be on the person to explain what that means to them. After all, I'm the one that's being accused of generalising.

Of course I'm ignorant of their denomination. I'm European. Want to call me a Frenchman? If I didn't tell you that I was Scottish, you might be right or wrong about me, but you wouldn't know unless I made it clear.

Not all Frenchmen are alike, either. Some, technically French, fish for sharks using dogs as bait.
Smunkeeville
04-10-2005, 16:16
I'm using the word "you" as a collective pronoun for the sake of this argument. Nothing personal Smunkeeville.
"You" (the Christian Majority) do call other people evil. All the time.

You condemn abortion, because your beliefs tell you that it is a sin, ergo evil. Fine. Don't do it.

You condemn premarital sex, because it is a sin, ergo evil-Fine. Don't do it.

You condemn some/most/all of the teachings of science because it doesn't suit the way that you interpret the teachings of a book written thousands of years ago. Fine, don't do science. It'll take care of itself.

You interfere in science classes because you don't like evidence based thinking.

So whilst there are still "Christians" who will interfere with other peoples' rights and freedoms, refuse to countenance their intellectual freedom and generally get on the case of anyone who doesn't think like "you" do, get used to being reviled and ridiculed by certain elements of the population who don't beleive in your interpretations. Pretty simple really.

ah but the things you are talking about "us" being critical about are actions, there is a difference.

Saying that you don't agree with a specific action as apposed to hating an entire group of people are two different things.

like I said earlier, you do have a right to hate me. I understand completely if you do. I don't see why you have the right to make inflamitory statements though.
Hoos Bandoland
04-10-2005, 16:18
Quit using Christians as whipping boys. .

Don't worry about it. Most Christians are secure enough in their relationship with God and each other that the "attacks" of others really don't phase them all that much. I'm sure they find the "attacks" both pathetic and, at the same time, vaguely humourous. At any rate, I don't know of anyone who has renounced Christ on the basis of attacks or arguments by non-Christians, which proves the overall harmlessness of such attacks/arguments.
Smunkeeville
04-10-2005, 16:19
[QUOTE=Fenland Friends]Well given that the Christians on here refer to themselves as Christians, and given that we are being asked not to Christian bash, what would you suggest?
I'm genuinely interested. It is very difficult to argue with people who describe themselves as part of a collective, then ask one not to criticise that collective, when their response is "but that's a sweeping generalisation". They, in effect, geralise themselves, then want to argue as an individual.[QUOTE]

So what about Muslims, Afican Americans, and Homosexuals?

They identify themselves with a larger group, but want to be treated individually too.

If I said "all homosexuals are (insert overgeneralization here)
that would be a huge problem right?
Super-power
04-10-2005, 16:20
If you haven't noticed, here on NS General, every group is a whipping boy. Democrats, Republicans, Communists, Fascists, Anarchists, Christians, Muslims, blacks, whites, you name the group they get whipped here.
You forgot the libertarians - I feel so victimized :(
Smunkeeville
04-10-2005, 16:22
his/hers, not THAT.... Some people use evolutionary theory as a backdrop justification for racism..... That does not mean that I question the backdrop, I question the process by which they arrive at their justification (that is, question their process of justification....) Which then is viable...

The problem with attempting to attack back-drop group classifications, is that you become absolutely no different than the people you are opposing; and then you wonder why the rest of us can no longer distinguish you from Jerry Falwell (because both of you end up relying on the same faulty PROCESS) as far as HOW you are opperating...

I do have a beef with some people who are Atheists, however, I do not have a beef with Atheism in general....
I do have a beef with some people who are Christians, however, I do not have a beef with Christians in general....
I do have a beef with some people who are socialists, however, I do not have a beef with socialism in general...
I do have a beef with some people who are capitalists, however, I do not have a beef with capitalists in general...
I do have a beef with some people who are libertarians, however, I do not have a beef with libertarians in general...

The beefs I have are with INDIVIDUAL PARTICULAR IDEOLOGIES SPOUTED BY INDIVIDUAL AND PARTICULAR PEOPLE... I do not automatically transfer such to attack other people who are not even involved by laying the fault on an entire group of people who aren't even present at the time...

I'll give you an example....

Jerry Falwell and all his BS rhetoric.... Sure, it is fine to note his use of Christianty as false justification for the stuff he would impose...

However to use Falwell to make a blanket statement that "Christians want to do (such-n-such)" is not valid, proper, and in fact is a lie... Since the statement is not unilaterally true, and not all (read few, really) Christians would support Falwell's beliefs [Falwell barely represents Baptists in general, let alone the entirety of Christendom]...

exactly.
Sighter Goliant
04-10-2005, 16:22
The meta-narrative of the American media is that fundamentalism is growing, conservative Christians are thriving, and the power of the so-called "Christian Right" is swelling across the country.

However, the untold story is the increasingly relevant "liberal" Christians who believe in aid to the poor, inclusion of ALL people regardless of gender or sexual orientation, concern for social and economic justice, and the responsible exercise of power. This is, of course, a very limited list of tenets which these mainstream and "liberal" Christians profess.

I won't go into more detail, but suffice it to say that there is a broader, more inclusive version of Christianity than the fundamentalist variants. Check out the National Council of Churches or the Alliance of Baptists if you don't believe me.
UpwardThrust
04-10-2005, 16:24
his/hers, not THAT.... Some people use evolutionary theory as a backdrop justification for racism..... That does not mean that I question the backdrop, I question the process by which they arrive at their justification (that is, question their process of justification....) Which then is viable...

I personaly question both

I look at what they are using for a reason and why ... sometimes it is what they are using that I see more fault with then the path they arive there

It all depends on the person and the arguement

The problem with attempting to attack back-drop group classifications, is that you become absolutely no different than the people you are opposing; and then you wonder why the rest of us can no longer distinguish you from Jerry Falwell (because both of you end up relying on the same faulty PROCESS) as far as HOW you are opperating...

I do have a beef with some people who are Atheists, however, I do not have a beef with Atheism in general....
I do have a beef with some people who are Christians, however, I do not have a beef with Christians in general....
I do have a beef with some people who are socialists, however, I do not have a beef with socialism in general...
I do have a beef with some people who are capitalists, however, I do not have a beef with capitalists in general...
I do have a beef with some people who are libertarians, however, I do not have a beef with libertarians in general...

The beefs I have are with INDIVIDUAL PARTICULAR IDEOLOGIES SPOUTED BY INDIVIDUAL AND PARTICULAR PEOPLE... I do not automatically transfer such to attack other people who are not even involved by laying the fault on an entire group of people who aren't even present at the time...

I'll give you an example....

Jerry Falwell and all his BS rhetoric.... Sure, it is fine to note his use of Christianty as false justification for the stuff he would impose...

However to use Falwell to make a blanket statement that "Christians want to do (such-n-such)" is not valid, proper, and in fact is a lie... Since the statement is not unilaterally true, and not all (read few, really) Christians would support Falwell's beliefs [Falwell barely represents Baptists in general, let alone the entirety of Christendom]...
(The rest of your statement I agree with don’t think I was trying to justify generalization)
I more was reflecting on the individual level then on the group level (for the most part)
Smunkeeville
04-10-2005, 16:24
Don't worry about it. Most Christians are secure enough in their relationship with God and each other that the "attacks" of others really don't phase them all that much. I'm sure they find the "attacks" both pathetic and, at the same time, vaguely humourous. At any rate, I don't know of anyone who has renounced Christ on the basis of attacks or arguments by non-Christians, which proves the overall harmlessness of such attacks/arguments.
I don't think any attacks are harmless.
Are they going to change my mind about what I believe? nope

Could they taint others veiws of Christianity? yes.

just because it doesn't harm the Christian specifically doesn't mean that it is harmless.
UpwardThrust
04-10-2005, 16:25
You forgot the libertarians - I feel so victimized :(
Tekania got it lol
The Black Forrest
04-10-2005, 16:25
You forgot one:

If you haven't noticed, here on NS General, every group is a whipping boy. Democrats, Republicans, Communists, Fascists, Anarchists, Christians, Muslims, blacks, whites, Sierra BTHP, you name the group they get whipped here.

You are a group onto yourself! :p
UpwardThrust
04-10-2005, 16:27
You forgot one:

If you haven't noticed, here on NS General, every group is a whipping boy. Democrats, Republicans, Communists, Fascists, Anarchists, Christians, Muslims, blacks, whites, Sierra BTHP, you name the group they get whipped here.

You are a group onto yourself! :p
Yup … Christians get a bit more attention but they are the dominant group where most of us live … they naturally attract attention.
BerkylvaniaYetAgain
04-10-2005, 16:28
See previous. Most people on here refer to themselves as Liberals, Republicans, Neo Cons etc. then ask for consideration of the individual. Religious belief is no more important than political or philosophical belief. It is also no less important. If you choose a collective standpoint, live with it.
You know, it's nearly as funny as the hundred varieties of Socialist/Communist complaining that "ah, but he's a Trot" or "he's a Stalinist revisionist".

And that's why I tend to refer to myself as a theist more than as a Christian, even though that's how I identify religiously (if loosely).

That aside, though, I do see your point. I even agree with it to an extent. Some criticism will be leveled at you when you embrace anything. The question is, is that criticism correct?


I agree with you, but it was not me that asked for the general dispensation. And in fact , that was really what my first post was all about.

But if we assume a blanket "ask" to be incorrect or at least untenable, should we not also assume a blanket "answer" to be the same?
Fenland Friends
04-10-2005, 16:28
ah but the things you are talking about "us" being critical about are actions, there is a difference.

Saying that you don't agree with a specific action as apposed to hating an entire group of people are two different things.

like I said earlier, you do have a right to hate me. I understand completely if you do. I don't see why you have the right to make inflamitory statements though.

I don't hate anyone! :fluffle:

And I most certainly don't hate reasonable Christians. My point (which I may have made badly) is that often the absolutist statements of good and evil, right and wrong, come from people who identify themselves as Christian. Therefore you can hardly be surprised if that collective term is used by those who disagree with them.

I can see threads on here telling me that as a liberal/Briton/European I'm in terrible shape. I feel strong enough in my beliefs and background to realise that all of the above descriptions and qualities have flaws and bad history attached to them as baggage, and I most certainly wouldn't take any of it as personal criticism.

You describe my comments as inflammatory-could you please point out where I am factually inaccurate in any of the issues that I mentioned? And really, genuinely, no offense is meant here. I was just trying to reply to the OP and yourself as to why such attacks happen. If you want to have a personal discussion, that's fine too :)
BerkylvaniaYetAgain
04-10-2005, 16:29
You forgot one:

If you haven't noticed, here on NS General, every group is a whipping boy. Democrats, Republicans, Communists, Fascists, Anarchists, Christians, Muslims, blacks, whites, Sierra BTHP, you name the group they get whipped here.

You are a group onto yourself! :p

Yes, but I think he likes it.
Frangland
04-10-2005, 16:33
Ok, I am going to rant a bit. Please don't give me grief about it either, because everyone not of my same beliefs seem to go on tirades quite often. I am sick of holding my tongue, so I am going to speak up.

Quit using Christians as whipping boys. It is as much not ok to rail on us as it would be to verbally bash an agnostic, buddist, hindu or any other religion. The fact of the matter is all the ignorance and tripe just shows the person speaking it to be utter fools. There comes a time in every life where we choose what we believe. Whether or not you are raised in one religion or train of thought, you must choose for yourself what you trust to be real. We have that freedom. You can marginalize God and even say he dosen't exist... you can draw up your own gods and cling to old ways and the worship of the earth... you can spout profane ignorance and name it philosiphy (pardon the spelling)... But the fact is no matter how you live on earth, we will all die. Death is certain and eternal. Would you rather build up your walls of unimaginative lack of faith or cover yourself in what men say to be true OR would you rather take the chance... that leap of faith that lets you believe that God exists and loves you and has a plan for your life? It's up to each and every one of us. You are entitled to your beliefs and be sure that I know there are people who use and abuse my faith just as in any religion, creed or political persuasion. But like my grandmother used to say, "If you let the hippocrites keep you out then eventually you'll spend eternity with them." So choose, I already have. Be on your side... I am on mine. But DO NOT label my faith and the true followers of Christ as fanatic, lunatic or any of the other monikers I so often hear. It shows you as the equivalent of a racist. We are more intelligent than that, I hope.


P.S. This is not directed at any one person, but the general public as I have increasingly noticed the rampant hatred that brews.

don't worry about it:

Matthew 5:10-11

10Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11"Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. 12Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.
Eyesofrath
04-10-2005, 16:33
Ok, I am going to rant a bit. Please don't give me grief about it either, because everyone not of my same beliefs seem to go on tirades quite often. I am sick of holding my tongue, so I am going to speak up.

Quit using Christians as whipping boys. It is as much not ok to rail on us as it would be to verbally bash an agnostic, buddist, hindu or any other religion. The fact of the matter is all the ignorance and tripe just shows the person speaking it to be utter fools. There comes a time in every life where we choose what we believe. Whether or not you are raised in one religion or train of thought, you must choose for yourself what you trust to be real. We have that freedom. You can marginalize God and even say he dosen't exist... you can draw up your own gods and cling to old ways and the worship of the earth... you can spout profane ignorance and name it philosiphy (pardon the spelling)... But the fact is no matter how you live on earth, we will all die. Death is certain and eternal. Would you rather build up your walls of unimaginative lack of faith or cover yourself in what men say to be true OR would you rather take the chance... that leap of faith that lets you believe that God exists and loves you and has a plan for your life? It's up to each and every one of us. You are entitled to your beliefs and be sure that I know there are people who use and abuse my faith just as in any religion, creed or political persuasion. But like my grandmother used to say, "If you let the hippocrites keep you out then eventually you'll spend eternity with them." So choose, I already have. Be on your side... I am on mine. But DO NOT label my faith and the true followers of Christ as fanatic, lunatic or any of the other monikers I so often hear. It shows you as the equivalent of a racist. We are more intelligent than that, I hope.


P.S. This is not directed at any one person, but the general public as I have increasingly noticed the rampant hatred that brews.

Finally some hit the nail on the head
Fenland Friends
04-10-2005, 16:34
But if we assume a blanket "ask" to be incorrect or at least untenable, should we not also assume a blanket "answer" to be the same?

Absolutely! As I said in my response to Smunkeeville, this was a response to a direct question from a "Christian"-I would hold the collective to be any of those who would identify with that description. And if I saw more of the liberal, inclusive Christianity described by one poster above, I would not hesitate to change my collective response. However, as you point out, given that the question was too general, so was my answer.

Serious point for the Christians who are so offended by the criticisms and sniping that are levelled against them on here. Perhaps your real enemies are those who choose to use their "faith" as an excuse for trying to stifle the rights and freedoms of anyone that they do not identify with.

From now on if I feel the need to generalise such people, I will use the adjective "fundamentalist" before the word Christian. I hope that that would be considered specific enough.
Unspeakable
04-10-2005, 16:35
When Xtians stop trying to ram their morality down the throat of others then maybe they'll stop feeling the backlash??? :upyours:



Ok, I am going to rant a bit. Please don't give me grief about it either, because everyone not of my same beliefs seem to go on tirades quite often. I am sick of holding my tongue, so I am going to speak up.

Quit using Christians as whipping boys. It is as much not ok to rail on us as it would be to verbally bash an agnostic, buddist, hindu or any other religion. The fact of the matter is all the ignorance and tripe just shows the person speaking it to be utter fools. There comes a time in every life where we choose what we believe. Whether or not you are raised in one religion or train of thought, you must choose for yourself what you trust to be real. We have that freedom. You can marginalize God and even say he dosen't exist... you can draw up your own gods and cling to old ways and the worship of the earth... you can spout profane ignorance and name it philosiphy (pardon the spelling)... But the fact is no matter how you live on earth, we will all die. Death is certain and eternal. Would you rather build up your walls of unimaginative lack of faith or cover yourself in what men say to be true OR would you rather take the chance... that leap of faith that lets you believe that God exists and loves you and has a plan for your life? It's up to each and every one of us. You are entitled to your beliefs and be sure that I know there are people who use and abuse my faith just as in any religion, creed or political persuasion. But like my grandmother used to say, "If you let the hippocrites keep you out then eventually you'll spend eternity with them." So choose, I already have. Be on your side... I am on mine. But DO NOT label my faith and the true followers of Christ as fanatic, lunatic or any of the other monikers I so often hear. It shows you as the equivalent of a racist. We are more intelligent than that, I hope.


P.S. This is not directed at any one person, but the general public as I have increasingly noticed the rampant hatred that brews.
Eyesofrath
04-10-2005, 16:35
don't worry about it:

Matthew 5:10-11

10Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11"Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. 12Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

your right sir
Sierra BTHP
04-10-2005, 16:39
When Xtians stop trying to ram their morality down the throat of others then maybe they'll stop feeling the backlash??? :upyours:

Not all Christians try to ram their morality down your throat.

Not all Muslims try to fly planes into skyscrapers.

I'm a Pentacostal Christian, and I don't try to ram my morality down anyone's throat.

More often, on this forum, I have people with little religious belief telling me where morality is and what it should be.
Smunkeeville
04-10-2005, 16:39
I don't hate anyone! :fluffle:

And I most certainly don't hate reasonable Christians. My point (which I may have made badly) is that often the absolutist statements of good and evil, right and wrong, come from people who identify themselves as Christian. Therefore you can hardly be surprised if that collective term is used by those who disagree with them.

I can see threads on here telling me that as a liberal/Briton/European I'm in terrible shape. I feel strong enough in my beliefs and background to realise that all of the above descriptions and qualities have flaws and bad history attached to them as baggage, and I most certainly wouldn't take any of it as personal criticism.

You describe my comments as inflammatory-could you please point out where I am factually inaccurate in any of the issues that I mentioned? And really, genuinely, no offense is meant here. I was just trying to reply to the OP and yourself as to why such attacks happen. If you want to have a personal discussion, that's fine too :)

sorry I forgot the disclaimer about using the collective "you"
you haven't said anything I find inflamitory, others have.

I don't think I made my point well either.
let me try again....

it is fine to be critical of actions
"murder is wrong"
not so much okay to make absolute statements
"all white males ages 25-40 are serial killers"

you see the difference?
I still don't think I am explaining well at all.

as far as the "reasonable Christian" arguement, I don't think many would classify me as "reasonable"

I believe there is only one correct religion, and that would be mine.
I believe that others have the right not to believe the same way I do.
I think they are wrong.
I don't care if they think I am wrong.
I will not call them names, I wish they wouldn't call me names either.
I am what is described as a "fundamentalist Christian" I don't buy into the whole "many paths to heaven" thing.
I will not bash you for not agreeing, I will not inpune your intelligence, I will mind my own buisiness.
I try not to bring my beliefs out and throw them down on the table except for a few exceptions,
1) someone says something that is not true about me or what the Bible says
2) someone asks me to explain my beliefs on a certain issue.

I try not to attack others. If you want to be an atheist that is none of my buisiness, you have your reasons and I don't have to understand or agree with them, I do have to have enough self control not to make general statements that are by definition untrue.


In the above post I am using the collective "you" except for "you's" that are in italics this isn't an attack on anyone if you have a question or would like to point out a flaw in my arguement please do so, I welcome it :)
It Is Just Me
04-10-2005, 16:41
...I'll give you an example....

Jerry Falwell and all his BS rhetoric.... Sure, it is fine to note his use of Christianty as false justification for the stuff he would impose...

However to use Falwell to make a blanket statement that "Christians want to do (such-n-such)" is not valid, proper, and in fact is a lie... Since the statement is not unilaterally true, and not all (read few, really) Christians would support Falwell's beliefs [Falwell barely represents Baptists in general, let alone the entirety of Christendom]...

The problem is that Falwell uses the banner "Christians" to claim that everyone who is a Christian does or should believe as he does. If it is a self professed Christain making the claim that "this is what Christians (with the implication of speaking for all of them) want to do", it is difficult for anyone who opposes his ideas to separate Falwell out and say "well, he claims to speak for all of them, but I know he does not, so I will speak my piece against him individually."

As long as people who are in the perceived positions of being speakers for a group are doing and saying unconscionable things, those things will continue to tar the entire group. In that case, an opponent who is bashing the group as a whole is doing so because it certainly looks from the outside as though the entire group IS in agreement, by virtue of the fact that these spokesmen are allowed to continue and are still supported by that group.

If I claim to be a member of the KKK, but ask that you consider that I really LIKE people of other races, would you stop and say "well, ok, maybe we shouldn't think ill of the KKK because some of their members are really nice people"? Probably not. The issue is, if the basic tenents of a belief and the default position of its followers are intolerable generally, then people who claim to belong to that faith ARE going to be judged by the actions of the entire group.
Hoos Bandoland
04-10-2005, 16:41
I don't think any attacks are harmless.
Are they going to change my mind about what I believe? nope

Could they taint others veiws of Christianity? yes.

just because it doesn't harm the Christian specifically doesn't mean that it is harmless.

I still think they're harmless, because God will call whom he wants. St. Paul is a good example. He was out to do Christians harm when God called him. If God is calling you, no amount of human arguments will dissuade you.
Tekania
04-10-2005, 16:45
I personaly question both

I look at what they are using for a reason and why ... sometimes it is what they are using that I see more fault with then the path they arive there

It all depends on the person and the arguement

(The rest of your statement I agree with don’t think I was trying to justify generalization)
I more was reflecting on the individual level then on the group level (for the most part)

Which is good... I think there is far too much "group" mentality going on... whole loads of people attacking other groups of people based upon remarks from a select few... A perfect example is the past representation in these forums of "I'm elect, and you're not; enjoy hell" type Calvinists... Everyone hears "Calvinist" and assumes these select fews beliefs.... And yet, I'm a Calvinist, and when was the last time I ever told people they would burn in hell because they were not elect? Or even pointed specific fingers to make futile attempts to define which specific person is (or will be) so-called "Elect" and which are not? And then comes the theological education that, guess what, there are different "types" of what is called blanketedly "Calvinism".... Also, there are different "types" of what is called blanketedly "Christians"... And you simply cannot define an entire set of ideologies by the claims of a single person....

This is what needs to be worked on in these forums, by everyone; could care less if they are Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, "USian", European, Canadian, Atheist, Christian, Jew, Muslim, Wiccan, those funny dudes who think we were all sneezed our of the nose of the great green arkleseizure, blacks, whites, yellows, purple's with pink pokadots... don't matter...
Hoos Bandoland
04-10-2005, 16:46
However, the untold story is the increasingly relevant "liberal" Christians who believe in aid to the poor, inclusion of ALL people regardless of gender or sexual orientation, concern for social and economic justice, and the responsible exercise of power. This is, of course, a very limited list of tenets which these mainstream and "liberal" Christians profess.

I won't go into more detail, but suffice it to say that there is a broader, more inclusive version of Christianity than the fundamentalist variants. .

"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it." Words of Christ. Matthew 7:12-14.
Smunkeeville
04-10-2005, 16:48
The problem is that Falwell uses the banner "Christians" to claim that everyone who is a Christian does or should believe as he does. If it is a self professed Christain making the claim that "this is what Christians (with the implication of speaking for all of them) want to do", it is difficult for anyone who opposes his ideas to separate Falwell out and say "well, he claims to speak for all of them, but I know he does not, so I will speak my piece against him individually.
true it is difficult but can be done.

I don't lump all African Americans in with Jesse Jackson, because I know not all of them are just like him

I don't lump all Muslims in with Osama BinLaden, because I know he is an extremist.

I don't lump all Democrats in with Cindy Shehan, because that would just be mean.
Smunkeeville
04-10-2005, 16:49
I still think they're harmless, because God will call whom he wants. St. Paul is a good example. He was out to do Christians harm when God called him. If God is calling you, no amount of human arguments will dissuade you.
and they don't dissuade me, that wasn't what I said.
Fenland Friends
04-10-2005, 16:51
sorry I forgot the disclaimer about using the collective "you"
you haven't said anything I find inflamitory, others have.

I don't think I made my point well either.
let me try again....

it is fine to be critical of actions
"murder is wrong"
not so much okay to make absolute statements
"all white males ages 25-40 are serial killers"

you see the difference?
I still don't think I am explaining well at all.

as far as the "reasonable Christian" arguement, I don't think many would classify me as "reasonable"

I believe there is only one correct religion, and that would be mine.
I believe that others have the right not to believe the same way I do.
I think they are wrong.
I don't care if they think I am wrong.
I will not call them names, I wish they wouldn't call me names either.
I am what is described as a "fundamentalist Christian" I don't buy into the whole "many paths to heaven" thing.
I will not bash you for not agreeing, I will not inpune your intelligence, I will mind my own buisiness.
I try not to bring my beliefs out and throw them down on the table except for a few exceptions,
1) someone says something that is not true about me or what the Bible says
2) someone asks me to explain my beliefs on a certain issue.

I try not to attack others. If you want to be an atheist that is none of my buisiness, you have your reasons and I don't have to understand or agree with them, I do have to have enough self control not to make general statements that are by definition untrue.


In the above post I am using the collective "you" except for "you's" that are in italics this isn't an attack on anyone if you have a question or would like to point out a flaw in my arguement please do so, I welcome it :)

And were all your fellow Christians the same this would be a pretty quiet forum.
You may believe "fundamentally" but you don't sound like a "fundamentalist"! Could I then ask you whether or not you believe that the activities of certain right wing Christian groups who would deny people the right to behave in a way that their interpretation of Christianity would forbid, but not the laws or constitution of your land? Or in bringing religious/supernatural theory into the science classroom, whilst being unable to justify scientifically why it should be there?
What all these arguments really boil down to are the effects of convinced parties, be they religious or no, on those who really want to be able to get on with living the life they choose, be they religious or not. And your faith, as you have described it above, would put us in much the same camp, bizarrely enough. Though, of course, you would be fundamentally wrong ;)
BerkylvaniaYetAgain
04-10-2005, 16:54
"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it." Words of Christ. Matthew 7:12-14.

"Judge not, that ye be not judged." Words of Christ. Matthew 7:1.
Frangland
04-10-2005, 16:55
The meta-narrative of the American media is that fundamentalism is growing, conservative Christians are thriving, and the power of the so-called "Christian Right" is swelling across the country.

However, the untold story is the increasingly relevant "liberal" Christians who believe in aid to the poor, inclusion of ALL people regardless of gender or sexual orientation, concern for social and economic justice, and the responsible exercise of power. This is, of course, a very limited list of tenets which these mainstream and "liberal" Christians profess.

I won't go into more detail, but suffice it to say that there is a broader, more inclusive version of Christianity than the fundamentalist variants. Check out the National Council of Churches or the Alliance of Baptists if you don't believe me.

they believe in GOVERNMENT aid to the poor.

I, and probably most protestant christians, believe in personal aid to the poor... rather than impersonal, faceless, arbitrary giving by the government.

inclusion: All people are free to gain the gift of salvation (Jesus died for everyone's sins), but not all behavior is biblically acceptable.

social/economic (in)justice = socialism... Jesus did not condone stealing.
Kyott
04-10-2005, 16:58
Ok, I am going to rant a bit. Please don't give me grief about it either, because everyone not of my same beliefs seem to go on tirades quite often. I am sick of holding my tongue, so I am going to speak up.

Quit using Christians as whipping boys. It is as much not ok to rail on us as it would be to verbally bash an agnostic, buddist, hindu or any other religion. The fact of the matter is all the ignorance and tripe just shows the person speaking it to be utter fools. There comes a time in every life where we choose what we believe. Whether or not you are raised in one religion or train of thought, you must choose for yourself what you trust to be real. We have that freedom. You can marginalize God and even say he dosen't exist... you can draw up your own gods and cling to old ways and the worship of the earth... you can spout profane ignorance and name it philosiphy (pardon the spelling)... But the fact is no matter how you live on earth, we will all die. Death is certain and eternal. Would you rather build up your walls of unimaginative lack of faith or cover yourself in what men say to be true OR would you rather take the chance... that leap of faith that lets you believe that God exists and loves you and has a plan for your life? It's up to each and every one of us. You are entitled to your beliefs and be sure that I know there are people who use and abuse my faith just as in any religion, creed or political persuasion. But like my grandmother used to say, "If you let the hippocrites keep you out then eventually you'll spend eternity with them." So choose, I already have. Be on your side... I am on mine. But DO NOT label my faith and the true followers of Christ as fanatic, lunatic or any of the other monikers I so often hear. It shows you as the equivalent of a racist. We are more intelligent than that, I hope.


P.S. This is not directed at any one person, but the general public as I have increasingly noticed the rampant hatred that brews.

Good for you! You believe in something, and you don't want people to belittle your beliefs. Everyone is entitled to their own views! Unfortunately, many of your faith seem to disagree with that. A very vocal part of them feels the need to damn much of what I believe in. I believe in the right of a woman to have an abortion. I believe that homosexuals are no different from heterosexuals. I believe willing euthanasia should be preferred over years of suffering.. I believe that women are men's equal.

Somehow I missed in your little rant that you feel that others are entitled to their beliefs too, and should have the same respect as you rightfully demand for yourself. Perhaps you can post an addendum to clear that for me?
Tekania
04-10-2005, 16:59
The problem is that Falwell uses the banner "Christians" to claim that everyone who is a Christian does or should believe as he does. If it is a self professed Christain making the claim that "this is what Christians (with the implication of speaking for all of them) want to do", it is difficult for anyone who opposes his ideas to separate Falwell out and say "well, he claims to speak for all of them, but I know he does not, so I will speak my piece against him individually."

As long as people who are in the perceived positions of being speakers for a group are doing and saying unconscionable things, those things will continue to tar the entire group. In that case, an opponent who is bashing the group as a whole is doing so because it certainly looks from the outside as though the entire group IS in agreement, by virtue of the fact that these spokesmen are allowed to continue and are still supported by that group.

If I claim to be a member of the KKK, but ask that you consider that I really LIKE people of other races, would you stop and say "well, ok, maybe we shouldn't think ill of the KKK because some of their members are really nice people"? Probably not. The issue is, if the basic tenents of a belief and the default position of its followers are intolerable generally, then people who claim to belong to that faith ARE going to be judged by the actions of the entire group.

And so, what happens to your ethical superiority in the manner? You're equally attributing his representation as much as he himself is.... Causing you too to loose credibility..... Some dimwit can claim representation all he likes... And it is horrible that he uses such claims to make attempts of bolstering; to use Falwell again, there are PLENTY of Christians which despise Falwell's position; and yet their potential support is alienated from the system by all this group mentality bullshit... And it doesn't really take all that much... Your simply not going to get the support to accomplish anything if Person X, who dislikes Person Y as much as you, is so alienated by your throwing of Person Y's twisted beliefs upon him/her, that they can't give you support either... It's like "compromise" is being thrown out of the dictionary....
Smunkeeville
04-10-2005, 17:03
Could I then ask you whether or not you believe that the activities of certain right wing Christian groups who would deny people the right to behave in a way that their interpretation of Christianity would forbid, but not the laws or constitution of your land?
God gave us free will, who am I as a Christian to take it away?
Do I think everything everyone else does is right? no
Should they have the freedom to do it anyway? sure. (within reason, murder is out. ect.)

Or in bringing religious/supernatural theory into the science classroom, whilst being unable to justify scientifically why it should be there?

nope. I don't think intelligent design should be discussed at all in school, as far as Science is concerned it is a non-issue. Science can't prove or disprove it because God is not limited by logic or scientific theory. Therefore if you can't use scientific theory on something it isn't science and shouldn't be in science class.
Smunkeeville
04-10-2005, 17:06
"Judge not, that ye be not judged." Words of Christ. Matthew 7:1.
1"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. Mattew 7:1-2
it doesn't mean you shouldn't judge at all, just that you shouldn't judge people for doing the exact same thing that you are doing, if you read the entire chapter in context you would see that Christ is speaking to hypocrites.

for example "Jamie is a drunk" said Bobby as he was drinking the last of his 1/5 of vodka.
BerkylvaniaYetAgain
04-10-2005, 17:08
1"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. Mattew 7:1-2
it doesn't mean you shouldn't judge at all, just that you shouldn't judge people for doing the exact same thing that you are doing, if you read the entire chapter in context you would see that Christ is speaking to hypocrites.

for example "Jamie is a drunk" said Bobby as he was drinking the last of his 1/5 of vodka.

Exactly my point.
Fenland Friends
04-10-2005, 17:13
And so, what happens to your ethical superiority in the manner? You're equally attributing his representation as much as he himself is.... Causing you too to loose credibility..... Some dimwit can claim representation all he likes... And it is horrible that he uses such claims to make attempts of bolstering; to use Falwell again, there are PLENTY of Christians which despise Falwell's position; and yet their potential support is alienated from the system by all this group mentality bullshit... And it doesn't really take all that much... Your simply not going to get the support to accomplish anything if Person X, who dislikes Person Y as much as you, is so alienated by your throwing of Person Y's twisted beliefs upon him/her, that they can't give you support either... It's like "compromise" is being thrown out of the dictionary....

You're right. So where are the alternative Christian voices? We've watched Catholic and Protestant tear themselves to pieces over centuries of religious war in Europe, we see Sunni and Shia Muslims doing the same at the moment in Iraq, we see liberal Jews in Jerusalem paint swastikas on Hassidic temples....

Where is the protest, the visible and distinctive protest of the liberal Christian? People on here are getting upset at being attacked by atheists and liberals, but the real damage to your religion (note I do not say faith) is being done by people falsely claiming the right to speak on behalf of you all. You might ask where the ethical superiority of the atheist lies-where is yours if Falwell, Buchanan et al. can claim to speak for you all without a public murmur of decent?
Unspeakable
04-10-2005, 17:15
Operation Rescue,ID as science, the anti gay amendments in many states...are Xtian backed.





Not all Christians try to ram their morality down your throat.

Not all Muslims try to fly planes into skyscrapers.

I'm a Pentacostal Christian, and I don't try to ram my morality down anyone's throat.

More often, on this forum, I have people with little religious belief telling me where morality is and what it should be.
Tekania
04-10-2005, 17:16
And were all your fellow Christians the same this would be a pretty quiet forum.
You may believe "fundamentally" but you don't sound like a "fundamentalist"! Could I then ask you whether or not you believe that the activities of certain right wing Christian groups who would deny people the right to behave in a way that their interpretation of Christianity would forbid, but not the laws or constitution of your land? Or in bringing religious/supernatural theory into the science classroom, whilst being unable to justify scientifically why it should be there?
What all these arguments really boil down to are the effects of convinced parties, be they religious or no, on those who really want to be able to get on with living the life they choose, be they religious or not. And your faith, as you have described it above, would put us in much the same camp, bizarrely enough. Though, of course, you would be fundamentally wrong ;)

He/She is a perfect representation of the difference between the Fundamentalist(tm) Movement and historical "fundamentalism"... Historic fundamentalist was a system designed eccumenically to adhere several differing "houses" of christianity under a single roof of acceptance, based upon the particular faiths of the groups (it was a religious movement which existed to bring together differing christian churches, and not a political movement designed to impose upon all of American life).... I have similar beliefs as him (though I am called "Reformed" as opposed to "Fundamentalist"... The problem is, when you use the terms, they are conveying a meaning; and yet, just because someone is using it to describe themselves, it does not necessarily MEAN what you may pre-suppose (are prejudiced in) it to mean... There are lots of Christians who think the way he does... And it's generally not observed either 1) because we're not trying to hoist a "I'm Christian" neon sign around to gain influence, or 2) Agreeing with some of the ideologies you may hold...

I'm christian, I also think that, in terms of Civil law homosexuals should marry..... I also believe homosexuality is a sin, and believe my church should not preside over those marriages.... And if another religion wants to marry them, I don't have a problem, personally, with that either...I think it is wrong, and a sin... But then, that's between me and God, and they and God... If they push it, I'll explain my position, but it means little in matters of how I will support thinks in a civil capacity.... They are as rightfully endowed with their faculty of choice and agency as I am... In the end, it is God who judges, and not me (and certainly not people like Falwell), and in matters such as this, my Church... I do not need the civil government dictating religious beliefs, or imposing religious discipline upon me [I have that already in the form of the Session of ruling elders of my local congregation (I'm Presbyterian BTW)]...

And if there are any better known Christians I would choose to represent myself to others, it would be through the likes of Patrick Henry, or James Monroe... not Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson.
Fenland Friends
04-10-2005, 17:29
He/She is a perfect representation of the difference between the Fundamentalist(tm) Movement and historical "fundamentalism"... Historic fundamentalist was a system designed eccumenically to adhere several differing "houses" of christianity under a single roof of acceptance, based upon the particular faiths of the groups (it was a religious movement which existed to bring together differing christian churches, and not a political movement designed to impose upon all of American life).... I have similar beliefs as him (though I am called "Reformed" as opposed to "Fundamentalist"... The problem is, when you use the terms, they are conveying a meaning; and yet, just because someone is using it to describe themselves, it does not necessarily MEAN what you may pre-suppose (are prejudiced in) it to mean... There are lots of Christians who think the way he does... And it's generally not observed either 1) because we're not trying to hoist a "I'm Christian" neon sign around to gain influence, or 2) Agreeing with some of the ideologies you may hold...

I'm christian, I also think that, in terms of Civil law homosexuals should marry..... I also believe homosexuality is a sin, and believe my church should not preside over those marriages.... And if another religion wants to marry them, I don't have a problem, personally, with that either...I think it is wrong, and a sin... But then, that's between me and God, and they and God... If they push it, I'll explain my position, but it means little in matters of how I will support thinks in a civil capacity.... They are as rightfully endowed with their faculty of choice and agency as I am... In the end, it is God who judges, and not me (and certainly not people like Falwell), and in matters such as this, my Church... I do not need the civil government dictating religious beliefs, or imposing religious discipline upon me [I have that already in the form of the Session of ruling elders of my local congregation (I'm Presbyterian BTW)]...

And if there are any better known Christians I would choose to represent myself to others, it would be through the likes of Patrick Henry, or James Monroe... not Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson.

Well you see, this is the problem isn't it? In fact, we agree fundamentally (no pun intended). I am not arrogant enough to assume that I am right, you are not arrogant enough to believe that your certainty in your relationship with your God gives you the right to destroy your God's gift of freedom of choice to his creations.
But here's the rub. Your annoyance with the ignorance of the atheist is understandable, but that ignorance is unlikely to change whilst the likes of Falwell claim the headlines and the high ground. That is hardly the fault of the atheist, and you cannot expect him to do the research into the vagaries of the Christian faith. Why should he? He can easily point at Falwell and Buchanan and say, "that is the message that I receive from the media, and that is what I see dictating teaching in my schools". He might be wrong, but he would be sincerely wrong. And without other churches and spokespeople announcing that from the pulpit, how on earth are the rest of us supposed to understand what represents Christianity?

On a final note for the time being, can I point out that had a liberal or Neo Con come on here and complained about being a "whipping boy", they would have been laughed out of court I would suspect. I think the respect for the individual is pretty clear.
Revasser
04-10-2005, 17:34
You're right. So where are the alternative Christian voices? We've watched Catholic and Protestant tear themselves to pieces over centuries of religious war in Europe, we see Sunni and Shia Muslims doing the same at the moment in Iraq, we see liberal Jews in Jerusalem paint swastikas on Hassidic temples....

Where is the protest, the visible and distinctive protest of the liberal Christian? People on here are getting upset at being attacked by atheists and liberals, but the real damage to your religion (note I do not say faith) is being done by people falsely claiming the right to speak on behalf of you all. You might ask where the ethical superiority of the atheist lies-where is yours if Falwell, Buchanan et al. can claim to speak for you all without a public murmur of decent?

I have to agree with this. Part of the reason that so many non-Christians 'bash' Christians is because their information on Christianity is so skewed by the vocal, hard-liners. These individuals and groups are always ranting about their own superiority and the inferority of others, often to the point of advocating the elimination of others, sometimes through violent means.

These people would be more readily dismissed as a minority of extremist nutters if the more moderate members of the broad group 'Christians' actually stood up and called the nutters down. Will it take 'Christian' suicide bombers blowing up pubs to actually get the moderates to stand up and say something like it did with the Muslims?

The fact is, unless different views from Christians are presented more frequently and more vocally, the rabid, mouth-foaming rants of the religious hard-right nutjobs becomes the default position of Christianity and all Christians in many people's minds.
McClella
04-10-2005, 17:35
In response to the original post on this thread; Hear hear! A bully post indeed. I can hardly look around on these forums due to the beligerant cruelty of some non-Christians towards us Christians. While I'm on it; give me a cow or a book on lock picking and I'll be happy for a few hours.
Smunkeeville
04-10-2005, 17:47
Exactly my point.
okay just making sure. ;)
Tekania
04-10-2005, 17:57
Well you see, this is the problem isn't it? In fact, we agree fundamentelly (no pun intended). I am not arrogant enough to assume that I am right, you are not arrogant enough to believe that your certainty in your relationship with your God gives you the right to destroy your God's gift of freedom of choice to his creations.
But here's the rub. Your annoyance with the ignorance of the atheist is understandable, but that ignorance is unlikely to change whilst the likes of Falwell claim the headlines and the high ground. That is hardly the fault of the atheist, and you cannot expect him to do the research into the vagaries of the Christian faith. Why should he? He can easily point at Falwell and Buchanan and say, "that is the message that I receive from the media, and that is what I see dictating teaching in my schools". He might be wrong, but he would be sincerely wrong. And without other churches and spokespeople announcing that from the pulpit, how on earth are the rest of us supposed to understand what represents Christianity?

On a final note for the time being, can I point out that had a liberal or Neo Con come on here and complained about being a "whipping boy", they would have been laughed out of court I would suspect. I think the respect for the individual is pretty clear.

The easiest way is by looking around... There are other Christians who ARE countering them, they just are pushed from the circles because they too are Christian, alot of the time.. Or we are unnoticed simply because we are not using religion as political force... (A large proportion of US churches are Catholic, Presbyterian, Lutheran or Episcopal... none of them bankroll Falwell), perception, in the end, means little.... And you will NEVER learn anything sitting around waiting for it to drop in your lap.. So really there is alot of fault in the idea of pleading ignorance in this case... There is enough available resources to know....

You're not going to see the PCA General Assembly come out and make a statement for congregations to put political opposition upon Falwell, simply beause to do so, means we are acting no different... We simply DO NOT DO THAT sort of thing... Our church is for our spirituality, and not a political rally. Yet, to violate such a basic tenet, would be the only way we would get this "coverage" whereby all of the people sitting at home glued to their TV's all the time, would know about it... Not having the information spoon-fed to you, is no excuse in the end.... People simply SHOULD know better... Falwell is a religious and political leader.... Alot of us do not mix religion and politics (the way it should be)... So you're not going to see us creating massice religio-political rallies vying against him, simply because of that... We would simply side with existing politica groups against him (as I try to)... And talk out against him to our friends who may lean towards him.... We're just far more "grass-roots"; because that is the principle of our religion and our life...
The Almighty Devin
04-10-2005, 18:08
I do hate Christians, or other religious people, when their beliefs interfere with rational thought.

Here is my take on ANY religion:

If you believe it because someone else (eg: Parents) told you to, and haven't questioned it, you are stupid.

If you believe that 1000 year-old books are true to the word, you are stupid.

If you believe in a/multiple deity/deities without having seen any evidence of their existance, you are stupid.

If you explain a lack of evidence proving that your deity/deities exists by claiming that 'that's the way [deity] intended', you are stupid.

When the answer to everything is, 'because [deity] made it that way', you are really, really stupid.

Science is not a belief system. It's a thinking system. It teaches you to rationally question whether or not things make sense, based on evidence and logical thinkng.

So please, for the advancement of humanity, just think for yourself, and don't base your beliefs on 1000 year-old ideas.
Revasser
04-10-2005, 18:12
The easiest way is by looking around... There are other Christians who ARE countering them, they just are pushed from the circles because they too are Christian, alot of the time.. Or we are unnoticed simply because we are not using religion as political force...
<snip!>

The problem with taking this attitude is that it doesn't achieve anything. Your church is for your spirituality, great! That's the way it should be. But other 'Christians' out there don't share those sentiments, and those are the ones that draw attention to themselves and present themselves as the face Christianity. If there is no equally loud voice out there telling those guys to sit down, shut up and stop being such lunatics, then they become the face of Christianity by default.

As the saying goes, "The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." A bit dramatic, perhaps, but it's applicable. If the moderate Christians aren't willing to do anything about the nutters that are presenting themselves as the true voices of Christianity, then they shouldn't complain when non-Christians assume that the majority of Christians speak with same voice and deride them accordingly, because the moderates aren't presenting a visible alternative.
Smunkeeville
04-10-2005, 18:17
The problem with taking this attitude is that it doesn't achieve anything. Your church is for your spirituality, great! That's the way it should be. But other 'Christians' out there don't share those sentiments, and those are the ones that draw attention to themselves and present themselves as the face Christianity. If there is no equally loud voice out there telling those guys to sit down, shut up and stop being such lunatics, then they become the face of Christianity by default.

As the saying goes, "The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." A bit dramatic, perhaps, but it's applicable. If the moderate Christians aren't willing to do anything about the nutters that are presenting themselves as the true voices of Christianity, then they shouldn't complain when non-Christians assume that the majority of Christians speak with same voice and deride them accordingly, because the moderates aren't presenting a visible alternative.
I will try harder. :) thank you for explaining. I really appreciate people who can share their veiws and help me to understand their point without being mean. :)
Fenland Friends
04-10-2005, 18:18
The easiest way is by looking around... There are other Christians who ARE countering them, they just are pushed from the circles because they too are Christian, alot of the time.. Or we are unnoticed simply because we are not using religion as political force... (A large proportion of US churches are Catholic, Presbyterian, Lutheran or Episcopal... none of them bankroll Falwell), perception, in the end, means little.... And you will NEVER learn anything sitting around waiting for it to drop in your lap.. So really there is alot of fault in the idea of pleading ignorance in this case... There is enough available resources to know....

You're not going to see the PCA General Assembly come out and make a statement for congregations to put political opposition upon Falwell, simply beause to do so, means we are acting no different... We simply DO NOT DO THAT sort of thing... Our church is for our spirituality, and not a political rally. Yet, to violate such a basic tenet, would be the only way we would get this "coverage" whereby all of the people sitting at home glued to their TV's all the time, would know about it... Not having the information spoon-fed to you, is no excuse in the end.... People simply SHOULD know better... Falwell is a religious and political leader.... Alot of us do not mix religion and politics (the way it should be)... So you're not going to see us creating massice religio-political rallies vying against him, simply because of that... We would simply side with existing politica groups against him (as I try to)... And talk out against him to our friends who may lean towards him.... We're just far more "grass-roots"; because that is the principle of our religion and our life...

Well, errr...in that case, good luck to you, but please stop being upset when those of us who have done our time with Christianity don't research into how other parts of it are actually really rather broadminded-we've got enough on our plates trying to make sense of the Buchanan's of this world.

Really, why should I know better? I'm not the one complaining about generalisation. What you appear to be saying is that we should stop being beastly to Christians, because we're not all like that, but unless you become one we're not going to tell you because it's purely spiritual? I'm not being deliberatley facetious, but I fail to see how this is my responsibility. Anyway, signing off now, but I look forward to reading your response tomorrow.
Revasser
04-10-2005, 18:19
I do hate Christians, or other religious people, when their beliefs interfere with rational thought.

Here is my take on ANY religion:

If you believe it because someone else (eg: Parents) told you to, and haven't questioned it, you are stupid.

If you believe that 1000 year-old books are true to the word, you are stupid.

If you believe in a/multiple deity/deities without having seen any evidence of their existance, you are stupid.

If you explain a lack of evidence proving that your deity/deities exists by claiming that 'that's the way [deity] intended', you are stupid.

When the answer to everything is, 'because [deity] made it that way', you are really, really stupid.

Science is not a belief system. It's a thinking system. It teaches you to rationally question whether or not things make sense, based on evidence and logical thinkng.

So please, for the advancement of humanity, just think for yourself, and don't base your beliefs on 1000 year-old ideas.

Narrow-minded self-righteousness is the real enemy here. As you show, atheists can be as guilty of that as theists.
Frisbeeteria
04-10-2005, 18:38
Here is my take on ANY religion:

If you believe ... you are stupid.

When the answer to everything is, 'because [deity] made it that way', you are really, really stupid.
If you believe that calling everyone who believes in any form of religion "stupid" doesn't count as trolling on this board, you are really, really stupid.

Knock it off. NOW.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Game Moderator
The One-Stop Rules Shop (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=416023)
Hoos Bandoland
04-10-2005, 18:43
"Judge not, that ye be not judged." Words of Christ. Matthew 7:1.

And I'm not judging you. Note, however, that the verse I quoted is just a few verses down from the verse you quoted. They're both part of the same sermon on the mount. The "judge not" part is how we are to judge our neighbors. The "enter not" part is how God will judge us. Big difference. ;)
Liskeinland
04-10-2005, 18:46
Narrow-minded self-righteousness is the real enemy here. As you show, atheists can be as guilty of that as theists. Indeed. www.atheistfoundation.org.au as a prime example.

Anyway, about the Falwells and suchlike… empty vessels make most noise. Most Christians (at least, most that I know) don't think like that at all.
If you believe in a/multiple deity/deities without having seen any evidence of their existance, you are stupid. Does hearing count?
So please, for the advancement of humanity, just think for yourself, and don't base your beliefs on 1000 year-old ideas. "If I determine a truth with my own brain - then what a small truth it is!" said somebody. Can't remember who.
Revasser
04-10-2005, 19:03
Indeed. www.atheistfoundation.org.au as a prime example.

Anyway, about the Falwells and suchlike… empty vessels make most noise. Most Christians (at least, most that I know) don't think like that at all.
Does hearing count?
"If I determine a truth with my own brain - then what a small truth it is!" said somebody. Can't remember who.

Urrghh, yeah, I've seen that site. I swear we breed the world's most arrogant atheists here in Oz.

Nice quote, too, heh.
BerkylvaniaYetAgain
04-10-2005, 19:16
And I'm not judging you. Note, however, that the verse I quoted is just a few verses down from the verse you quoted. They're both part of the same sermon on the mount. The "judge not" part is how we are to judge our neighbors. The "enter not" part is how God will judge us. Big difference. ;)

You're right, it is a big difference and that judgement of God will be between just you and God. I'm sorry if I overreacted, but it seems to me that your statement implies that Christians developing their own relationships with God and finding that those relationships take them down more tolerant and accepting pathways are somehow invalidated in their Christianity. If this is not true, I apologize. If, however, this was your point I would urge you to remember that one of the fundamental principles of Christianity is a personal relationship with divinity. Each person much establish that relationship to their own satisfaction and the only two who have any right to comment on it's "correctness" are indeed God and that person.

It is a mistake to percieve God as rigid and inflexible. If Christianity is indeed a living religion with a living God then that God surely incorporates the ability to change for the changing needs of his creation. Thus, as some Christians come to a new understanding of their faith and it's application to the world around them, it is also incorrect to assume that God isn't already there waiting for them.
Smunkeeville
04-10-2005, 19:18
You're right, it is a big difference and that judgement of God will be between just you and God. I'm sorry if I overreacted, but it seems to me that your statement implies that Christians developing their own relationships with God and finding that those relationships take them down more tolerant and accepting pathways are somehow invalidated in their Christianity. If this is not true, I apologize. If, however, this was your point I would urge you to remember that one of the fundamental principles of Christianity is a personal relationship with divinity. Each person much establish that relationship to their own satisfaction and the only two who have any right to comment on it's "correctness" are indeed God and that person.

It is a mistake to percieve God as rigid and inflexible. If Christianity is indeed a living religion with a living God then that God surely incorporates the ability to change for the changing needs of his creation. Thus, as some Christians come to a new understanding of their faith and it's application to the world around them, it is also incorrect to assume that God isn't already there waiting for them.

I am confused can you reword for me?
BerkylvaniaYetAgain
04-10-2005, 19:30
I am confused can you reword for me?

I percieved Hoos' biblical quote as an admonishment against Slighter's post regarding the emergence of "liberal" Christianity such as the Emergent movement. Given the text of Slighter's post and Hoos' use of the specific language of a biblical quote, it seemed there was an implication that this liberal Christian movement was somehow un-Christian.

My point was that the only one really qualified to make a judgement of unChristian behavior is God himself and that judgement will be made between the person and God, not by a third party. Frankly, I find the emerging Christian liberalism refreshing and proof that we do indeed follow a living God, not a God that is moribund and buried beneath 2000 year old words people quote out of context. To me, these groups seem much more interested in following the teachings of Christ than lip-service worshippers who just show up at church on Sunday to be seen and work the network and it is a mistake to cast them out before their full impact can be seen.

Furthermore, the change itself is not to be feared because if our God is a living God then surely by the very definition of His existance he must embody the change as well. God is not J.D. Salinger, to write a best seller 2000 years ago and then become an anti-social hermit. At least, the standard Judeo-Christian concept of God isn't that. Instead it is a vital, active force that is surely capable of meeting the spiritual needs of it's followers as those needs change and their civilization develops.
Smunkeeville
04-10-2005, 19:34
I percieved Hoos' biblical quote as an admonishment against Slighter's post regarding the emergence of "liberal" Christianity such as the Emergent movement. Given the text of Slighter's post and Hoos' use of the specific language of a biblical quote, it seemed there was an implication that this liberal Christian movement was somehow un-Christian.

My point was that the only one really qualified to make a judgement of unChristian behavior is God himself and that judgement will be made between the person and God, not by a third party. Frankly, I find the emerging Christian liberalism refreshing and proof that we do indeed follow a living God, not a God that is moribund and buried beneath 2000 year old words people quote out of context. To me, these groups seem much more interested in following the teachings of Christ than lip-service worshippers who just show up at church on Sunday to be seen and work the network and it is a mistake to cast them out before their full impact can be seen.

Furthermore, the change itself is not to be feared because if our God is a living God then surely by the very definition of His existance he must embody the change as well. God is not J.D. Salinger, to write a best seller 2000 years ago and then become an anti-social hermit. At least, the standard Judeo-Christian concept of God isn't that. Instead it is a vital, active force that is surely capable of meeting the spiritual needs of it's followers as those needs change and their civilization develops.
okay thanks for catching me up

while I don't fully agree with your statement (God is unchanging) I do understand more what you were saying now. Thank you for taking the time. ;)
Formidia
04-10-2005, 19:34
Originally Posted by Fenland Friends
I'm using the word "you" as a collective pronoun for the sake of this argument. Nothing personal Smunkeeville.
"You" (the Christian Majority) do call other people evil. All the time.

You condemn abortion, because your beliefs tell you that it is a sin, ergo evil. Fine. Don't do it.

You condemn premarital sex, because it is a sin, ergo evil-Fine. Don't do it.

You condemn some/most/all of the teachings of science because it doesn't suit the way that you interpret the teachings of a book written thousands of years ago. Fine, don't do science. It'll take care of itself.

You interfere in science classes because you don't like evidence based thinking.

So whilst there are still "Christians" who will interfere with other peoples' rights and freedoms, refuse to countenance their intellectual freedom and generally get on the case of anyone who doesn't think like "you" do, get used to being reviled and ridiculed by certain elements of the population who don't beleive in your interpretations. Pretty simple really.



Amen

Not as simple as you'd like to believe.

First of all..ive never heard any REAL Christian call anyone 'evil'. Unless they're a self righteous bastard..but that simply means they are dillusional.

Secondly. We condemn abortion cause sucking the brains out an infant child should make everyone sick to their stomach. They should have as many rights as anyone else. They are human are they not?

Thirdly. Premarital sex...what does it lead to? Unwanted children..as well as abortion. Im certainly not against sex. Just don't do it if you can't deal with the consequences of your actions in a humane manner.

And lastly, As for "interfering in science classes". Thats bullshit. If anyone's being booted out its Christians. Both Christian sciences and Evolution base their findings on facts. In both cases however you have to put your faith in soem things. Its really not all that different. If you'd like to contact me personally email me at psycojester@msn.com. Im afraid I dont have any more time to fully elaborate on the subject.
Longhorn country
04-10-2005, 19:35
GO JESUS! :mp5: <----- to anyone who talks bad about you!

, zoidberg
UpwardThrust
04-10-2005, 19:38
GO JESUS! :mp5: <----- to anyone who talks bad about you!

, zoidberg
We weren’t talking bad about Jesus … though some of us don’t think he existed (at least in the manor proclaimed by Christians)
Thrashia
04-10-2005, 19:42
Ok, I am going to rant a bit. Please don't give me grief about it either, because everyone not of my same beliefs seem to go on tirades quite often. I am sick of holding my tongue, so I am going to speak up.

Quit using Christians as whipping boys. It is as much not ok to rail on us as it would be to verbally bash an agnostic, buddist, hindu or any other religion. The fact of the matter is all the ignorance and tripe just shows the person speaking it to be utter fools. There comes a time in every life where we choose what we believe. Whether or not you are raised in one religion or train of thought, you must choose for yourself what you trust to be real. We have that freedom. You can marginalize God and even say he dosen't exist... you can draw up your own gods and cling to old ways and the worship of the earth... you can spout profane ignorance and name it philosiphy (pardon the spelling)... But the fact is no matter how you live on earth, we will all die. Death is certain and eternal. Would you rather build up your walls of unimaginative lack of faith or cover yourself in what men say to be true OR would you rather take the chance... that leap of faith that lets you believe that God exists and loves you and has a plan for your life? It's up to each and every one of us. You are entitled to your beliefs and be sure that I know there are people who use and abuse my faith just as in any religion, creed or political persuasion. But like my grandmother used to say, "If you let the hippocrites keep you out then eventually you'll spend eternity with them." So choose, I already have. Be on your side... I am on mine. But DO NOT label my faith and the true followers of Christ as fanatic, lunatic or any of the other monikers I so often hear. It shows you as the equivalent of a racist. We are more intelligent than that, I hope.


P.S. This is not directed at any one person, but the general public as I have increasingly noticed the rampant hatred that brews.


I quite agree with you Rath. I do indeed. People these days are cynical at best most of the time and its often times more easy just to put a LABEL on things.

But I have only one thing to argue you with, in your words here.

Death is certain and eternal

Its true that death is ultimately where everyone will eventually go, however it is not eternal...to me at least, since my faith is in Christ. :D Just wanted to point that out. lol. Sorry if it was rude.

And this is for all those cynical bastards:
http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b184/Upum/army_soldier.gif
Economic Associates
04-10-2005, 19:56
Can't we all just agree to disagree?
The South Islands
04-10-2005, 19:57
Can't we all just agree to disagree?

If we all did that, NS general would cease to exist, based on the 4th law of Thermodynamics.
Economic Associates
04-10-2005, 19:59
If we all did that, NS general would cease to exist, based on the 4th law of Thermodynamics.

lol that or spontaneous combustion would become an epidemic when people can't find an oulet for all the hot air they spew.
The South Islands
04-10-2005, 20:00
lol that or spontaneous combustion would become an epidemic when people can't find an oulet for all the hot air they spew.

And we would all explode...which is bad.
Liskeinland
04-10-2005, 20:04
We weren’t talking bad about Jesus … though some of us don’t think he existed (at least in the manor proclaimed by Christians) :eek: Jesus lived in a manor?
Smunkeeville
04-10-2005, 20:24
:eek: Jesus lived in a manor?
I should get the address and send him a letter, then I could prove that he existed just like on Miracle on 34th Street :p
Balipo
04-10-2005, 20:28
I should get the address and send him a letter, then I could prove that he existed just like on Miracle on 34th Street :p

Yeah...but Santa Claus is real and Jesus isn't. That's the problem people don't get... ;)
Smunkeeville
04-10-2005, 20:29
Yeah...but Santa Claus is real and Jesus isn't. That's the problem people don't get... ;)
you don't really want to start that with me do you? ;)
Liskeinland
04-10-2005, 20:34
Yeah...but Santa Claus is real and Jesus isn't. That's the problem people don't get... ;) My parents are Santa Claus dammit!
Balipo
04-10-2005, 20:39
you don't really want to start that with me do you? ;)

Love to saucy pants...it makes my day...

Besides, I have my kids convinced that I met Santa Claus in June at a Philadelphia dockside bar in 1994 (my hobo/beatnik days before they were born). They are convinced that I have his personal phone number and can call him anytime I want because he had a flat on his summer car and I helped him out.

Isn't being a parent great? :)

My parents are Santa Claus dammit!

Oh ye of little faith...

(I am laughing so hard at the fact that I actually got to use that comment on you, Lisk)
Smunkeeville
04-10-2005, 21:01
Love to saucy pants...it makes my day...

Besides, I have my kids convinced that I met Santa Claus in June at a Philadelphia dockside bar in 1994 (my hobo/beatnik days before they were born). They are convinced that I have his personal phone number and can call him anytime I want because he had a flat on his summer car and I helped him out.

Isn't being a parent great? :)
I was going to not do the whole "santa" thing with my kids, but the inlaws really played it up last year and since that is the first Christmas my kids really remember (my 4 year old anyway) I would really feel bad snatching the rug out from under thier feet so to speak

I think I have decided to nominate one present each to be 'from Santa' and then not do the rest of the crap. (you know baking cookies for him, leaving carrots out for the reigndeer ect.)

I am still creeped out by when I found out that my parents lied to me about the whole thing. I am so conflicted though, because I don't want to lie to them, but I don't want to deprive them of fun either and I sure don't want to be the parent that gets the frantic call from school about my kid standing on the lunch room table screaming '"Santa is fake, it's your mom and dad!!!!"

no clue what to do :confused:
Balipo
04-10-2005, 21:20
I was going to not do the whole "santa" thing with my kids, but the inlaws really played it up last year and since that is the first Christmas my kids really remember (my 4 year old anyway) I would really feel bad snatching the rug out from under thier feet so to speak

I think I have decided to nominate one present each to be 'from Santa' and then not do the rest of the crap. (you know baking cookies for him, leaving carrots out for the reigndeer ect.)

I am still creeped out by when I found out that my parents lied to me about the whole thing. I am so conflicted though, because I don't want to lie to them, but I don't want to deprive them of fun either and I sure don't want to be the parent that gets the frantic call from school about my kid standing on the lunch room table screaming '"Santa is fake, it's your mom and dad!!!!"

no clue what to do :confused:


(oddly she left the saucy pants comment alone...hmmm...)

This is one of those Catch 22 situations. You can't win either way. If you let them believe, the rug will be pulled...if you deny them the belief they will become rug pullers...

At least give them a few years of Santa-ized fun before they find out...

I didn't believe in Santa until I was 21...that's a whole other story...
Smunkeeville
04-10-2005, 21:24
(oddly she left the saucy pants comment alone...hmmm...)

This is one of those Catch 22 situations. You can't win either way. If you let them believe, the rug will be pulled...if you deny them the belief they will become rug pullers...

At least give them a few years of Santa-ized fun before they find out...

I didn't believe in Santa until I was 21...that's a whole other story...
I can live with that solution.

21? yeah that would be a story..... ;)
Liskeinland
04-10-2005, 21:42
Oh ye of little faith...

(I am laughing so hard at the fact that I actually got to use that comment on you, Lisk) The problem with Santa is that when they find out, their trust in you is undermined. But on the plus side they get years of scary mystery… quite a few Christmas mornings I was afraid to open my eyes (and kept them shut for HOURS), in case I saw Santa… my sleep-addled brain imagined some kind of horrible horned thing.
Balipo
04-10-2005, 21:48
The problem with Santa is that when they find out, their trust in you is undermined. But on the plus side they get years of scary mystery… quite a few Christmas mornings I was afraid to open my eyes (and kept them shut for HOURS), in case I saw Santa… my sleep-addled brain imagined some kind of horrible horned thing.

Therapy Lisk...think about it...

I can live with that solution.

21? yeah that would be a story.....

(still no saucy pants comment...I must be sauve...I will get the pictures)

Ahem!!

Well, when I was young my family was not well off. As I had to often go without for X-mas, I understood there was no Santa Claus for me.

When I moved in with my girlfriend (now wife) and became Santa Claus I learned how things were. I am Santa Claus...and so were your parents...

Not everyone gets to be or to have a Santa Claus. So as long as I can fill that position, I will. Proudly. If need be, I will walk on the roof and eat carrots in the manner of a reindeer. Whatever it takes to make my kids happy.
Liskeinland
04-10-2005, 21:51
Therapy Lisk...think about it... I'm fine with being paranoid, as long as people stop persecuting me about it.
Balipo
04-10-2005, 21:53
I'm fine with being paranoid, as long as people stop persecuting me about it.

I'm not persecuting...more concerned. You fear santa claus, death, sex, and probably the tooth fairy. As Lao T'se once said:

"To live in fear is to have the blindfold on.
Fear is created, you must uncreate it."

(Lao T'se is the writer of the Tao The Ching, which unfortunately got turned from a self help document into a religion).
Hoos Bandoland
04-10-2005, 21:54
You're right, it is a big difference and that judgement of God will be between just you and God. I'm sorry if I overreacted, but it seems to me that your statement implies that Christians developing their own relationships with God and finding that those relationships take them down more tolerant and accepting pathways are somehow invalidated in their Christianity. If this is not true, I apologize. If, however, this was your point I would urge you to remember that one of the fundamental principles of Christianity is a personal relationship with divinity. Each person much establish that relationship to their own satisfaction and the only two who have any right to comment on it's "correctness" are indeed God and that person.

.

It appears that we agree on this. :)

However, as to your statement "It is a mistake to percieve God as rigid and inflexible."

But what if he is? If God indeed exists, then he also has certain qualities about himself that we can't change by wishing them away. He told us to "enter by the narrow gate." I don't think that we're going to change his mind about how broad or narrow that gate is. He gave us that verse as a warning.
Silly English KNIGHTS
04-10-2005, 21:55
(still no saucy pants comment...I must be sauve...I will get the pictures)

I've got pictures of her, Balipo. Very saucy.
San Welu
04-10-2005, 21:57
there christains with a little c and then there CHristains with a capital C. The capital C is the religion the little c is people who use it for political reasons.
Sasquatchamo
04-10-2005, 22:03
An interesting rant. I will respond to the only question there.

Why not take the leap of faith and believe in god and an afterlife?

Because I have this life. This life has led me to believe that there is no need to wait to have a good time and enjoy the things presented before me. I have never seen anything in all the world that has convinced me that it is all controlled by one (or a few, or many) all powerful entity. I have seen nothing that has led me to believe in an afterlife. We live, we die. It's just the way things work.

And while you don't wish to be labeled a lunatic or fanatic, you must be willing to admit that there are members of your faith that are lunatics and fanatics, and therefore, we argue. That is the nature of most debates, those who cling to their beliefs so closely that they cannot be as understanding as you seem to be with the above statement.

As an atheist, I appreciate your open view and find it refreshing. But remember, you are not in the majority of the people you are a part of.
Thats stereotyping, are you saying that the MAJORITY of christians are going around, waving signs that say the apocalypse is coming? Because truth be told, there are few of them. There are people that feel strongly about God and our beliefs, i do in fact, but thats not to say i'm a fanatic. I am, and i know a great many of my christian friends, to be very open. I have a friend that is muslim, who reads a koran everyday, i don't bash him for it. If you think most of us are fanatics, and that we are intolerant, you need to take a deeper look. And to the guy who said that christianity has never had power on earth... look at the middle ages. The Catholic Church was THE most powerful authority in the world back then. K, thx, bye.
Syawla
04-10-2005, 22:14
Death is certain and eternal. Would you rather build up your walls of unimaginative lack of faith or cover yourself in what men say to be true OR would you rather take the chance... that leap of faith.

I read what you were saying, nodding in agreement, until you started preaching here. Why?

I myself am a Christian, although not a very practising one at that. I believe the basic message of the bible to be true, and am not atheist. I somewhat agree that too often, Christians are labelled wrongly for things that are not their fault or in their preachings e.g. association between gun-crime and Christians, violence surrounding abortion.

However, your argument falls flat on its face the moment you preach for yourself in that you are disrespecting the religious beliefs of other people, something you ask people not to do. Yes, you have the right to not have your religion used as a stick with which to attack your liberties and political rights to speak your mind. But that also means you do not have the right to insult non-believers by preaching at them. That is immoral, uncalled for and wrong.
Smunkeeville
04-10-2005, 22:22
I read what you were saying, nodding in agreement, until you started preaching here. Why?

I myself am a Christian, although not a very practising one at that. I believe the basic message of the bible to be true, and am not atheist. I somewhat agree that too often, Christians are labelled wrongly for things that are not their fault or in their preachings e.g. association between gun-crime and Christians, violence surrounding abortion.

However, your argument falls flat on its face the moment you preach for yourself in that you are disrespecting the religious beliefs of other people, something you ask people not to do. Yes, you have the right to not have your religion used as a stick with which to attack your liberties and political rights to speak your mind. But that also means you do not have the right to insult non-believers by preaching at them. That is immoral, uncalled for and wrong.

immoral? really? how so?
Syawla
04-10-2005, 22:24
immoral? really? how so?

Because the true Christian God did not want people to be battered into faith, but to find it through the light of their own reason. According to Dante's Inferno, hypocrites are further in hell than non-believers.
Petemoss
04-10-2005, 22:28
I am a Christian, yet I am not a Republican.
As part of living here on planet Earth, I believe it comes with the territory with people constantly use terms labeling Christians as fanatical, extremeist, etc.
Regardless of what people say or dont say, doesnt hurt me a bit. I still love them regardless.
It makes me stronger as a believer, knowing I do not have to have the same bitterness at those make comments about me and my faith.
Smunkeeville
04-10-2005, 22:30
Because the true Christian God did not want people to be battered into faith, but to find it through the light of their own reason. According to Dante's Inferno, hypocrites are further in hell than non-believers.
battered? no.
should we keep a lid on our faith and fear discussing it because someone might be offended? no

we are supposed to share Christ's message.

"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age." Matt. 28:19

and you do know that "Dante's Inferno" has no scriptural backing right.

besides who are you to judge who is a hypocrite and who isn't I mean you said yourself that you are an 'unpracticing Christian' I think that falls under Matt. ch 7.
Economic Associates
04-10-2005, 22:33
battered? no.
should we keep a lid on our faith and fear discussing it because someone might be offended? no

we are supposed to share Christ's message.

"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age." Matt. 28:19
The problem with this is that the message has been taken out of context over years. Conversion by the sword or gun for colonialism became common because of passages like this. I have no problem with a religion that peacefully tries to spread its beliefs but the trend of christianity tends to be the opposite historically.

and you do know that "Dante's Inferno" has no scriptural backing right.
But its still a hell of a read.
Smunkeeville
04-10-2005, 22:37
The problem with this is that the message has been taken out of context over years. Conversion by the sword or gun for colonialism became common because of passages like this. I have no problem with a religion that peacefully tries to spread its beliefs but the trend of christianity tends to be the opposite historically.
I don't advocate conversion by force, I was just pointing out that I don't think it is immoral to share your faith. Anything can be taken too far, but that doesn't mean you just stop altogether.


But its still a hell of a read.
yeah, it was interesting. I worry though that so many people put such importance on things like that, and eventually they think it is scriptural, and it just isn't.
United Asian Nations
04-10-2005, 22:52
they believe in GOVERNMENT aid to the poor.

I, and probably most protestant christians, believe in personal aid to the poor... rather than impersonal, faceless, arbitrary giving by the government.

inclusion: All people are free to gain the gift of salvation (Jesus died for everyone's sins), but not all behavior is biblically acceptable.

social/economic (in)justice = socialism... Jesus did not condone stealing.

socialist bashing... i didnt realize that stealing was bad when killing millions of jews and arabs under the aproval of the pope was... The fact of the matter is the reason socialism is looked down upon by most Christians is because it strongly supports the use of athiesm not because they steal your stuff. Read the slogans of the 50's "Christianity against ATHIESTIC socialism" that was where a majority of the support for capitalism came from.

I have not disclosed my religion in this comment but im a loose Christian... its not so hard to understand the gigantic dislike of christians like yourself who are blatently ignorant of political issues and say jesus said its wrong(not understanding the issue) while you can condone the persicution of others beliefs and pretty much hope seceretly they go to hell so your entire existance on earth was not wasted by believing in god.
Hamstervilla
04-10-2005, 22:52
As long as there are people, there will be faults;

and as long as there are faults, there will be blame;

as long as there is blame, there are those who don't except it;

and as long as people keep pushing the blame around to each other, there will be one person who is hurt by that person and will then in turn hate "what they are/ their relegion/ ect."

therefore, as long as there are people, there will be streotypes that people will use as a 'whipping boy'.
Liskeinland
04-10-2005, 22:54
As long as there are people, there will be faults;

and as long as there are faults, there will be blame;

as long as there is blame, there are those who don't except it;

and as long as people keep pushing the blame around to each other, there will be one person who is hurt by that person and will then in turn hate "what they are/ their relegion/ ect."

therefore, as long as there are people, there will be streotypes that people will use as a 'whipping boy'. You could have narrowed that down into "peoople are foolish, thus it shall be forevermore".
Economic Associates
04-10-2005, 23:00
I don't advocate conversion by force, I was just pointing out that I don't think it is immoral to share your faith. Anything can be taken too far, but that doesn't mean you just stop altogether.
I agree that it isnt immoral to share your faith if you do it peacefully. And I'm not saying christianity should stop preaching its methods. Its just that if we look at christianities track record when it comes to conversions it really isnt that good.

yeah, it was interesting. I worry though that so many people put such importance on things like that, and eventually they think it is scriptural, and it just isn't.
The thing I find funny about it is that all of Dante's enemies ended up somewhere in hell in that story.
People without names
04-10-2005, 23:02
Not to mention that they are the ones USING THEIR FAITH to justify modifying MY freedoms. I reserve my right to question ANYTHING that decides to impose itself in my life.

or is it you using your faith,(or absence) to modify your own rights (and others, even if not intentional).
Liskeinland
04-10-2005, 23:06
I agree that it isnt immoral to share your faith if you do it peacefully. And I'm not saying christianity should stop preaching its methods. Its just that if we look at christianities track record when it comes to conversions it really isnt that good.


The thing I find funny about it is that all of Dante's enemies ended up somewhere in hell in that story. Ach, humans in general don't have a good track record.

Of course! Everyone knows that their enemies will end up in Hel! (yeah, I prefer the Viking spelling)
Smunkeeville
04-10-2005, 23:08
I agree that it isnt immoral to share your faith if you do it peacefully. And I'm not saying christianity should stop preaching its methods. Its just that if we look at christianities track record when it comes to conversions it really isnt that good.
of course but you are sensible. others think that by sharing our faith at all we are trying to take away the rights of others, or worse we are actually hurting them.
They see freedom of religion as a good thing until you act on that freedom and then all of the sudden you are "immoral" for discussing such matters in mixed company....


The thing I find funny about it is that all of Dante's enemies ended up somewhere in hell in that story.
of course they did. :D
Jjimjja
04-10-2005, 23:10
Personally I have nothing against any faith persay...

But as soon as its used as an excuse to treat someone like a second class citizen or as an excuse to blind oneself to the truth, then they're a pratt.
Maineiacs
04-10-2005, 23:11
battered? no.
should we keep a lid on our faith and fear discussing it because someone might be offended? no

we are supposed to share Christ's message.

"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age." Matt. 28:19

and you do know that "Dante's Inferno" has no scriptural backing right.

besides who are you to judge who is a hypocrite and who isn't I mean you said yourself that you are an 'unpracticing Christian' I think that falls under Matt. ch 7.


The problem is that some fundamentalist christians have a hard time distinguishing between sharing their faith and attempting to enforce their agenda on those who disagree. Please note that I am not saying that you, personally, do this. I know many that do, haowever, including some on this forum. Also, I must repectfully disagree with your interpretation of Matt 7:1-2. If you expand the passage to include verses 3-5, it looks to me like Jesus is saying to not pass judgement.

1Judge not, that ye be not judged.

2For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

3And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

4Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?

5Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

And there's this from John 8.

3And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,

4They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.

5Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?

6This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.

7So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

8And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.

9And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.

10When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?

11She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more. John 8:3-11


I don't think you'll find any place in the bible where Jesus says it is alright for anyone to pass judgement on a fellow human being.
Economic Associates
04-10-2005, 23:13
of course but you are sensible. others think that by sharing our faith at all we are trying to take away the rights of others, or worse we are actually hurting them.
They see freedom of religion as a good thing until you act on that freedom and then all of the sudden you are "immoral" for discussing such matters in mixed company....
Well that depends on how you say sharing the faith. I don't think that trying to convert people through sharing christ's message is trying to take rights away. I believe that trying to get laws passed based on a set of morals that not everyone agrees with has the possibility to infringe on others rights. Thats what I think people are afraid of.
Smunkeeville
04-10-2005, 23:22
The problem is that some fundamentalist christians have a hard time distinguishing between sharing their faith and attempting to enforce their agenda on those who disagree. Please note that I am not saying that you, personally, do this. I know many that do, haowever, including some on this forum. Also, I must repectfully disagree with your interpretation of Matt 7:1-2. If you expand the passage to include verses 3-5, it looks to me like Jesus is saying to not pass judgement.

I don't think you'll find any place in the bible where Jesus says it is alright for anyone to pass judgement on a fellow human being.
Jesus was speaking to hypocrites in Matthew 7.
notice the "take the plank out of your own eye before commenting on the speck in your brothers" and the "you will be judged by the same measure".

I am not passing judgment. If I were to do anything at all I would be pointing out other's wrongs.

Lev.19:15
In righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour.

Jn.7:24
Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.

1 Cor.2:15
But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.

1 Cor.5:12-13
For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.
Smunkeeville
04-10-2005, 23:24
Well that depends on how you say sharing the faith. I don't think that trying to convert people through sharing christ's message is trying to take rights away. I believe that trying to get laws passed based on a set of morals that not everyone agrees with has the possibility to infringe on others rights. Thats what I think people are afraid of.
I am afraid of that too.
Economic Associates
04-10-2005, 23:28
I am afraid of that too.

Who isn't? The thing is that Christianity is very domiant in the West especially in America. Where as Christianity was once used for social control in the dark and middle ages it has taken a back seat to other measures. That does not mean it still hasnt been brought into the political arena mind you. We have the president and ongressmen who make references to a higher power or a god when dealing with policies. Its a scary thing to be in the minority religion wise and see this type of political manuvering going on.
Smunkeeville
04-10-2005, 23:31
Who isn't? The thing is that Christianity is very domiant in the West especially in America. Where as Christianity was once used for social control in the dark and middle ages it has taken a back seat to other measures. That does not mean it still hasnt been brought into the political arena mind you. We have the president and ongressmen who make references to a higher power or a god when dealing with policies. Its a scary thing to be in the minority religion wise and see this type of political manuvering going on.
what really scares me is the fact that many people have become so frightened of 'Christians in office' that many here on NS have voiced the opinion that Christians shouldn't be allowed to run for office at all. I mean if that isn't taking away rights what is?

besides most Christians are fully against legislating any belief system. I mean God gave us free will, why go behind his back and try to make it illegal? sounds like a dangerous game to me....
Economic Associates
04-10-2005, 23:38
what really scares me is the fact that many people have become so frightened of 'Christians in office' that many here on NS have voiced the opinion that Christians shouldn't be allowed to run for office at all. I mean if that isn't taking away rights what is?
I agree that religion should not be a factor in considering who may or may not run for office. It is contradictory to the democratic values that the USA is founded on.

besides most Christians are fully against legislating any belief system. I mean God gave us free will, why go behind his back and try to make it illegal? sounds like a dangerous game to me....
Well I mean we had that one California senator(congressman I don't remember which) who made the comment on the gay marriage bill that every person there knew what they were doing was wrong because of the knowledge given by a "higher power". I agree that most christians don't want to force their beliefs on others but for some reason comments like these are made by government officials.
Maineiacs
04-10-2005, 23:42
Jesus was speaking to hypocrites in Matthew 7.
notice the "take the plank out of your own eye before commenting on the speck in your brothers" and the "you will be judged by the same measure".

I am not passing judgment. If I were to do anything at all I would be pointing out other's wrongs.

Lev.19:15
In righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour.

Jn.7:24
Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.

1 Cor.2:15
But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.

1 Cor.5:12-13
For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.

Again, I never siad that you, personally, were judging people. However, I think it more accurate to say that you are pointing out what you believe to be wrong. You have a right to your opinion. So does everyone else. But since not everyone agrees with you, It's not exactly fair to say that something is wrong, end of story, just because one does not like it. I myself have said the evangelical christianity is wrong. I should not have. I should have said I disagree with its methods. I am not saying you are definitely wrong. I am saying I disagree. If I'm wrong, I'll pay the price for that, but that's not for Jerry Falwell or any other mortal man to say. Also, I grant that not every evangelical christian agrees with the more radical element. But this is the same arguement people say about moderate Islam. If the radicals are not the voice of the religion, then those that do not espouse their methods need to speak up, or people will continue to make blanket assumptions.

Also, I must still disagree with your interpretation of Matt 7. Yes, he does mention hypocrites, but I feel that interpretation is too narrow. And as for the other passages, I'll need to see them in context before I concede your point.
Smunkeeville
04-10-2005, 23:43
I agree that religion should not be a factor in considering who may or may not run for office. It is contradictory to the democratic values that the USA is founded on.
and I agree that religion shouldn't be a factor in what laws you pass when you are serving in government either.


Well I mean we had that one California senator(congressman I don't remember which) who made the comment on the gay marriage bill that every person there knew what they were doing was wrong because of the knowledge given by a "higher power". I agree that most christians don't want to force their beliefs on others but for some reason comments like these are made by government officials.
yeah and everytime they do, I cringe. :(
Balipo
05-10-2005, 13:42
I've got pictures of her, Balipo. Very saucy.

Liar!! No one has pictures of her or so she says...hmmm...unless you are her husband...which would make that possible...
Balipo
05-10-2005, 13:47
Thats stereotyping, are you saying that the MAJORITY of christians are going around, waving signs that say the apocalypse is coming? Because truth be told, there are few of them. There are people that feel strongly about God and our beliefs, i do in fact, but thats not to say i'm a fanatic. I am, and i know a great many of my christian friends, to be very open. I have a friend that is muslim, who reads a koran everyday, i don't bash him for it. If you think most of us are fanatics, and that we are intolerant, you need to take a deeper look. And to the guy who said that christianity has never had power on earth... look at the middle ages. The Catholic Church was THE most powerful authority in the world back then. K, thx, bye.

In reality it isn't me stereotyping christians. It's loud and vocal christians stereotyping themselves, with me observing said behaviour.

You accuse me of stereotyping when christians that are loud and fanatic can be seen protesting something each day all over the world? I think you need to look closer at the history of your church as well.

As far as the "I have a Muslim friend" line. You are either very young or very out of touch. That's like a white guys saying, "Oh yeah, I'm not racist cause I have a black friend". Whoopdeedo. I have friends of every ethnic, religious, and political background. What is your point?

If you are truly tolerant, talk to the more fanatical christians that bounce around with signs calling for death to all muslims. That would be more impressive than "I have a Muslim friend".
Balipo
05-10-2005, 13:51
*In reference to Dante's Inferno*
But its still a hell of a read.

I find this interesting. Dante supposedly had an epiphany that lead him to right the Divine Comedy (the context of which both Heaven and hell are taken from). Which is just a book. Yet people refute that there is any religious validity to that and the bible is the end all be all.

I just find that odd...a book is a book after all.
Balipo
05-10-2005, 14:00
Well that depends on how you say sharing the faith. I don't think that trying to convert people through sharing christ's message is trying to take rights away. I believe that trying to get laws passed based on a set of morals that not everyone agrees with has the possibility to infringe on others rights. Thats what I think people are afraid of.

This is the problem I have with christians (or anyone really) sharing their faith.

Here's an example conversation:

RP (Religious Person): "I'd like to talk to you about my faith"

Me (that's me): "Sure"

RP: "I believe in god and Jesus for reasons X, Y, and Z"

Me: "Okay. X has been disproven by science, y presents no evidence in and of itself so is completely unreliable, and z is a document made thousands of years ago, never verifiable and translated to the point of being pointless rhetoric attempting to convince people that your faith is a good idea."

RP: "WHY ARE YOU A FAITH HATER?!?! WHY CAN'T YOU UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS THE WAY IT IS?!?!?"

Me: "This is why you and I shouldn't discuss religion."

~Fin

While I'm being overly generic here that's generally how it goes. People of faith cannot stand to be confronted by anything that denies their faith. At least that has been my experience. They cannot accept that there is rational thought outside there beliefs.
Sierra BTHP
05-10-2005, 14:04
This is the problem I have with christians (or anyone really) sharing their faith.

Here's an example conversation:

RP (Religious Person): "I'd like to talk to you about my faith"

Me (that's me): "Sure"

RP: "I believe in god and Jesus for reasons X, Y, and Z"

Me: "Okay. X has been disproven by science, y presents no evidence in and of itself so is completely unreliable, and z is a document made thousands of years ago, never verifiable and translated to the point of being pointless rhetoric attempting to convince people that your faith is a good idea."

RP: "WHY ARE YOU A FAITH HATER?!?! WHY CAN'T YOU UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS THE WAY IT IS?!?!?"

Me: "This is why you and I shouldn't discuss religion."

~Fin

While I'm being overly generic here that's generally how it goes. People of faith cannot stand to be confronted by anything that denies their faith. At least that has been my experience. They cannot accept that there is rational thought outside there beliefs.


Maybe you don't understand the concept of faith. Faith is belief in a set of postulates - things that cannot be proven.

As an example, all math rests on a small set of postulates. Assumptions that we all agree on in order to begin deriving the rest of mathematics. If we don't have those assumptions, we can't have math. And, since math is a useful tool for some, we let those postulates stay as they are - unproven, and adhered to by faith.

To some, God is a useful tool. And so they have their postulates as well.

Standing there trying to disprove the postulates is a waste of time. And for someone to try and convince you that the postulates are true is a waste of time. Either you have faith, or you don't. You obviously don't have any, so why would someone even bring it up with you?

I certainly wouldn't.
Balipo
05-10-2005, 14:22
Maybe you don't understand the concept of faith. Faith is belief in a set of postulates - things that cannot be proven.

As an example, all math rests on a small set of postulates. Assumptions that we all agree on in order to begin deriving the rest of mathematics. If we don't have those assumptions, we can't have math. And, since math is a useful tool for some, we let those postulates stay as they are - unproven, and adhered to by faith.

To some, God is a useful tool. And so they have their postulates as well.

Standing there trying to disprove the postulates is a waste of time. And for someone to try and convince you that the postulates are true is a waste of time. Either you have faith, or you don't. You obviously don't have any, so why would someone even bring it up with you?

I certainly wouldn't.


Sierra, I like you don't get me wrong. But the basic postualtes of math? That was probably a bad example. The only thing we take on faith is naming conventions. The fact that two of something and three of something make five of something can be seen, whether we call it two, dava, deux, deuce, or II. The basic postulates of mathematics are Addition, Subtraction, Multiplication and Division. They can be seen concretely and require no faith.

As far as having faith, yes I have none. That seems to be what attracts the faithful to me. They figure I need some, so they try to explain it to me and make me understand why faith is "necessary". What they don't know is that I have studied their faith and understand a great deal about it, and from a better perspective as someone who doesn't take the word of their god(s) as law.

The conversation I presented was very generic and it doesn't always go that way. But in general there is why don't I believe is this (whatever this is), followed by my explaination why, followed by a comment on how ridiculous I am for not believing and having faith.
Balipo
05-10-2005, 14:25
what really scares me is the fact that many people have become so frightened of 'Christians in office' that many here on NS have voiced the opinion that Christians shouldn't be allowed to run for office at all. I mean if that isn't taking away rights what is?

besides most Christians are fully against legislating any belief system. I mean God gave us free will, why go behind his back and try to make it illegal? sounds like a dangerous game to me....


I'm not against Christians in office. I just think it is an oxymoron to say Christian Politician. I mean, aren't christians supposed to be moral and honest?

I've yet to see a politician with those qualities. :)
Sierra BTHP
05-10-2005, 14:30
Sierra, I like you don't get me wrong. But the basic postualtes of math? That was probably a bad example. The only thing we take on faith is naming conventions. The fact that two of something and three of something make five of something can be seen, whether we call it two, dava, deux, deuce, or II. The basic postulates of mathematics are Addition, Subtraction, Multiplication and Division. They can be seen concretely and require no faith.

As far as having faith, yes I have none. That seems to be what attracts the faithful to me. They figure I need some, so they try to explain it to me and make me understand why faith is "necessary". What they don't know is that I have studied their faith and understand a great deal about it, and from a better perspective as someone who doesn't take the word of their god(s) as law.

The conversation I presented was very generic and it doesn't always go that way. But in general there is why don't I believe is this (whatever this is), followed by my explaination why, followed by a comment on how ridiculous I am for not believing and having faith.


The Euclidean geometry of the plane (Books I-IV) and of the three-dimensional space (Books XI-XIII) is based on five postulates, the first four of which are about the basic objects of plane geometry (point, straight line, circle, and right angle), which can be drawn by straightedge and compass (the so-called Euclidean tools of geometric construction). Euclid's fifth postulate, also known as the parallel postulate, is modified in so-called non-Euclidean geometry.

None of those postulates can be proven.

Mathematical Postulates for the Logical Operations of Assertion, Conjunction,
Negation and Equality.

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/22/5/291 Also can't be proven.
Fenland Friends
05-10-2005, 14:43
The Euclidean geometry of the plane (Books I-IV) and of the three-dimensional space (Books XI-XIII) is based on five postulates, the first four of which are about the basic objects of plane geometry (point, straight line, circle, and right angle), which can be drawn by straightedge and compass (the so-called Euclidean tools of geometric construction). Euclid's fifth postulate, also known as the parallel postulate, is modified in so-called non-Euclidean geometry.

None of those postulates can be proven.

Mathematical Postulates for the Logical Operations of Assertion, Conjunction,
Negation and Equality.

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/22/5/291 Also can't be proven.

Fair points TBH. And this is where you get to the fundamental issue of the ID debate. Science can't and won't prove anything, but it will examine the natural phenomena it finds and attempt through evidence to describe a theory explaining them. Religion will philosophise and provide potulates or theories which are not naturally evidence based, but do provide answers to those who choose to believe.

It's interesting that earlier on you stated something along the lines of not interfering with another's lack of faith. This is all well and good, but what then of evangelism?
Balipo
05-10-2005, 14:47
The Euclidean geometry of the plane (Books I-IV) and of the three-dimensional space (Books XI-XIII) is based on five postulates, the first four of which are about the basic objects of plane geometry (point, straight line, circle, and right angle), which can be drawn by straightedge and compass (the so-called Euclidean tools of geometric construction). Euclid's fifth postulate, also known as the parallel postulate, is modified in so-called non-Euclidean geometry.

None of those postulates can be proven.

Mathematical Postulates for the Logical Operations of Assertion, Conjunction,
Negation and Equality.

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/22/5/291 Also can't be proven.


OOOOOHHHhh...you were taking about geometry. I understand where you are going now. And yes, the main reason Euclidean geometry is lacking is that it deals with 2-d concepts (like point and line), which while they can't be observed, can be mathematically proven (although not through Euclid's postulates).

There are alternatives. Although bandwidth and space on a comment might prevent posting such information here.

Here's a little bit of such information (http://www.math.toronto.edu/mathnet/questionCorner/post3space.html).
Smunkeeville
05-10-2005, 14:50
Liar!! No one has pictures of her or so she says...hmmm...unless you are her husband...which would make that possible...
he is. ;)
Smunkeeville
05-10-2005, 14:52
I'm not against Christians in office. I just think it is an oxymoron to say Christian Politician. I mean, aren't christians supposed to be moral and honest?

I've yet to see a politician with those qualities. :)
my husband is planning on running for public office
one day he hopes to be President, so then you will know a politician with those qualities. :)
Sierra BTHP
05-10-2005, 14:54
Fair points TBH. And this is where you get to the fundamental issue of the ID debate. Science can't and won't prove anything, but it will examine the natural phenomena it finds and attempt through evidence to describe a theory explaining them. Religion will philosophise and provide potulates or theories which are not naturally evidence based, but do provide answers to those who choose to believe.

It's interesting that earlier on you stated something along the lines of not interfering with another's lack of faith. This is all well and good, but what then of evangelism?

Speaking as someone who does "evangelism", it depends on what you mean by it. If you mean annoying Jehovah's Witnesses who knock on your door and won't leave, that's not evangelism to me.

To me, evangelism is if someone tells me they are interested in becoming a Christian - then I evangelize. Until someone has made up their mind that they are interested in doing something, it's rather pointless to push it on them.

I don't bother to assign "I'm right and you're wrong" to matters of faith - whether it's mathematical postulates or God.

If you're ready to do Euclidean geometry today, that's what we'll talk about.


BTW, concepts like negation and equality are not geometry.
Sierra BTHP
05-10-2005, 14:55
OOOOOHHHhh...you were taking about geometry. I understand where you are going now. And yes, the main reason Euclidean geometry is lacking is that it deals with 2-d concepts (like point and line), which while they can't be observed, can be mathematically proven (although not through Euclid's postulates).

There are alternatives. Although bandwidth and space on a comment might prevent posting such information here.

Here's a little bit of such information (http://www.math.toronto.edu/mathnet/questionCorner/post3space.html).

Try proving the postulates behind concepts like negation, assertion, and equality. Those aren't geometry.

And they're unprovable.
Fenland Friends
05-10-2005, 15:01
Speaking as someone who does "evangelism", it depends on what you mean by it. If you mean annoying Jehovah's Witnesses who knock on your door and won't leave, that's not evangelism to me.

To me, evangelism is if someone tells me they are interested in becoming a Christian - then I evangelize. Until someone has made up their mind that they are interested in doing something, it's rather pointless to push it on them.

I don't bother to assign "I'm right and you're wrong" to matters of faith - whether it's mathematical postulates or God.

If you're ready to do Euclidean geometry today, that's what we'll talk about.


BTW, concepts like negation and equality are not geometry.

I'm no mathematician, my areas are medical law and biology. Maths was unceremoniously dumped after first year at University. However, if you were, as I understood, trying to illustrate how science is faith based, you are of course correct, given that science doesn't seek to prove, but only to provide the best explanation possible with the proves facts at hand.

As far as evengelism goes, this I find a bit strange. How would someone decide that they wanted to be a Christian without first knowing something of Christ?
Bobfarania
05-10-2005, 15:02
[/QUOTE]If I said "all homosexuals are (insert overgeneralization here)
that would be a huge problem right?[/QUOTE]

Unless you say all homosexuals are individuals who are atracted to people of their own gender. Which is a fact.

Face it, there are generalizations that can and must be made so that a specific group can be called a group as opposed to an aggregate. Their are certain similar traits that a member of a group must have in common to other people in his/her group in order to be appart of said group. similarities are after all basically generalizations.
Smunkeeville
05-10-2005, 15:03
Speaking as someone who does "evangelism", it depends on what you mean by it. If you mean annoying Jehovah's Witnesses who knock on your door and won't leave, that's not evangelism to me.

To me, evangelism is if someone tells me they are interested in becoming a Christian - then I evangelize. Until someone has made up their mind that they are interested in doing something, it's rather pointless to push it on them.

That isn't so much evangelism, then just waiting around for God to drop someone in your lap.(which is fine if that is what you are called to do)

e·van·gel·ism NOUN:

1. Zealous preaching and dissemination of the gospel, as through missionary work.

I don't just randomly knock on doors or anything (it's gettting rather dangerous to do these days anyway) but I do outreach through my church, and I try to show Christ in my life everywhere I go (it seems to invite questions) and then I can share the gospel that way. I have never in my life had anyone come up to me and ask how to be a Christian without any action on my part at all.

Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age." MATTHEW 28:19-20
I always interpreted that into GO rather than sit around and wait, but like I said whatever you are comfortable with because I don't have any idea about where you are in your walk.
Sierra BTHP
05-10-2005, 15:03
I'm no mathematician, my areas are medical law and biology. Maths was unceremoniously dumped after first year at University. However, if you were, as I understood, trying to illustrate how science is faith based, you are of course correct, given that science doesn't seek to prove, but only to provide the best explanation possible with the proves facts at hand.

As far as evengelism goes, this I find a bit strange. How would someone decide that they wanted to be a Christian without first knowing something of Christ?

I'm not trying to prove anything about science. Just math.

As for your last question, that's like saying how would a woman know she wants to have sex with you if she doesn't see your genitals.

If she's interested in having sex, she'll let me know.

If she's interested in knowing about Christianity, she'll have had an initial interest by some other route - and if interested, she'll let me know.
Balipo
05-10-2005, 15:05
my husband is planning on running for public office
one day he hopes to be President, so then you will know a politician with those qualities. :)

An actor and a politician...sounds shaky to me...
Sierra BTHP
05-10-2005, 15:06
That isn't so much evangelism, then just waiting around for God to drop someone in your lap.(which is fine if that is what you are called to do)

The best evangelism is living in a way that makes people want to ask you why you seem to be having such a good life. That tends to drop people in your lap, and isn't perceived as a "violation" - it's not like handing out tracts.

That's when they ask you. And when I answer that it's because God and I have an arrangement, that's where it usually starts.

If they're not interested, they'll drop it at that point.
Smunkeeville
05-10-2005, 15:07
Unless you say all homosexuals are individuals who are atracted to people of their own gender. Which is a fact.

Face it, there are generalizations that can and must be made so that a specific group can be called a group as opposed to an aggregate. Their are certain similar traits that a member of a group must have in common to other people in his/her group in order to be appart of said group. similarities are after all basically generalizations.


didn't want to put anything inflamitory because might get in trouble or might hurt someones feelings S(don't want to do that)

but if I said "All (blank) are stupid and should be shot" then whoever (blank) was would be really mad and really hurt and so I wouldn't do that. Others don't seem to realize that Christians have feelings too and by calling us evil, or stupid, or saying we should be commited to mental hospitals, it would be the same effect if I made a comment about anyone else, only a lot of times the general public sees it as acceptable to call Christians anything you want.
Sierra BTHP
05-10-2005, 15:09
The best evangelism is living in a way that makes people want to ask you why you seem to be having such a good life. That tends to drop people in your lap, and isn't perceived as a "violation" - it's not like handing out tracts.

That's when they ask you. And when I answer that it's because God and I have an arrangement, that's where it usually starts.

If they're not interested, they'll drop it at that point.
bumped
Balipo
05-10-2005, 15:09
I'm not trying to prove anything about science. Just math.

As for your last question, that's like saying how would a woman know she wants to have sex with you if she doesn't see your genitals.

If she's interested in having sex, she'll let me know.

If she's interested in knowing about Christianity, she'll have had an initial interest by some other route - and if interested, she'll let me know.

Why am I picturing Sierra having sex with someone while discussing the bible and Jesus?

:)
Smunkeeville
05-10-2005, 15:09
An actor and a politician...sounds shaky to me...
hey Regan did okay. :p
Fenland Friends
05-10-2005, 15:10
Why am I picturing Sierra having sex with someone while discussing the bible and Jesus?

:)

Hmmm. Best bible class I ever heard of.... :fluffle:
Sierra BTHP
05-10-2005, 15:15
Why am I picturing Sierra having sex with someone while discussing the bible and Jesus?

:)

Been there, done that. My wife is a Christian, too.

Maybe your problem is that the exposure you've had to Christianity has been dull, boring, and oppressive.

Didn't Jesus take time out for a foot massage?

Christianity, to be understood, has to be boiled down to what it is that you are required to believe. Take any religion and boil it down and then see what you like about it.

Take away the rules, etc., and ask yourself what it is that Christianity, as opposed to other religions, requires you to believe.

The essential difference is belief in the Absolute Paradox - the leap between reality and consciousness - the leap from Man to God - from solid reality to spirit - the moment when Man and God became One.

Can't be proven scientifically. But it is a bootstrapping event - a leap of faith. The idea that there is something far greater than what we see, touch, feel, and hear - and that we can reach that level.

If you don't want to believe in it, that's fine. There are other religions - some simpler than that. And being an atheist is even simpler. You only have to believe in the provable - in the things you can directly experience.
Silly English KNIGHTS
05-10-2005, 15:18
I agree that most christians don't want to force their beliefs on others but for some reason comments like these are made by government officials.

Sadly, government officials have a pedestal from which to spew their own views and agendas. When a government official claims to follow a particular religion, it is easy for the public to view them as a good representative of the beliefs of that religion (or any group for that matter.) The majority of the people in that group will rarely be heard, and certainly not with the volume a few fanatics tend to achieve. This is one of the reasons so many stereotypes are perpetuated. It is important for all of us to remember that the loudest is not often in the majority.
UpwardThrust
05-10-2005, 15:25
Sadly, government officials have a pedestal from which to spew their own views and agendas. When a government official claims to follow a particular religion, it is easy for the public to view them as a good representative of the beliefs of that religion (or any group for that matter.) The majority of the people in that group will rarely be heard, and certainly not with the volume a few fanatics tend to achieve. This is one of the reasons so many stereotypes are perpetuated. It is important for all of us to remember that the loudest is not often in the majority.
The “Majority” seem to so rarely speak up or against someone who is touting their views goes a bit far.
It happens with every group … you have a guy (politician) working in your corner … you may not agree with him but you get more out of him if you don’t fight him over something’s.

All very logical
Except then the “Majority” get mad when people start viewing their group by the actions of the guy they didn’t stop (or helped).

At least that’s what I observed … people tend to not fight those championing their cause just cause they go a bit overboard
Balipo
05-10-2005, 15:46
hey Regan did okay. :p

Oh boy...we aren't going down this road are we?
Balipo
05-10-2005, 15:54
Been there, done that. My wife is a Christian, too.

Maybe your problem is that the exposure you've had to Christianity has been dull, boring, and oppressive.

Didn't Jesus take time out for a foot massage?

Christianity, to be understood, has to be boiled down to what it is that you are required to believe. Take any religion and boil it down and then see what you like about it.

Take away the rules, etc., and ask yourself what it is that Christianity, as opposed to other religions, requires you to believe.

The essential difference is belief in the Absolute Paradox - the leap between reality and consciousness - the leap from Man to God - from solid reality to spirit - the moment when Man and God became One.

Can't be proven scientifically. But it is a bootstrapping event - a leap of faith. The idea that there is something far greater than what we see, touch, feel, and hear - and that we can reach that level.

If you don't want to believe in it, that's fine. There are other religions - some simpler than that. And being an atheist is even simpler. You only have to believe in the provable - in the things you can directly experience.


Actually, I've experienced the christian faith celebrated in ways from the mundane to the dogmatic to joyous raucousness (sic?). None convinced me. Then I moved on to examining the Jewish faith. Nothing there for me. Buddhism, I was intrigued to say the least, but I didn't care for how they always forgot that Buddha said "Do not worship me. There are no gods save the ones within you." The inner strength aspect was nice though. Enlightenment is a good concept.

So onward. Went to Kingdom Hall, that place honestly scared the hell out of me and I had to lay many lies in order to examine their culture. JW's are messed up.

Daoists are interesting, but really just philosophers similar to buddhists. I can probably identify myself as somewhere between the two. Lao T'zse said many interesting and observable truths. But the dragon thing was a bit weird.

Scientology. I am still examining them, although I will never join, cause let's face it. They are freakin odd.

A friend of mine's father was a Muslim Cleric and explained to me the ideas of Islam. The are basically a mix-match of Christianity, Jewish ideals and Middle Eastern historical religion. So I nixed that one.

My examinations have faith have been extensive, and will continue. However, to paraphrase Han Solo, "I have yet to see anything that makes me think there is some all powerful force controlling everything."

Which brings up my current area of theological study. The Church of the Force, where supposedly one can become a Jedi. Very odd.
Balipo
05-10-2005, 15:58
Sadly, government officials have a pedestal from which to spew their own views and agendas. When a government official claims to follow a particular religion, it is easy for the public to view them as a good representative of the beliefs of that religion (or any group for that matter.) The majority of the people in that group will rarely be heard, and certainly not with the volume a few fanatics tend to achieve. This is one of the reasons so many stereotypes are perpetuated. It is important for all of us to remember that the loudest is not often in the majority.

So are you and smunkee sharing computer time or what?

Anyway...

I think the politic of religion is to align yourself with the group that will most move you forward. Every American president has been Protestant except one. And they shot him.

I think religion in politics is generally lip service for most. Been when you get a president like Bush in office, he makes all Christians look bad by using god in every speech. And unfortunately, he is the current face of christianity in america.
Smunkeeville
05-10-2005, 16:02
Oh boy...we aren't going down this road are we?
probably not as it is very off topic.
;)
Sierra BTHP
05-10-2005, 16:06
Actually, I've experienced the christian faith celebrated in ways from the mundane to the dogmatic to joyous raucousness (sic?). None convinced me. Then I moved on to examining the Jewish faith. Nothing there for me. Buddhism, I was intrigued to say the least, but I didn't care for how they always forgot that Buddha said "Do not worship me. There are no gods save the ones within you." The inner strength aspect was nice though. Enlightenment is a good concept.

So onward. Went to Kingdom Hall, that place honestly scared the hell out of me and I had to lay many lies in order to examine their culture. JW's are messed up.

Daoists are interesting, but really just philosophers similar to buddhists. I can probably identify myself as somewhere between the two. Lao T'zse said many interesting and observable truths. But the dragon thing was a bit weird.

Scientology. I am still examining them, although I will never join, cause let's face it. They are freakin odd.

A friend of mine's father was a Muslim Cleric and explained to me the ideas of Islam. The are basically a mix-match of Christianity, Jewish ideals and Middle Eastern historical religion. So I nixed that one.

My examinations have faith have been extensive, and will continue. However, to paraphrase Han Solo, "I have yet to see anything that makes me think there is some all powerful force controlling everything."

Which brings up my current area of theological study. The Church of the Force, where supposedly one can become a Jedi. Very odd.


You need to start with what YOU believe. My discovery that Christianity (and not Judaism) was right for me began by asking myself what my fundamental beliefs were.

For example, I believe that there is more to the universe than physicalia. Thought, or consciousness plays an important role. And even Stephen Hawking, and his fellow physicists such as Wheeler, believe that a black hole is nothing more than an area of immense physical AND informational density.

Information is real. Consciousness appears real to us. I believe that there is more to the universe than what we touch, feel, etc.

So I believe in qualia. You may not. I believe that there is an ultimate form of consciousness, an ultimate form of spiritual being, and that it is possible for me to become one with that.

So the idea of Jesus, as a living, breathing example of that union is attractive to me. The idea that we can be bootstrapped into that higher experience. And benefit from it.

Not trying to talk you into it. I'm sure that other religions have their own bootstrapping event (well, not all of them). And if you don't believe in anything but physicalia, then you don't need any religion at all - stop looking right now.

Or, as Fodor put it:

"If it isn’t literally true that my wanting is causally responsible for my reaching, and my itching is causally responsible for my scratching, and my believing is causally responsible for my saying ... if none of that is literally true, then practically everything I believe about anything is false and it’s the end of the world."
Smunkeeville
05-10-2005, 16:06
So are you and smunkee sharing computer time or what?
nope. he has his own. besides he is at work and I am at home.


I think religion in politics is generally lip service for most. Been when you get a president like Bush in office, he makes all Christians look bad by using god in every speech. And unfortunately, he is the current face of christianity in america.

so... that is why I have been getting more crap from people since 2000 than I did before.... :eek: never put that together ;)
Silly English KNIGHTS
05-10-2005, 16:41
The “Majority” seem to so rarely speak up or against someone who is touting their views goes a bit far.
It happens with every group … you have a guy (politician) working in your corner … you may not agree with him but you get more out of him if you don’t fight him over something’s.

All very logical
Except then the “Majority” get mad when people start viewing their group by the actions of the guy they didn’t stop (or helped).

At least that’s what I observed … people tend to not fight those championing their cause just cause they go a bit overboard

I was just trying to say that when they do speak up and try to stop the person with the bullhorn/pedestal/what have you they are most often not heard. I don't think it is necessarily that they don't try (although that may just be the part of me that wants to believe people will stand up for what they believe.)
His Divine Grace Dan
05-10-2005, 17:10
although it is very true that, (just like any other institution) there are good and bad christians, you must accept that (just like any other institution) you are going to get whipped and scrutinized.

This is because (just like any other institution) your church is corrupt. The world is dying, we are polluting "god's" earth with our selfish desires for material possessions, cars and electrical appliances, which are slowly destroying the earth. The church either does not speak out about this, or does not speak as loudly as a true christian church should. Instead, it aligns itself with an economy that is destroying the planet.

i hope i didn't offend you there, and i hope i don't get moderated, because what i say is fact, not opinion.

religion/spirituality is a very personal thing however, and i can respect that many people from different religions have nothing but good intent for humanity. So don't take it personally that your church is getting slagged off; its not you thats the problem.

all fundamentalism is bad however. Religious texts arent meant to be taken literally; it leads to misenterpretation and needess suffering. Religious texts need to be taken metaphorically in order for the morals in them to be learnt and applied in life.

be excellent to eachother, and party on dudes! :)
Liskeinland
05-10-2005, 17:11
This is because (just like any other institution) your church is corrupt. The world is dying, we are polluting "god's" earth with our selfish desires for material possessions, cars and electrical appliances, which are slowly destroying the earth. The church either does not speak out about this, or does not speak as loudly as a true christian church should. Instead, it aligns itself with an economy that is destroying the planet.

i hope i didn't offend you there, and i hope i don't get moderated, because what i say is fact, not opinion. Er… you haven't specified which church. I know that the Roman church speaks loudly about the importance of the environment, and doesn't align itself with America… do you mean the Anglican church? I don't think they do either.
Balipo
05-10-2005, 17:55
although it is very true that, (just like any other institution) there are good and bad christians, you must accept that (just like any other institution) you are going to get whipped and scrutinized.

This is because (just like any other institution) your church is corrupt. The world is dying, we are polluting "god's" earth with our selfish desires for material possessions, cars and electrical appliances, which are slowly destroying the earth. The church either does not speak out about this, or does not speak as loudly as a true christian church should. Instead, it aligns itself with an economy that is destroying the planet.

i hope i didn't offend you there, and i hope i don't get moderated, because what i say is fact, not opinion.

religion/spirituality is a very personal thing however, and i can respect that many people from different religions have nothing but good intent for humanity. So don't take it personally that your church is getting slagged off; its not you thats the problem.

all fundamentalism is bad however. Religious texts arent meant to be taken literally; it leads to misenterpretation and needess suffering. Religious texts need to be taken metaphorically in order for the morals in them to be learnt and applied in life.

be excellent to eachother, and party on dudes! :)


Just a quick question. Are you forgoing all luxury in your attempt to save the earth? Because I notice you are using a computer that was likely made in a factory spewing pollutants, by underpaid workers, some of which are likely kids, and it's made of, primarily, plastics that are not bio-degradable. So, I am curious, are you not feeding into this materialist society?

Religions have destroyed the earth and now corporations destroy the earth. Mankind, regardless of faith detroys the earth, we are the only animal that does so.

And as far as corruption, any institution with any power will be corrupt.
[NS]Simonist
05-10-2005, 19:33
i hope i didn't offend you there, and i hope i don't get moderated, because what i say is fact, not opinion.
I don't think you can actually count it as "fact" until you can accurately prove it. Like Lisk touched on, the Roman Catholic Church is openly concerned with the needs of the environment, and as they're set up in their own little country, I very highly doubt they're ONLY playing into the pockets of the nations of power.

I am of the opinion that your "facts" are opinions, and it's my stated opinion ("fact" in my world, by the way) that your opinions are wrong, especially this one:
all fundamentalism is bad however....
Fundamentalism, some could argue, is what holds us to the classic ideals that we built all else upon. Furthermore, you think all fundamentalist views are bad, or just religious fundamentalism? Because I'm by no means a Church Fundie, but I can get pretty fundamental in many other arenas of life.

Lastly, you can't judge that a Church is corrupt and seriously hold it against them. You'd eventually become more corrupt with the more power you got, as well. Even I would, and I like to consider myself incredibly level-headed (and hot, too, but that's neither here nor there). It's a tragic flaw that most every human institution seems to share.
The Almighty Devin
07-10-2005, 15:02
If you believe that calling everyone who believes in any form of religion "stupid" doesn't count as trolling on this board, you are really, really stupid.

Knock it off. NOW.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Game Moderator
The One-Stop Rules Shop (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=416023)

I'll say whatever the hell I want wherever the hell I want.

But I will leave after this post, only because this place isn't worth my time.

Yes, religion is stupid. Any form of "reasoning" (or lack thereof) that allows you to justify or explain anything and everything by saying "because god made it that way" is clearly not intelligent (aka stupid).

I'm making my own religion right now. It says that I am a clone of Jesus Christ, created by god's identical and less evil twin, Bob, and I have superhuman powers. My message is straight from Bob, as He and I have a telepathic connection.

Of course, if you point out that I don't have superpowers, I will just say that that's the way Bob intended it to look to you mere mortals. There's no way for you to refute any of my statements. There's also no way I can prove my statements, but religious people all seem to think that a lack of disproof is good enough proof by itself.

THIS is why religion is stupid. I have no problem with people believing in some sort of deity, as long as they can think properly and realize that religion doesn't have any answers, only beliefs.

See you in hell (which I don't believe in, of course),
-Jesus's clone.
UpwardThrust
07-10-2005, 15:05
snip rantage
Ok good bye
Sierra BTHP
07-10-2005, 15:15
Ok good bye

*watches the puff of smoke after Frisbeeteria fires his lightning bolt*