NationStates Jolt Archive

just wondering why out of all of the worlds religions it is always Christianity that is chosen to be bashed? is it the most bizarre? or just the easiest to attack w/o being called rascist? or is it just funny to see christians get annoyed as it is incessantly said to be wrong. i dont really see what religion has to do with anything in this forum at all to be honest, it doesnt affect much so why does it get brought up so often? can we not all believe what we want and let others get on with what they believe to without these arguements that say this group is wrong, im right etc etc?
just a thought

Why does everything get constantly bashed on this forum? Because we ENJOY it. If no one were attacking us, what would we do? Chat...that's what...and it gets old FAST.

just wondering why out of all of the worlds religions it is always Christianity that is chosen to be bashed? is it the most bizarre? or just the easiest to attack w/o being called rascist? or is it just funny to see christians get annoyed as it is incessantly said to be wrong. i dont really see what religion has to do with anything in this forum at all to be honest, it doesnt affect much so why does it get brought up so often? can we not all believe what we want and let others get on with what they believe to without these arguements that say this group is wrong, im right etc etc?
just a thought
Christianity isn't constantly bashed here. Maybe if Avalon II had been banned you'd have an argument here, but I suspect this stuff is largely humoured, or even indulged.

It's not always Christianity, you just notice it more when it is, kinda like when you buy a new car and suddenly you see it everywhere.

They percieve us as the majority, and most don't like what they have seen of Christians (Pat Robertson ect.)

Why does everything get constantly bashed on this forum? Because we ENJOY it. If no one were attacking us, what would we do? Chat...that's what...and it gets old FAST.
fair point :) just wondering why it seems christianity gets the biggest bashing :)

it is called NS "general" for a reason. christianity/religion falls under this category. confrontation will always occur when you have a group of individuals on opposite ends of the spectrum. (and those in the middle)...

Christianity is the religion that gets bashed most because it is the most common religion in English-speaking countries, and this is an English-speaking forum.

Simple.

Because too many of the vocal christians are damn morons, and give the rest a bad name.

Christianity is easy to bash because it is such a big easy target.

I mean, think Microsoft, WalMart, America, the nuclear industry. They're too huge to miss, too clumsy to dodge the attacks, too safe and complacent to give a damn.

It's why every time there's an anarchist riot, the local McDonald's gets torched and the Burger King gets ignored.

just wondering why out of all of the worlds religions it is always Christianity that is chosen to be bashed? is it the most bizarre? or just the easiest to attack w/o being called rascist? or is it just funny to see christians get annoyed as it is incessantly said to be wrong. i dont really see what religion has to do with anything in this forum at all to be honest, it doesnt affect much so why does it get brought up so often? can we not all believe what we want and let others get on with what they believe to without these arguements that say this group is wrong, im right etc etc?
just a thought

Foolish christian, trix are for kids!
Really dude, grow up, this forum is majorly a liberal and athiest dwelling. If you do not want christianity to be bashed go somewhere, educate yourself on the topics, or ignore it.

fair point :) just wondering why it seems christianity gets the biggest bashing :)
It's just because you notice it. I never get in religious discussions, so I don't see it all that much. I also avoid US bashing or US patriotic-to-the-point-of-idiocy threads, so I don't see them much anymore either. NS to me is a series of sex threads. It's all in how you look at it:)

*snip* and most don't like what they have seen of Christians (Pat Robertson ect.)
Pat Robertson isn't Christian. He's a bigot using his bible as AN EXCUSE to spew hatred.

Don't insult yourself like that. Like your average Christian has anything in common with a nutjob like Robertson. Pshaw.

Pat Robertson isn't Christian. He's a bigot using his bible as AN EXCUSE to spew hatred.

Don't insult yourself like that. Like your average Christian has anything in common with a nutjob like Robertson. Pshaw.
I know that and you know that, but to many people, he is what "Christian" means to them, and that is why they hate us.

It's why every time there's an anarchist riot, the local McDonald's gets torched and the Burger King gets ignored.
Good point. Next time the anarchists announce a protest, you know where I'll be.

Pat Robertson isn't Christian. He's a bigot using his bible as AN EXCUSE to spew hatred.
There's worse functional definitions of a Christian. Particularly if you pay any attention to American politics.

Forms of Christianity are among the most politically powerful religions in the US. Their actions affect people who are not affiliated with their religion so they get the highest criticisms here.

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d140/jhbmw007/psychobitch.gif

:p

Why Christianity?

Islam as a group has learned how to moderate their actions (those that aren't among the very few nationalist morons that get all the media attention).
Buddhism is too reasonable.
Hinduism is a very foreign way of thinking to most people.
Baha'i generally encompasses all of the others.
Paganism isn't really as much of an organised system of belief.
Any discussion with Atheism inevitably gets turned on its head.

On the other hand,

Christianity hasn't generally been well represented in rational debate, and some people would like to give it a proper airing.
It's a denomination with which many are familiar.
It's the nationally accepted religion (it is, let's face it) of the country of which most members here are a citizen.
It has a number of questionable ideas as fundamental principles.
It claims to provide a moral standard on which we should act with which not all agree.
It claims to be the only way that an individual can be considered moral.
And, one of my big beefs -
It tries to quantify and compare the value of human lives through the idea of sinfulness and otherworldly reward/damnation.

Olara']Good point. Next time the anarchists announce a protest, you know where I'll be.

McDonalds?

Originally posted by Kamsaki

Christianity hasn't generally been well represented in rational debate, and some people would like to give it a proper airing.

I'll concede that. For a long time, Christians have been one of two (or sometimes both) things: assholes or simpletons.

It's a denomination with which many are familiar.

It's a denomination whose beliefs have become more public. I wouldn't say Islam is any less known. It's just that it doesn't have loudmouths shooting off about something or other.

It's the nationally accepted religion (it is, let's face it) of the country of which most members here are a citizen.

Yes. I honestly think it's good for Christianity to be questioned, especially by those who see it often and have questions about aspects that seem to be odd.

It has a number of questionable ideas as fundamental principles.

Eh, I'd say that there are a lot of belief systems that share this one, so I really don't think this is a good apology for the singling out of Christianity from other religious beliefs.

It claims to provide a moral standard on which we should act with which not all agree.

Actually, no. In reality, I would never expect someone to live by the standards of a Christian life if they did not first share in the beliefs. This stigma comes from the talking heads in the public eye shooting their mouths off.

It claims to be the only way that an individual can be considered moral.

Technically, it doesn't. It says all are immoral and undeserving of that "otherworldly reward." It isn't portrayed that way because there are people trying to turn countries into theocracies, but in actuality, Christianity believes that, to coin one young man in my church, "we are all evil bastards. The only redeeming quality is that some are compelled to humbly accept the fact that they are so depraved that only a perfect being could reconcile that evil." Thus, nobody is better or worse. Some are just merely forgiven because they desire to be and they are willing to accept the reconciliation of their depravity.

And, one of my big beefs -
It tries to quantify and compare the value of human lives through the idea of sinfulness and otherworldly reward/damnation.

Eh, true Christianity doesn't. Again, this is put off by those in the media eye and some of the less studious Christians, such as our lovely friend Margaret.

It's good to be back.

The only christianity i've ever seen "bashed" is the despicable fundementalist brand.

Fundementalism stands contrary to the principle of honesty.
Also, politicized fundementalism is dangerous and immoral.

You should be banned for posting this thread, in my opinion.

Because the vast majority of people here are from Europe or the US, where Christianity is far and away the dominant religion, and therefore has the biggest impact on the lives of people who post here, and alot more people can speak with at least some authority on Christianity than other religions because of this.

Why does everything get constantly bashed on this forum? Because we ENJOY it. If no one were attacking us, what would we do? Chat...that's what...and it gets old FAST.
Ding ding we have an answer

Christianity just seems to have the most effect right now naturaly it gets questioned more

Ding ding we have an answer

Christianity just seems to have the most effect right now naturaly it gets questioned more

We rotate around, depending on who's on and what they're not tired of.

There's gay bashing, socialist bashing, gun owner bashing, neocon bashing, yadda yadda bashing...

No one, however, has bashed Kraft Dinner yet.

We rotate around, depending on who's on and what they're not tired of.

There's gay bashing, socialist bashing, gun owner bashing, neocon bashing, yadda yadda bashing...

No one, however, has bashed Kraft Dinner yet.
Yup it all happens ... Christianity does seem to have a fair share of threads dealing with it as a subject (may or may not qualify it as bashing depending on the content)

But like I said things that have a big effect (or percived effect) tend to make people want to talk about them

Weather that be religion (christianity being the biggest one specialy in the usa) or taxes or healthcare or sex ... whatever

We rotate around, depending on who's on and what they're not tired of.

There's gay bashing, socialist bashing, gun owner bashing, neocon bashing, yadda yadda bashing...

No one, however, has bashed Kraft Dinner yet.

Who? or what?

I'll give it a go though...:)

just wondering why out of all of the worlds religions it is always Christianity that is chosen to be bashed? is it the most bizarre? or just the easiest to attack w/o being called rascist? or is it just funny to see christians get annoyed as it is incessantly said to be wrong. i dont really see what religion has to do with anything in this forum at all to be honest, it doesnt affect much so why does it get brought up so often? can we not all believe what we want and let others get on with what they believe to without these arguements that say this group is wrong, im right etc etc?
just a thought
The bolded part, right there, in a nutshell, is why Christianity is so bashed. Because they will NOT allow others to get on with what THEY believe. They insist on ramming THEIR interpretation of God and Jesus down everyone's throat, and insist on codifying THEIR morals into OUR civil law, and trying to force many who do not believe in THEIR God to at least pay lip-service, if not worship, to him.
So-called Christians...the ones with a political agenda masked in a mantle of religion...are the ones who give REAL Christians, and REAL Christianity...a bad name.
That answer your question?

Because we're all darksiders! :eek:

Because we're all darksiders! :eek:
Lol I hope others get that refference :)

I won't bash Christianity because......



http://img350.imageshack.us/img350/2418/whathastheworldcome25ki0nv8hp.png

The only christianity i've ever seen "bashed" is the despicable fundementalist brand.

Fundementalism stands contrary to the principle of honesty.
Also, politicized fundementalism is dangerous and immoral.

You should be banned for posting this thread, in my opinion.

I think you should be banned for being an asshole who wants to ban anyone else who asks a reasonable question that you disagree with.

I know that and you know that, but to many people, he is what "Christian" means to them, and that is why they hate us.
We don't hate you (some of my best friends are Christians :)) - we just disagree strongly with what you believe.

Why do people assume that criticisms of Christianity are attacks on Christians personally? That sort of ad hominem paranoia is a sure way to kill intelligent dicussion of the issues.

We don't hate you (some of my best friends are Christians :)) - we just disagree strongly with what you believe.

Why do people assume that criticisms of Christianity are attacks on Christians personally? That sort of ad hominem paranoia is a sure way to kill intelligent dicussion of the issues.
I know people don't hate me personally (well, some do, but not everyone who disagrees with Christianity)

I do see a lot of "Christians are stupid, evil, and should be shot" around here, it isn't directed at me, but I take it personal sometimes.

I mean if they said that about any other group, there would be a huge problem, but if they say it about Christians then it's okay.
(not entirely true, around here either though, because I remember the mods helping me out once.)

anyway, there are people on here that completely disagree with what I believe who have been able to debate intelligently and I respect them for it.
(Balipo, Grave_N_Idle, UpwardThrust, ect.)

and then there are others who remain nameless, that do nothing but attack and run.

Why do people assume that criticisms of Christianity are attacks on Christians personally? It tends to start when someone says that religious people have some form of mental illness, or are all (insert something), and escalates from there. Like with most topics.

Goddistan']a) Eh, I'd say that there are a lot of belief systems that share this one, so I really don't think this is a good apology for the singling out of Christianity from other religious beliefs.

b) Actually, no. In reality, I would never expect someone to live by the standards of a Christian life if they did not first share in the beliefs. This stigma comes from the talking heads in the public eye shooting their mouths off.

c) Technically, it doesn't. It says all are immoral and undeserving of that "otherworldly reward." It isn't portrayed that way because there are people trying to turn countries into theocracies, but in actuality, Christianity believes that, to coin one young man in my church, "we are all evil bastards. The only redeeming quality is that some are compelled to humbly accept the fact that they are so depraved that only a perfect being could reconcile that evil." Thus, nobody is better or worse. Some are just merely forgiven because they desire to be and they are willing to accept the reconciliation of their depravity.

d) Eh, true Christianity doesn't. Again, this is put off by those in the media eye and some of the less studious Christians, such as our lovely friend Margaret.

It's good to be back.
First off, thanks for the input. I'm not quite sure who you may have been before, having only been a lurker here for a while, but I'm sure it's good to have you back from wherever you've been.

On point (a), while true of many religious organisations, the nature of the question doesn't always lie as deeply as it does in the Christian faith. One of the big arguments in Christianity surrounds the nature of its inheretance of other faiths, and whether some of the principles that can be preached in its name are, in fact, reasonable to advocate in the light of some of its other principles. I am, of course, referring to the melding of the Old and New testaments in Canonic Scripture, but also to the very nature of God himself. If all we have to go on is Old Testament, which is in turn demonstrably flawed as a source of the divine (Leviticus as an obvious example, but even the tales in Genesis through to the prophets show the way that the nation of Israel perceived their deity to be a very raw, pragmatic and fiercely nationalistic one), how do we define what God is?

On (b), fair enough. That's just my own experience playing up an unfair stereotype. But Christianity does run a series of morals that can occasionally conflict with pragmatical ethics in the sense of civic response to those around us, and often the motive to one's actions can be called into question.

On (c), perhaps I should reword it slightly differently; it claims to be the only way in which one can be considered righteous. Or, rather, "in favour" with whatever powers that be. Yes, okay, I conceed that it's a rather weak point on one front, but doesn't it seem somewhat arrogant to assume that yours is the only way in which one can please this figure? If indeed he does exist as Judo-Christian faiths describe him, he's the only one that does; wouldn't it therefore be reasonable to assume that others who act in ways that would be pleasing to him but in tribute to whatever they hold in esteem would also be given credit given the indirect worship they engage in of the one power that is?

And on (d), any attempt to decide whether someone is deserving of a benevolent afterlife or not is an attempt to quantify the spiritual value of a given life. Some christians do this with astonishing frequency, others less so, but most do it at some point without even really appreciating what they're doing. Don't you think?

Stick around; Coherent discussion on this and many other related issues, when it gets going and uninterrupted, is really worth engaging in!

'Cause it's just so funny to watch christians scramble to defend their faith like it matters :D

Well, from this side, it is.

It tends to start when someone says that religious people have some form of mental illness, or are all (insert something), and escalates from there. Like with most topics.
Ahhh kind of like how we get people all the time calling homosexuality a mental illness

You know how condecending it is ... yet they argue from all honestly that they just wish to cure us of homosexuality because it is a sin

Well maybe some people just want the best for you and are trying to cure you from your affliction

(not saying I agree with them but maby like a lot of christians they proclaim to do it out of 'love')

Ahhh kind of like how we get people all the time calling homosexuality a mental illness

You know how condecending it is ... yet they argue from all honestly that they just wish to cure us of homosexuality because it is a sin

Well maybe some people just want the best for you and are trying to cure you from your affliction

(not saying I agree with them but maby like a lot of christians they proclaim to do it out of 'love')
since when was homosexuality a mental illness?

i didnt intend to get peoples back up with this topic btw :\

since when was homosexuality a mental illness?

i didnt intend to get peoples back up with this topic btw :\
I dont think is but thats an idea presented (often by christians) on this forum

I dont think it is ... I happen to be bisexual myself

Just like how I dont believe religion to fit the deffinition of mental illness either

Just trying to show there are people on every side that are misguided and are upsetting regardless of their intentions

I know that and you know that, but to many people, he is what "Christian" means to them, and that is why they hate us.
EGG-fucking-ZACTLY!!!
Nutjobs like Robertson are what most people think of when they think of "Christian" because he is a loumouth, and portrays himself as a Christian...and the REAL Christians have allowed nutjobs like him to hijack their religion to serve a political agenda.

In fairness, the more serious bashing is going on around the rest of the world

For most citizens of Iraq, the invasion meant the end of tyranny. For one group, however, it meant a new start: the country’s historic Christian community. When the war stopped, persecution by Islamists, held in check by Saddam, started.

At a church in Basra I visited a month after the war ended, the women complained of attacks against them for not wearing the Islamic veil. I saw many Christian-owned shops that had been firebombed, with many of the owners killed for exercising their legal right to sell alcohol. Two years and many church attacks later, Iraq may still be occupied by Christian foreign powers, but the Islamist plan to ethnically cleanse Iraq of its nearly 2,000-year-old Assyrian and Armenian Christian communities is reaching fruition.

There is nothing unusual about the persecution of Iraqi Christians, or the unwillingness of other Christians to help them. Rising nationalism and fundamentalism around the world have meant that Christianity is going back to its roots as the religion of the persecuted. There are now more than 300 million Christians who are either threatened with violence or legally discriminated against simply because of their faith — more than any other religion. Christians are no longer, as far as I am aware, thrown to the lions. But from China, North Korea and Malaysia, through India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka to Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, they are subjected to legalised discrimination, violence, imprisonment, relocation and forced conversion. Even in supposedly Christian Europe, Christianity has become the most mocked religion, its followers treated with public suspicion and derision and sometimes — such as the would-be EU commissioner Rocco Buttiglione — hounded out of political office.

I am no Christian, but rather a godless atheist whose soul doesn’t want to be saved, thank you. I may not believe in the man with the white beard, but I do believe that all persecution is wrong. The trouble is that the trendies who normally champion human rights seem to think persecution is fine, so long as it’s only against Christians. While Muslims openly help other Muslims, Christians helping Christians has become as taboo as jingoistic nationalism.

On the face of it, the idea of Christians facing serious persecution seems as far-fetched as a carpenter saving humanity. Christianity is the world’s most followed religion, with two billion believers, and by far its most powerful. It is the most popular faith in six of the seven continents, and in both of the world’s two biggest economies, the US and Europe. Seven of the G8 richest industrial nations are majority Christian, as are four out of five permanent members of the UN Security Council. The cheek-turners control the vast majority of the world’s weapons of mass destruction.

When I bumped into George Bush in the breakfast room of the US embassy in Brussels last month, standing right behind me were two men in uniform carrying the little black ‘nuclear football’, containing the codes to enable the world’s most powerful Christian to unleash the world’s most powerful nuclear arsenal. Christians claiming persecution seem as credible as Bill Gates pleading poverty. But just as Christian-majority armies control Iraq as it ethnically cleanses itself of its Christian community, so the power of Christian countries is of little help to the Christian persecuted where most Christians now live: the Third World.

Across the Islamic world, Christians are systematically discriminated against and persecuted. Saudi Arabia — the global fountain of religious bigotry — bans churches, public Christian worship, the Bible and the sale of Christmas cards, and stops non-Muslims from entering Mecca. Christians are regularly imprisoned and tortured on trumped-up charges of drinking, blaspheming or Bible-bashing, as some British citizens have found. Just last month, furthermore, Saudi Arabia announced that only Muslims can become citizens.

The Copts of Egypt make up half the Christians in the Middle East, the cradle of Christianity. They inhabited the land before the Islamic conquest, and still make up a fifth of the population. By law they are banned from being president of the Islamic Republic of Egypt or attending Al Azhar University, and severely restricted from joining the police and army. By practice they are banned from holding any high political or commercial position. Under the 19th-century Hamayouni decrees, Copts must get permission from the president to build or repair churches — but he usually refuses. Mosques face no such controls.

Government-controlled TV broadcasts anti-Copt propaganda, while giving no airtime to Copts. It is illegal for Muslims to convert to Christianity, but legal for Christians to convert to Islam. Christian girls — and even the wives of Christian priests — are abducted and forcibly converted to Islam, recently prompting mass demonstrations. A report by Freedom House in Washington concludes: ‘The cumulative effect of these threats creates an atmosphere of persecution and raises fears that during the 21st century the Copts may have a vastly diminished presence in their homelands.’

Fr Drew Christiansen, an adviser to the US Conference of Bishops, recently conducted a study which stated that ‘all over the Middle East, Christians are under pressure. “The cradle of Christianity” is under enormous pressure from demographic decline, the growth of Islamic militancy, official and unofficial discrimination, the Iraq war, the Palestinian Intifada, failed peace policies and political manipulation.’

In the world’s most economically successful Muslim nation, Malaysia, the world’s only deliberate affirmative action programme for a majority population ensures that Muslims are given better access to jobs, housing and education. In the world’s most populous Muslim nation, Indonesia, some 10,000 Christians have been killed in the last few years by Muslims trying to Islamify the Moluccas.

In the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, most of the five million Christians live as an underclass, doing work such as toilet-cleaning. Under the Hudood ordinances, a Muslim can testify against a non-Muslim in court, but a non-Muslim cannot testify against a Muslim. Blasphemy laws are abused to persecute Christians. In the last few years, dozens of Christians have been killed in bomb and gun attacks on churches and Christian schools.

In Nigeria, 12 states have introduced Sharia law, which affects Christians as much as Muslims. Christian girls are forced to wear the Islamic veil at school, and Christians are banned from drinking alcohol. Thousands of Christians have been killed in the last few years in the ensuing violence.

Although persecution of Christians is greatest in Muslim countries, it happens in countries of all religions and none. In Buddhist-majority Sri Lanka, religious tension led to 44 churches being attacked in the first four months of 2004, with 140 churches being forced to close because of intimidation. In India, the rise of Hindu nationalism has lead to persecution not just of Muslims but of Christians. There have been hundreds of attacks against the Christian community, which has been in India since ad 100. The government’s affirmative action programme for untouchables guarantees jobs and loans for poor Hindus and Buddhists, but not for Christians.

Last year in China, which has about 70 million Christians, more than 100 ‘house churches’ were closed down, and dozens of priests imprisoned. If you join the Communist party, you get special privileges, but you can only join if you are atheist. In North Korea, Christians are persecuted as anti-communist elements, and dissidents claim they are not just imprisoned but used in chemical warfare experiments.

Dr Patrick Sookhdeo, director of the Barnabas Trust, which helps persecuted Christians, blames rising global religious tension. ‘More and more Christians are seen as the odd ones out — they are seen as transplants from the West, and not really trusted. It is getting very much worse.’

Even in what was, before multiculturalism, known as Christendom, Christians are persecuted. I have spoken to dozens of former Muslims who have converted to Christianity in Britain, and who are shunned by their community, subjected to mob violence, forced out of town, threatened with death and even kidnapped. The Barnabas Trust knows of 3,000 such Christians facing persecution in this country, but the police and government do nothing.

You get the gist. Dr Paul Marshall, senior fellow at the Centre for Religious Freedom in Washington, estimates that there are 200 million Christians who face violence because of their faith, and 350 million who face legally sanctioned discrimination in terms of access to jobs and housing. The World Evangelical Alliance wrote in a report to the UN Human Rights Commission last year that Christians are ‘the largest single group in the world which is being denied human rights on the basis of their faith’.

Part of the problem is old-style racism against non-whites; part of it is new-style guilt. If all this were happening to the world’s Sikhs or Muslims simply because of their faith, you can be sure it would lead the 10 O’Clock News and the front page of the Guardian on a regular basis. But the BBC, despite being mainly funded by Christians, is an organisation that promotes ridicule of the Bible, while banning criticism of the Koran. Dr Marshall said: ‘Christians are seen as Europeans and Americans, which means you get a lack of sympathy which you would not get if they were Tibetan Buddhists.’

Christians themselves are partly to blame for all this. Some get a masochistic kick out of being persecuted, believing it brings them closer to Jesus, crucified for His beliefs. Christianity uniquely defines itself by its persecution, and its forgiveness of its persecutors: the Christian symbol is the method of execution of its founder. Christianity was a persecuted religion for its first three centuries, until Emperor Constantine decided that worshipping Jesus was better for winning battles than worshipping the sun. In contrast, Mohammed was a soldier and ruler who led his people into victorious battle against their enemies. In the hundred years after the death of Mohammed, Islam conquered and converted most of North Africa and the Middle East in the most remarkable religious expansion in history.

To this day, while Muslims stick up for their co-religionists, Christians — beyond a few charities — have given up such forms of discrimination. Dr Sookhdeo said: ‘The Muslims have an Ummah [the worldwide Muslim community] whereas Christians do not have Christendom. There is no Christian country that says, “We are Christian and we will help Christians.”’

As a liberal democrat atheist, I believe all persecuted people should be helped equally, irrespective of their religion. But the guilt-ridden West is ignoring people because of their religion. If non-Christians like me can sense the nonsense, how does it make Christians feel? And how are they going to react? The Christophobes worried about rising Christian fundamentalism in Britain should understand that it is a reaction to our double standards. And as long as our double standards exist, Christian fundamentalism will grow.

I would have put a hyperlink to this article but you can only access it if you have an online subscription

I know people don't hate me personally (well, some do, but not everyone who disagrees with Christianity)

I do see a lot of "Christians are stupid, evil, and should be shot" around here, it isn't directed at me, but I take it personal sometimes.

Well, I take it as personal when Pat Robertson, a self-proclaimed Christian...publicly advocates, in his 1988 book, for the summary rounding up and execution of all gays. and, by extension, i'm sure he would like to see all lesibians, bisexuals, and transgender people like me ALSO rounded up and executed.

You know...it is generally human nature to hate the people who have professed a desire to KILL you!!

since when was homosexuality a mental illness?

i didnt intend to get peoples back up with this topic btw :\

Well...that APA only removed it from the DSM in 1972. Prior to that, it WAS considered a mental illness.

Gender Identity Disorder...which is what I and transsexuals like me suffer from....IS still listed in the DSM-IV-R under subject 302.95

Yet, for our disorder, we are discriminated against, and pretty much excluded from society. and this happens legally. it is so fucking unfair.

The two groups who successfully are advocating decreasing my personal freedom, the only thing I really give a damn about, are "Christians" and supporters of the damn war on terror. And you wonder why I oppose both groups at every turn?

Originally posted by Kamsaki

First off, thanks for the input. I'm not quite sure who you may have been before, having only been a lurker here for a while, but I'm sure it's good to have you back from wherever you've been.

I was known as Aluminumia. I had to take a 'sabbatical' of sorts as my career tends to get quite busy.

Originally posted by Goddistan

a) Eh, I'd say that there are a lot of belief systems that share this one, so I really don't think this is a good apology for the singling out of Christianity from other religious beliefs.

On point (a), while true of many religious organisations, the nature of the question doesn't always lie as deeply as it does in the Christian faith. One of the big arguments in Christianity surrounds the nature of its inheretance of other faiths, and whether some of the principles that can be preached in its name are, in fact, reasonable to advocate in the light of some of its other principles. I am, of course, referring to the melding of the Old and New testaments in Canonic Scripture, but also to the very nature of God himself. If all we have to go on is Old Testament, which is in turn demonstrably flawed as a source of the divine (Leviticus as an obvious example, but even the tales in Genesis through to the prophets show the way that the nation of Israel perceived their deity to be a very raw, pragmatic and fiercely nationalistic one), how do we define what God is?

Just for the sake of clarity and assured understanding, what are said problems in Leviticus, Genesis, and the prophets. I would like to hear what you have to say on such subjects.

I think that, in all honesty, one can see the same God in the Old Testament and the New Testament. The difference is His interaction with humanity and that is based on the idea that the crucifixion as the redemptive work for humanity brought about a new covenant, or testament. It is true that if you look to the Old Testament, you will see a God of justice, but you also see a God of perseverence, as when speaking in the prophets, He always seemed to leave the door cracked for them, so that even if they would have returned to worshipping Him, He would relent.

As odd as this may originally sound, I think that some of God's anger bears witness to His love. If someone you don't care for doesn't care for you, are you upset that they do not care for you? I wouldn't be. Now, if a spouse or parent or close friend who you loved had decided that they didn't care for you and that they didn't care if they hurt you, would you not be upset, even angry? People who are close are passionate about their relationships with each other. I think that God's interaction using extreme emotion with His people has always been a testament to His passion for them.

And for the record, I honestly don't see a different God in the Old and New Testament. Maybe that is a result of my studying of genre, culture, interpretation, or language. I don't know. What I do know, is that I see the same God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob for Peter, John, and Paul.

On (b), fair enough. That's just my own experience playing up an unfair stereotype. But Christianity does run a series of morals that can occasionally conflict with pragmatical ethics in the sense of civic response to those around us, and often the motive to one's actions can be called into question.

Oddly enough, I don't thionk your stereotype is unfair at all. I merely think it is meant to be pointed at Christians, and not Christianity. Frankly, my friend, we do a shitty job of showing what Christians are supposed to look like for the most part. You pinned most of us at one time or another. I have no defense for Christians when they act as hypocrites. I simply contend that the problem lies in the follower, not the God.

c) Technically, it doesn't. It says all are immoral and undeserving of that "otherworldly reward." It isn't portrayed that way because there are people trying to turn countries into theocracies, but in actuality, Christianity believes that, to coin one young man in my church, "we are all evil bastards. The only redeeming quality is that some are compelled to humbly accept the fact that they are so depraved that only a perfect being could reconcile that evil." Thus, nobody is better or worse. Some are just merely forgiven because they desire to be and they are willing to accept the reconciliation of their depravity.

On (c), perhaps I should reword it slightly differently; it claims to be the only way in which one can be considered righteous. Or, rather, "in favour" with whatever powers that be. Yes, okay, I conceed that it's a rather weak point on one front, but doesn't it seem somewhat arrogant to assume that yours is the only way in which one can please this figure? If indeed he does exist as Judo-Christian faiths describe him, he's the only one that does; wouldn't it therefore be reasonable to assume that others who act in ways that would be pleasing to him but in tribute to whatever they hold in esteem would also be given credit given the indirect worship they engage in of the one power that is?

See, arrogance is not a reason for this. Instead, it is quite the opposite. It is, in all actuality, not my idea. It is a humbling thing to come to any kind of realization that I am not excluded in that "evil bastards" explanation. Maybe that would be why it would seem arrogant, I suppose, because it would call others to humble themselves? However, it is no different than I. In essence, "our way" is not our way. It is merely the way that we think God has chosen to deal with us. Maybe that would cause some to call him capricious or too limiting, but to do so makes God smaller than the genuine Christian faith claims Him to be, making Him subject to what we think He should do instead of trying to be subject to what He would have us do.

"Our way" calls every person to humility. That principle itself shows no bias and no favoritism. Thus, it is not our arrogance to assert that this is the way. More or less, it is us admitting that this is the way, whether we as Christians like it or not.

The idea that others would please Him with their lives while in "tribute to whatever they hold in esteem" is a problem I have with a works-based theology. The idea that the works of a person's hands are what pleases God is not Scriptural. Well, let me take that back, as that was not the best way to explain it. The works of a person's hands are not what redeems him. If they were, then we would end up with some sort of hierarchy, where some are considered good and some are considered bad, similar to the Jewish hierarchy in the times written of in the gospels. Instead, the salvation comes through a matter of love and submission to God. Jesus summed that up, making it easier to break down, saying that the two laws that enrapture the essence of the Old Testament are loving God and loving others. In order to love God, Jesus said in John 14:15 that if one wants to demonstrate his love for God, it is done through obedience. Obedience does not equal loving God. Rather, it is a product of loving God.

Shit, I am getting really wordy. I'll try to trim up this last one. I just hate to go back and find out that I had been unclear on anything.

And on (d), any attempt to decide whether someone is deserving of a benevolent afterlife or not is an attempt to quantify the spiritual value of a given life. Some christians do this with astonishing frequency, others less so, but most do it at some point without even really appreciating what they're doing. Don't you think?

I do think. Again, however, this is a practice of Christians. It is not a matter of Christianity. Think of it as one more way we screw up, and not the way that the Law or the rest of the Scripture screws up.

The part I still will die on a hill about is that word "deserve." The entire point of Christianity is that nobody deserves it. I won't speak existentially about anyone else, but I readily admit that I certainly don't. This afterlife destination has nothing to do with deserving and everything to do with realizing that.

Honestly, trying to live a life that pleases a perfect God is hard, frustrating, and damn as well impossible. This explains why we look so bad or even so hypocritical sometimes (other times, it is our arrogance that comes up when we don't want to look bad). Basically, all that was to say this: Christianity is honestly a legitimate claim. It is the Christians that try to live it that often make is look illegitimate.

Stick around; Coherent discussion on this and many other related issues, when it gets going and uninterrupted, is really worth engaging in!

I remember. I will try to stick around as much as possible.

It is good having a nice, pleasant, respectful conversation about this. I find that there are many I will not interact with because they come to such a hasty conclusion and any discussion would go nowhere.

There once was a deputy called Fife,
Who carried a gun and a knife.
The gun was all dusty,
And his knife was all rusty,
Because he never caught a crook in his life.

On (c), perhaps I should reword it slightly differently; it claims to be the only way in which one can be considered righteous. Or, rather, "in favour" with whatever powers that be. Yes, okay, I conceed that it's a rather weak point on one front, but doesn't it seem somewhat arrogant to assume that yours is the only way in which one can please this figure?

The thing is that you get people who believe this about any religious path. There are always people who believe that their way is the only way, that they have to be "right".

If indeed he does exist as Judo-Christian faiths describe him, he's the only one that does; wouldn't it therefore be reasonable to assume that others who act in ways that would be pleasing to him but in tribute to whatever they hold in esteem would also be given credit given the indirect worship they engage in of the one power that is?

Many Christians do believe this, to a point. I personally believe that God is revealed to many different people in many different ways. The only way to seek salvation is "through Christ", but I don't claim to know all the ways you could go through Christ. I try to look at many religious beliefs (even militant atheism), to hear all of them with an open mind and an open heart, and then to try and see how that reconciles (or doesn't) with what I believe God to be.

And on (d), any attempt to decide whether someone is deserving of a benevolent afterlife or not is an attempt to quantify the spiritual value of a given life. Some christians do this with astonishing frequency, others less so, but most do it at some point without even really appreciating what they're doing. Don't you think?

I don't think any Christian who really thinks about it would attempt to determine who is and is not "deserving of" or going to heaven. Even if they believe that the Catholic Church (or the Mormon, etc. etc) is the only way, they wouldn't even be qualified to know if the person next to them in the pew is truly following that path. And, generally, we all fall off the path we have chosen just as frequently as anyone else....

Olara']Good point. Next time the anarchists announce a protest, you know where I'll be.
Heh, I don't let Burger King go free.

oh, and I'll be at McDonald's! Nothing like a good ol' mob mentality with some anarchists at the helm.

Originally posted by Lyric

Well, I take it as personal when Pat Robertson, a self-proclaimed Christian...publicly advocates, in his 1988 book, for the summary rounding up and execution of all gays. and, by extension, i'm sure he would like to see all lesibians, bisexuals, and transgender people like me ALSO rounded up and executed.

I take it personally, too. By doing so, he is painting Christianity in a light that does it a dishonor and shames it, because that is not for what Christianity stands. Believe me when I say that most Christians with which I have contact think Patty is a blithering idiot who hides his political agenda under the name "Christianity" because he knows that there are enough lazy Christians that will blindly accept what he says if he decorates it accordingly.

You know...it is generally human nature to hate the people who have professed a desire to KILL you!!

True, but I don't. Hate is human nature (and unprovable through scientific means ;) ) period, I would say. Christianity is supposed to strive to defy that human nature for the sake of goodness (for goodness' sake, hehe). Unfortunately, people like Patty don't seem to notice as they are too caught up in their political agenda to care that Jesus really didn't mess with politics. Also, others who are in the limelight and have access to Patty should be ashamed of the fact that they haven't gone to him and told him to shut up. *Ahem * Falwell * gasp * cough*

Goddistan']Just for the sake of clarity and assured understanding, what are said problems in Leviticus, Genesis, and the prophets. I would like to hear what you have to say on such subjects.
Can I take a rain-check on that? It's 1am here, and I'd be up all night on that one. Needless to say, there're all sorts of subtle throwbacks in Genesis. Assuming the creation story to be metaphorical, for one, there're some events in the Abrahamic tales like God bringing disease to Egypt several times, Abraham out-moralising God over Sodom, God's rejection of Ishmael and so on. Then, in exodus, there're the obvious plagues, the ideas of revenge for personal injury, the verse 22:18 that spawned the witch-hunts, the idea of execution of those who worship other gods, the nationalism and excessive favouritism that God shows to the Israelites at the expense of other humans.

And then we hit Leviticus, which reclaims the previous rules and adds some more. Apparently, eating fat or blood of an animal is grounds for exclusion from society. Apparently, child-bearing women are prohibited from engaging in sanctimonious acts, as are anyone declared unclean by disease. Adultery, distain for one's parents and homosexuality are all punishable by stoning. Making love to a woman during her period is punishable by driving both of you out. And, of course, rewards for servitude of God are considerably less for Women. All of these are direct Divine instruction.

As for the nationalistic Tirade of Israel around the middle east in the rest of the OT, I'll let you pick up on that one. Needless to say, the Israelites didn't need to slaughter other tribes in order to acquire their own land...

I think that, in all honesty, one can see the same God in the Old Testament and the New Testament. The difference is His interaction with humanity and that is based on the idea that the crucifixion as the redemptive work for humanity brought about a new covenant, or testament. It is true that if you look to the Old Testament, you will see a God of justice, but you also see a God of perseverence, as when speaking in the prophets, He always seemed to leave the door cracked for them, so that even if they would have returned to worshipping Him, He would relent.

As odd as this may originally sound, I think that some of God's anger bears witness to His love. If someone you don't care for doesn't care for you, are you upset that they do not care for you? I wouldn't be. Now, if a spouse or parent or close friend who you loved had decided that they didn't care for you and that they didn't care if they hurt you, would you not be upset, even angry? People who are close are passionate about their relationships with each other. I think that God's interaction using extreme emotion with His people has always been a testament to His passion for them.

And for the record, I honestly don't see a different God in the Old and New Testament. Maybe that is a result of my studying of genre, culture, interpretation, or language. I don't know. What I do know, is that I see the same God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob for Peter, John, and Paul.
This is going to sound similarly weird, but I can see exactly why the same God can be seen in Peter, John and Paul. They were Jewish before Jesus, and naturally, their own existing perceptions of God would continue to influence their response to Jesus.

But does that necessarily mean that the God of the New is the same as the God of the Old? I argue not. In fact, were you to look at Jesus alone (or bearing in mind that the OT is a guide to context as opposed to necessary truth), you'd find his concept of God to be very open-ended, which is why many other religions have been able to apply him as a teacher in their own faiths.

Ultimately, the reason I disregard Jewish attributations to God is the distinct favouritism he shows to one particular group of people as opposed to his creation as a while. Sure, even if you have a God of a just love, when this is only applied to one small sect of mankind, what does this tell you about his compassion in the full picture? While Israel was mucking about with Judges, the Greeks were inventing, postulating and becoming emotionally connected with the world around them, the Gaelic and Germanic peoples were exploring the realms of Europe, the Roman empire was rising and the Qin dynasty was being overthrown by the Chinese. Were these people really ignored by the almighty?

I wouldn't think any God of real power would be so obsessively fixed on such a small and, arguably, relatively insignificant group of people.

Oddly enough, I don't thionk your stereotype is unfair at all. I merely think it is meant to be pointed at Christians, and not Christianity. Frankly, my friend, we do a shitty job of showing what Christians are supposed to look like for the most part. You pinned most of us at one time or another. I have no defense for Christians when they act as hypocrites. I simply contend that the problem lies in the follower, not the God.
Perhaps you're right, but I think there's a greater problem in the faith that allows for such problems. It's a matter of ambiguity of interpretation, and that's an issue that stretches back to the early stages of the Church even with Paul and his followers. The Jewish idea of a final kingdom of the Tribes and the Christian idea of Heaven are really not that separate at all. Similarly, were you to adapt the idea of Heaven as a state of spiritual unity, it could be more likened onto Buddhism or Hinduism and still have backing within the synoptic Gospels. And were you to take the view that getting to heaven or acquiring this oneness is the only point of life, you would also be backed up by scripture.

See, arrogance is not a reason for this. Instead, it is quite the opposite. It is, in all actuality, not my idea. It is a humbling thing to come to any kind of realization that I am not excluded in that "evil bastards" explanation. Maybe that would be why it would seem arrogant, I suppose, because it would call others to humble themselves? However, it is no different than I. In essence, "our way" is not our way. It is merely the way that we think God has chosen to deal with us. Maybe that would cause some to call him capricious or too limiting, but to do so makes God smaller than the genuine Christian faith claims Him to be, making Him subject to what we think He should do instead of trying to be subject to what He would have us do.

"Our way" calls every person to humility. That principle itself shows no bias and no favoritism. Thus, it is not our arrogance to assert that this is the way. More or less, it is us admitting that this is the way, whether we as Christians like it or not.
Okay, that's one way of looking at it. Accepting one's flaws is a positive first step. However, there's realisation and then there's response. The arrogance that I refer to originates in the idea that the response you have made is the only viable one. To elaborate, a cornerstone of Christianity is the idea that only through the Christian God can change for the better occur. A significant subgroup of Christianity holds that coming to God is the Only part of the process that matters, since he can take care of anything necessary after that.

I have some problem with both of these attitudes. What use is realisation of these personal failings if you're not willing to make a personal effort to rectify them? Similarly, if you can see these and strive to fix them, what else matters? Is that not what being sorry is about? You don't need to confess this guilt to anyone for it to be of value as long as you can take it upon yourself to do something about it. The only possible other issue would be a matter of apology, but surely apologising to those affected by your misdoings is sufficient?

The idea that others would please Him with their lives while in "tribute to whatever they hold in esteem" is a problem I have with a works-based theology. The idea that the works of a person's hands are what pleases God is not Scriptural. Well, let me take that back, as that was not the best way to explain it. The works of a person's hands are not what redeems him. If they were, then we would end up with some sort of hierarchy, where some are considered good and some are considered bad, similar to the Jewish hierarchy in the times written of in the gospels. Instead, the salvation comes through a matter of love and submission to God. Jesus summed that up, making it easier to break down, saying that the two laws that enrapture the essence of the Old Testament are loving God and loving others. In order to love God, Jesus said in John 14:15 that if one wants to demonstrate his love for God, it is done through obedience. Obedience does not equal loving God. Rather, it is a product of loving God.
Hrm. Now we're at a divergence, and a rather important one. I'm going to argue that a man's works are the most important aspect of his faith regardless of what he has faith in; especially so when you consider that the one God could be universally applicable in the light of the flexibility of Jesus's God.

I personally don't really mind what redemption we're talking about here; a man could be damned and still find favour with God, possibly. I don't really mind otherworldly consequences to me of my actions. It's the idea of a man whose life and actions would please God were he a believer that I want to focus on. I believe that such people are commonplace, and I furthermore believe that assigning one's self to a particular interpretation of what the divine is is trivial in that respect. Why should God be any more impressed with a Christian who acts justly than a Buddhist or Hindu who constantly refines their own faults and acts benevolently while holding to the tenates of their own faith?

To me, faith has always been a means to an end; that end being becoming a better person. I genuinely feel everything else is of secondary consequence. In that respect, many religions are just as valid.

Shit, I am getting really wordy. I'll try to trim up this last one. I just hate to go back and find out that I had been unclear on anything.
Heh... no worries. I'm even worse. ^^;

I do think. Again, however, this is a practice of Christians. It is not a matter of Christianity. Think of it as one more way we screw up, and not the way that the Law or the rest of the Scripture screws up.

The part I still will die on a hill about is that word "deserve." The entire point of Christianity is that nobody deserves it. I won't speak existentially about anyone else, but I readily admit that I certainly don't. This afterlife destination has nothing to do with deserving and everything to do with realizing that.

Honestly, trying to live a life that pleases a perfect God is hard, frustrating, and damn as well impossible. This explains why we look so bad or even so hypocritical sometimes (other times, it is our arrogance that comes up when we don't want to look bad). Basically, all that was to say this: Christianity is honestly a legitimate claim. It is the Christians that try to live it that often make is look illegitimate.
The thing is, I don't really want to accept that attitude. If I do, I will probably slump into the attitude that the only thing to do is to say hang the sentiment and stop trying to improve myself. As we both see, people who do that make very poor proponents of the Christian faith. And yet, it's a natural conclusion of assuming the inevitable falliability of us as humans - we can't possibly do it, so why try?

I don't deserve afterlife either. But I don't mind that. I would rather put my efforts into improving the lives of those around me in this life than hedging my bets and shooting for the next. Who knows; maybe I'll be right anyway and my time will have been used as best as it could have.

My notation on afterlife has never been about how to get there. It's about a desire for recognition of a genuine effort to change and embetter one's self that is far too often neglected within Christianity as something that's supposedly automatic and/or unnecessary given membership of the faith. Self-improval is a genuine challenge to everyone, and one that bears enormous positive results. More needs to be done to encourage that, and I feel that more needs to be done to accept the validity of that outside of your own beliefs.

It is good having a nice, pleasant, respectful conversation about this. I find that there are many I will not interact with because they come to such a hasty conclusion and any discussion would go nowhere.
Oh, let's hope that's not the case. Besides, with posting styles like ours, nothing will get done hastily at all. Still, there's all the time in the world, I suppose. ^^;

Can I take a rain-check on that? It's 1am here, and I'd be up all night on that one. Needless to say, there're all sorts of subtle throwbacks in Genesis. Assuming the creation story to be metaphorical, for one, there're some events in the Abrahamic tales like God bringing disease to Egypt several times, Abraham out-moralising God over Sodom, God's rejection of Ishmael and so on. Then, in exodus, there're the obvious plagues, the ideas of revenge for personal injury, the verse 22:18 that spawned the witch-hunts, the idea of execution of those who worship other gods, the nationalism and excessive favouritism that God shows to the Israelites at the expense of other humans.

And then we hit Leviticus, which reclaims the previous rules and adds some more. Apparently, eating fat or blood of an animal is grounds for exclusion from society. Apparently, child-bearing women are prohibited from engaging in sanctimonious acts, as are anyone declared unclean by disease. Adultery, distain for one's parents and homosexuality are all punishable by stoning. Making love to a woman during her period is punishable by driving both of you out. And, of course, rewards for servitude of God are considerably less for Women. All of these are direct Divine instruction.

As for the nationalistic Tirade of Israel around the middle east in the rest of the OT, I'll let you pick up on that one. Needless to say, the Israelites didn't need to slaughter other tribes in order to acquire their own land...


This is going to sound similarly weird, but I can see exactly why the same God can be seen in Peter, John and Paul. They were Jewish before Jesus, and naturally, their own existing perceptions of God would continue to influence their response to Jesus.

But does that necessarily mean that the God of the New is the same as the God of the Old? I argue not. In fact, were you to look at Jesus alone (or bearing in mind that the OT is a guide to context as opposed to necessary truth), you'd find his concept of God to be very open-ended, which is why many other religions have been able to apply him as a teacher in their own faiths.

Ultimately, the reason I disregard Jewish attributations to God is the distinct favouritism he shows to one particular group of people as opposed to his creation as a while. Sure, even if you have a God of a just love, when this is only applied to one small sect of mankind, what does this tell you about his compassion in the full picture? While Israel was mucking about with Judges, the Greeks were inventing, postulating and becoming emotionally connected with the world around them, the Gaelic and Germanic peoples were exploring the realms of Europe, the Roman empire was rising and the Qin dynasty was being overthrown by the Chinese. Were these people really ignored by the almighty?

I wouldn't think any God of real power would be so obsessively fixed on such a small and, arguably, relatively insignificant group of people.


Perhaps you're right, but I think there's a greater problem in the faith that allows for such problems. It's a matter of ambiguity of interpretation, and that's an issue that stretches back to the early stages of the Church even with Paul and his followers. The Jewish idea of a final kingdom of the Tribes and the Christian idea of Heaven are really not that separate at all. Similarly, were you to adapt the idea of Heaven as a state of spiritual unity, it could be more likened onto Buddhism or Hinduism and still have backing within the synoptic Gospels. And were you to take the view that getting to heaven or acquiring this oneness is the only point of life, you would also be backed up by scripture.


Okay, that's one way of looking at it. Accepting one's flaws is a positive first step. However, there's realisation and then there's response. The arrogance that I refer to originates in the idea that the response you have made is the only viable one. To elaborate, a cornerstone of Christianity is the idea that only through the Christian God can change for the better occur. A significant subgroup of Christianity holds that coming to God is the Only part of the process that matters, since he can take care of anything necessary after that.

I have some problem with both of these attitudes. What use is realisation of these personal failings if you're not willing to make a personal effort to rectify them? Similarly, if you can see these and strive to fix them, what else matters? Is that not what being sorry is about? You don't need to confess this guilt to anyone for it to be of value as long as you can take it upon yourself to do something about it. The only possible other issue would be a matter of apology, but surely apologising to those affected by your misdoings is sufficient?


Hrm. Now we're at a divergence, and a rather important one. I'm going to argue that a man's works are the most important aspect of his faith regardless of what he has faith in; especially so when you consider that the one God could be universally applicable in the light of the flexibility of Jesus's God.

I personally don't really mind what redemption we're talking about here; a man could be damned and still find favour with God, possibly. I don't really mind otherworldly consequences to me of my actions. It's the idea of a man whose life and actions would please God were he a believer that I want to focus on. I believe that such people are commonplace, and I furthermore believe that assigning one's self to a particular interpretation of what the divine is is trivial in that respect. Why should God be any more impressed with a Christian who acts justly than a Buddhist or Hindu who constantly refines their own faults and acts benevolently while holding to the tenates of their own faith?

To me, faith has always been a means to an end; that end being becoming a better person. I genuinely feel everything else is of secondary consequence. In that respect, many religions are just as valid.


Heh... no worries. I'm even worse. ^^;


The thing is, I don't really want to accept that attitude. If I do, I will probably slump into the attitude that the only thing to do is to say hang the sentiment and stop trying to improve myself. As we both see, people who do that make very poor proponents of the Christian faith. And yet, it's a natural conclusion of assuming the inevitable falliability of us as humans - we can't possibly do it, so why try?

I don't deserve afterlife either. But I don't mind that. I would rather put my efforts into improving the lives of those around me in this life than hedging my bets and shooting for the next. Who knows; maybe I'll be right anyway and my time will have been used as best as it could have.

My notation on afterlife has never been about how to get there. It's about a desire for recognition of a genuine effort to change and embetter one's self that is far too often neglected within Christianity as something that's supposedly automatic and/or unnecessary given membership of the faith. Self-improval is a genuine challenge to everyone, and one that bears enormous positive results. More needs to be done to encourage that, and I feel that more needs to be done to accept the validity of that outside of your own beliefs.


Oh, let's hope that's not the case. Besides, with posting styles like ours, nothing will get done hastily at all. Still, there's all the time in the world, I suppose. ^^;

Thank you for that post. I learned a lot. Thank the Pagan God that I am Athetist.

can we not all believe what we want and let others get on with what they believe to without these arguements that say this group is wrong, im right etc etc?
just a thought

Are you saying it is wrong for others to tell people what is wrong????

Ironically yours,
Capt. Confuzzed

just wondering why out of all of the worlds religions it is always Christianity that is chosen to be bashed? is it the most bizarre? or just the easiest to attack w/o being called rascist? or is it just funny to see christians get annoyed as it is incessantly said to be wrong. i dont really see what religion has to do with anything in this forum at all to be honest, it doesnt affect much so why does it get brought up so often? can we not all believe what we want and let others get on with what they believe to without these arguements that say this group is wrong, im right etc etc?
just a thought
A) Because its fun?
B) Because of the push (in America anyways) for Intelligent Design to be taught in science classes?
C) both?

[QUOTE=Pinzerino]just wondering why out of all of the worlds religions it is always Christianity that is chosen to be bashed?

Cos Christians won't shoot/bomb/decapitate anyone who speaks out against them!!!

just wondering why out of all of the worlds religions it is always Christianity that is chosen to be bashed?

Cos Christians won't shoot/bomb/decapitate anyone who speaks out against them!!!
Hmm, maybe atheists are actually shooting for a theocracy along the lines of Iran or Saudi Arabia. That would certainly explain why they tend to antagonize people out of nowhere so much :)

A) Because its fun?
B) Because of the push (in America anyways) for Intelligent Design to be taught in science classes?
C) both?

Both. Plus, there are a lot more Christian on this Forum than there are Muslims, Jews or believers in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It's no fun to make fun of people if those people aren't actually there to bash... :rolleyes:

[QUOTE=My Dressing Gown]
Hmm, maybe atheists are actually shooting for a theocracy along the lines of Iran or Saudi Arabia. That would certainly explain why they tend to antagonize people out of nowhere so much :)


Actually its more along the lines of recent assasination in Holland...so hey

[QUOTE=Pinzerino]just wondering why out of all of the worlds religions it is always Christianity that is chosen to be bashed?

Cos Christians won't shoot/bomb/decapitate anyone who speaks out against them!!!

Hmm... funny then that I know some atheists from Saudi-Arabia, Iran and Tunisia. They normally have little problem with Christians, but are attacking and bashing Islam.

Why criticise Christianity? Because you are the largest group around these parts!!

Both. Plus, there are a lot more Christian on this Forum than there are Muslims, Jews or believers in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It's no fun to make fun of people if those people aren't actually there to bash... :rolleyes:
I hate those religions like the FSM crap, discordianism, baha'i, mormonism, and calvinism that are just there so undecided people can have a laugh at things that really aren't funny while letting their spiritual lives stagnate

[QUOTE=Osutoria-Hangarii]I hate those religions like the FSM crap, discordianism, baha'i, mormonism, and calvinism

Yeah...you sound so enlightened and at peace with the world:fluffle: :fluffle:

I hate those religions like the FSM crap, discordianism, baha'i, mormonism, and calvinism that are just there so undecided people can have a laugh at things that really aren't funny while letting their spiritual lives stagnate

FSM would be satire, not religion

FSM would be satire, not religion
same thing in my book

just wondering why out of all of the worlds religions it is always Christianity that is chosen to be bashed? is it the most bizarre? or just the easiest to attack w/o being called rascist? or is it just funny to see christians get annoyed as it is incessantly said to be wrong. i dont really see what religion has to do with anything in this forum at all to be honest, it doesnt affect much so why does it get brought up so often? can we not all believe what we want and let others get on with what they believe to without these arguements that say this group is wrong, im right etc etc?
just a thought


This is why....


http://www.reandev.com/taliban/

Christianity appears bigoted and often profoundly offensive to many people, especially the sort who generally post on this forum.
Other religions either tend to be more tolerant, a bit quieter or we know a lot less about them.

The familiar argument about a few bad apples spoiling it for everyone else doesn't really wash when you consider that more intelligent Christian voices aren't really that popular amongst the 'faithful'

I hate those religions like the FSM crap, discordianism, baha'i, mormonism, and calvinism that are just there so undecided people can have a laugh at things that really aren't funny while letting their spiritual lives stagnate
And this would be a perfect example of the attitude that gets chritianity bashed

This is why....


http://www.reandev.com/taliban/

Christianity appears bigoted and often profoundly offensive to many people, especially the sort who generally post on this forum.
Other religions either tend to be more tolerant, a bit quieter or we know a lot less about them.

The familiar argument about a few bad apples spoiling it for everyone else doesn't really wash when you consider that more intelligent Christian voices aren't really that popular amongst the 'faithful'
I think the problem is that atheists simply can't imagine an intelligent person yielding their judgement to a higher power than mankind. They'll shoot their fucking mouths off to anybody who they think might not agree with the idea that mankind is the greatest thing ever. Maybe I'm bitter, but that's been my experience both as a tentative Christian and as an atheist.

I'm sure someone else has said this already, but christianity is mainly bashed for a few reasons...

1. Most English speaking nations are christian, this is an English forum.
2. The Internet itself is mostly liberal.
3. Nation States is also mostly liberal.
4. most christians unknowingly spread hate and lies, and were the only ones who can see it.
5. supernatural beings do not exist, and most people here think that way

And this would be a perfect example of the attitude that gets chritianity bashed
What? What do I have to do with Christianity?

I think the OP is just displaying some vicitm complex here.

Everybody gets bashed all the time for a vast number of different things:

I get bashed because I'm pro-choice
I get bashed because I'm German
I get bashed because I'm agnostic
I get bashed because I'm fat
I get bashed because I'm social/left when it comes to politics
I get bashed because some people don't understand sarcasm or can't take a joke
I get bashed because I'm pacifist
...

and so on and so forth. It is slightly ridiculous to complain about it or even call it "persecution". It's life. Some people are morons and will go after you for whatever reason they can find.

I think the problem is that atheists simply can't imagine an intelligent person yielding their judgement to a higher power than mankind. They'll shoot their fucking mouths off to anybody who they think might not agree with the idea that mankind is the greatest thing ever. Maybe I'm bitter, but that's been my experience both as a tentative Christian and as an atheist.
I'd say you're bitter

I'd say you're bitter

Seconded

I'd say you're bitter
Can you say you wouldn't be, too?

Can you say you wouldn't be, too?
yup

yup
er...you would be bitter? or you wouldn't?

er...you would be bitter? or you wouldn't?
yes, I could say I would not be bitter

yes, I could say I would not be bitter
Hehe, do you now or have you ever held a religious belief and had it made fun of and treated like garbage?

Hehe, do you now or have you ever held a religious belief and had it made fun of and treated like garbage?
Yes, although not by anyone who I actually respected the opinion of, but then if someone that I had respected the opinion of acted like that I would no longer respect their opinion. Kind of a Catch-22, except to my favor

Yes, although not by anyone who I actually respected the opinion of, but then if someone that I had respected the opinion of acted like that I would no longer respect their opinion. Kind of a Catch-22, except to my favor
Mm. So people should dismiss anything said on the forums by people who hate them for thinking differently... That seems to split the forumgoers into christians and almost everyone else -_-

Mm. So people should dismiss anything said on the forums by people who hate them for thinking differently... <snip>
Why not? What effect does it have on you that I do not believe in your god? Although you should really only dismiss the hateful things that are being said, 'cause you can learn from the actual information (if nothing else you'll learn why said person feels the way they do)

Why not? What effect does it have on you that I do not believe in your god? Although you should really only dismiss the hateful things that are being said, 'cause you can learn from the actual information (if nothing else you'll learn why said person feels the way they do)
Because if they do, nobody will listen to anybody else. I'd have to say there is an immense amount of hatred for differing opinions here, which is mostly a consequence of two different battles: Liberals v. Conservatives, Atheists v. Christians.

That is, we'd need to split General into an assload of subforums to accomodate the people who don't hate each other. That is, Christian, Atheist, Other (religious), Liberal, Conservative, Other (political), and General Free-for-All.

Because if they do, nobody will listen to anybody else. I'd have to say there is an immense amount of hatred for differing opinions here, which is mostly a consequence of two different battles: Liberals v. Conservatives, Atheists v. Christians.
Although you should really only dismiss the hateful things that are being said, 'cause you can learn from the actual information
missed this part did you?
That is, we'd need to split General into an assload of subforums to accomodate the people who don't hate each other. That is, Christian, Atheist, Other (religious), Liberal, Conservative, Other (political), and General Free-for-All.
Then you'd only have people agreeing with each other, and what fun would that be?

missed this part did you?

Then you'd only have people agreeing with each other, and what fun would that be?
NSG as it is isn't mature enough to handle disagreement in a civil way :P

NSG as it is isn't mature enough to handle disagreement in a civil way :P
I don't know about that I've seen a number of civil discussions, with the exception of the occaisional troll, but you're going to run into that on any forum

Yeah...I'm probably just being nutty. I'm gonna see if I can masturbate and go to sleep now. Good night, my pretties :)

I hate those religions like the FSM crap, discordianism, baha'i, mormonism, and calvinism that are just there so undecided people can have a laugh at things that really aren't funny while letting their spiritual lives stagnate
Stagnation of spirituality? I know Baha'i in particular would strongly disagree. What's more, I find the Irony of that statement amusing; exploring alternative options leads to a stagnant spiritual life?

Spirituality isn't about what group you're a part of. It's about your exploration of the spiritual. Basic definition. Someone's spiritual life isn't going to rot just because they feel that there may be a unification of religious ideas that none of those who seek to classify themselves are willing to admit. In fact, I know that I for one have considered spiritual matters to a remarkably more intimate degree following my decision to look elsewhere for my answers than I would have done being lumped in the British Christian mindset. There are many others in the same position.

Active search is far less stagnant than passive acceptance. Again, we come back to the issue of going out and engaging in a process of exploration and refinement or assuming that all is going to sort itself out and we can just decide to absent-mindedly spread an idea that we have not given a proper examination of. While the latter may not be true of Gospel ideas, it is certainly true of the Church's methods and underlying principles. Faith in the Church's eyes means unquestioning loyalty not to God, but to our forefathers preconceived notions of God. And that, mes ami/es, is what I want to challenge.

Stagnation of spirituality? I know Baha'i in particular would strongly disagree. What's more, I find the Irony of that statement amusing; exploring alternative options leads to a stagnant spiritual life?

Spirituality isn't about what group you're a part of. It's about your exploration of the spiritual. Basic definition. Someone's spiritual life isn't going to rot just because they feel that there may be a unification of religious ideas that none of those who seek to classify themselves are willing to admit. In fact, I know that I for one have considered spiritual matters to a remarkably more intimate degree following my decision to look elsewhere for my answers than I would have done being lumped in the British Christian mindset. There are many others in the same position.

Active search is far less stagnant than passive acceptance. Again, we come back to the issue of going out and engaging in a process of exploration and refinement or assuming that all is going to sort itself out and we can just decide to absent-mindedly spread an idea that we have not given a proper examination of. While the latter may not be true of Gospel ideas, it is certainly true of the Church's methods and underlying principles. Faith in the Church's eyes means unquestioning loyalty not to God, but to our forefathers preconceived notions of God. And that, mes ami/es, is what I want to challenge.
No fair intelligently stating your beliefs

ref! I call foul ;)

No fair intelligently stating your beliefs

ref! I call foul ;)
What can I say? The referee is a personal acquaintance of mine in this case. ;)

NSG as it is isn't mature enough to handle disagreement in a civil way :P


Don't patronise the rest of us. You're the one with the problem.

What can I say? The referee is a personal acquaintance of mine in this case. ;)
damn, I'm screwed :D
no chance of a replacement ref?

damn, I'm screwed :D
no chance of a replacement ref?
Well, yeah, but only in a rematch.
Same time next universe? ^^;

Maybe the problem with the three most bashed religions (Christianity, Islam, Judaism). Is that throughout their holy scriptures and throughout their history they´ve had furious insistance on the alleged fact that they and they alone worshipped the one true god.

Even though jezus is recognized as a prophet in Islam, and many things from christianity come from Judaist scripture, there seems to be the belief that they and they alone are to be saved. Now that´s not to say that in other religions this isn´t the case but in my view it gives a clue as to where the bashing and the tendency of totalitarianism of these religions comes from.

When one believes above all else that he who believes and those who believe the same are to be saved, I think it would come fairly easy to the point of feeling above others. This can be demonstrated by trying to convert others (as the jehovah´s witnesses do), or it can be demonstrated (as in lot of history) by forcing belief unto others...

While atheists can have the same annoying tendency to force their (non)belief on others, it seems that with great conviction often comes the feeling of having to somehow unify all other people unto that same belief.

Another reason for the bashing of christianity in particular as said before is are the terrifying tv-evangelists of the U.S. (or the hate-preaching imams in europe). To literally use holy books to further oppression and bigotry and insane beliefs (Chirstians for stronger nuclear armament?) will generate many a heated and angry reply. And the enforcing of beliefs isn´t just limited to biblethumping crackpots, sane and well-educated people can just decide that Darwin´s theory on Evolution needs to be countered educationally with theories plucked from a book containing enormous amounts of fallacies and indeterminate stories? It is sad to see that a man who does not wishes his child to be brainwashed into christianity gets flack from around the U.S. for trying to get the school to stop obligatory prayer before class.

Isn´t the president or any politician who says: "god bless america" slapping thousands and thousand of people right in the face? Maybe that´s pushing it too hard from my part, but whatever happened to separation of church and state?

To believe is a good thing, don´t get me wrong. In times of need and trouble most people somehow need to find security and reassurance in the fact that somewhere something will be looking out for them.

But to take an archaic book (in my view largely meant metaphorically) and use its contents literally to further political, ideological and economical gains and inequality is just plain wrong.

This might be a reason for the catching of the flack...

Well, yeah, but only in a rematch.
Same time next universe? ^^;
Sure, see ya then :D

I would say that christianity is bashed on this site for good reason.

Not becuase I personally, and militantly disagree with it, but becuase of the obnoxious attitude possessed by those who post such threads as "Why not just accept Jesus", or something equally as vapid.
I cant speak for anyone else, but when I "go after" a pro-christian thread, its usually becuase something in the intented post strikes me as ultimately stupid.
Like thinking I should just roll over and become a christian again, just becuase "I have nothing to lose" if I do.

What specifically irrates me, is when any religion, has the arrogance and the sheer nerve to insist that thier beliefs are far superior to anyone elses, and insists that the whole county, yea, even the whole world should simply convert, and be "saved".
As if it where that simple.
Sadly, Christianity does this more than any other organized religion.

Mind you, I too believe my beliefs are superior to any Christians, but I dont go knocking on doors at 7:00 am on a sunday, to attempt to convert you.
The difference is, I feel content to let you believe anything you want, no matter how antiquated and mythical it might be, and the average Christian, would like to "save" you.

What seems to cause the most Christianity-bashing is the heavy reliance on doctorinal proof: the Bible. Most of the detractors of Christianity reject the validity of the Bible, so continually asserting it as valid just gets annoying.

If Christians were interested in establishing the validity of their religion with others, I would suggest to move more onto theoretical proof, i.e. showing that their beliefs are compatible with logic and reason, and actual proof, i.e. showing that their beliefs do produce value in their daily lives.

What seems to cause the most Christianity-bashing is the heavy reliance on doctorinal proof: the Bible. Most of the detractors of Christianity reject the validity of the Bible, so continually asserting it as valid just gets annoying.
And the attempts to justify using the Bible as proof are based on a circular argument : "Believe the Bible because it's true. We know the Bible is true because it says so".

If Christians were interested in establishing the validity of their religion with others, I would suggest to move more onto theoretical proof, i.e. showing that their beliefs are compatible with logic and reason, and actual proof, i.e. showing that their beliefs do produce value in their daily lives.
They have been attempting to provide logical proofs for many hundreds of years, but the logic is always faulty. They have also been attempting to provide actual proof for centuries, but that, too is always faulty. They get a away with it because most people don't recognize faulty logic or faulty scientific method.

Your last sentence is an example of faulty logic : It doesn't follow that a belief is true just because believing it makes one's life better. Sometimes living in an illusion is pleasanter than living with reality.

just wondering why out of all of the worlds religions it is always Christianity that is chosen to be bashed? is it the most bizarre? or just the easiest to attack w/o being called rascist? or is it just funny to see christians get annoyed as it is incessantly said to be wrong. i dont really see what religion has to do with anything in this forum at all to be honest, it doesnt affect much so why does it get brought up so often? can we not all believe what we want and let others get on with what they believe to without these arguements that say this group is wrong, im right etc etc?
just a thought

Christianity sets itself up by it's large percentage of offshoots, and radicals that completely subvert the message of Jesus, and the vocalness of these followers in attempting to force their views. When was the last time Jews or Muslims knocked on your door trying to convert you?
As for "I dont really see what religion has to do with anything in this forum at all to be honest"
You are kidding right?
Religion affects all things, and is the leading cause of bigotry.
Bigotry is the leading cause of violence and death worldwide.

I would say that christianity is bashed on this site for good reason.

Not becuase I personally, and militantly disagree with it, but becuase of the obnoxious attitude possessed by those who post such threads as "Why not just accept Jesus", or something equally as vapid.
I cant speak for anyone else, but when I "go after" a pro-christian thread, its usually becuase something in the intented post strikes me as ultimately stupid.
Like thinking I should just roll over and become a christian again, just becuase "I have nothing to lose" if I do.

What specifically irrates me, is when any religion, has the arrogance and the sheer nerve to insist that thier beliefs are far superior to anyone elses, and insists that the whole county, yea, even the whole world should simply convert, and be "saved".
As if it where that simple.
Sadly, Christianity does this more than any other organized religion.

Mind you, I too believe my beliefs are superior to any Christians, but I dont go knocking on doors at 7:00 am on a sunday, to attempt to convert you.
The difference is, I feel content to let you believe anything you want, no matter how antiquated and mythical it might be, and the average Christian, would like to "save" you.

Shouldn't they be in church on Sunday Mornings

Well, I take it as personal when Pat Robertson, a self-proclaimed Christian...publicly advocates, in his 1988 book, for the summary rounding up and execution of all gays. and, by extension, i'm sure he would like to see all lesibians, bisexuals, and transgender people like me ALSO rounded up and executed.

You know...it is generally human nature to hate the people who have professed a desire to KILL you!!

Transgender? Really?
Anyway christians shouldnt complain about this crap happening there are bigoted people throughout the world and if you have a problem with a particular asshole then go out and kick them "squaar in the nuts"

fair point :) just wondering why it seems christianity gets the biggest bashing :)


its because most people on this forum come from countries which are nominally christian, thus the people who are anti religion which on an internet forum tend to be quite a lot, will naturally belate christianity more than other religions because its what they're used to in terms of religion and as such that which they choose to belate

just wondering why out of all of the worlds religions it is always Christianity that is chosen to be bashed? is it the most bizarre? or just the easiest to attack w/o being called rascist? or is it just funny to see christians get annoyed as it is incessantly said to be wrong. i dont really see what religion has to do with anything in this forum at all to be honest, it doesnt affect much so why does it get brought up so often? can we not all believe what we want and let others get on with what they believe to without these arguements that say this group is wrong, im right etc etc?
just a thought

The problem is more with the Christians (and other religions) constantly telling the rest of the world how right they are.

Take a look at the USA, now, if i am remembering correctly (i'm not a US citizen), the US constitution made sure religion was seperated from the education system, yet, since Dudya is elected, they're teaching "creatisionism" in Texas, and putting up posters "In God we trust" in schools....

I'm an Atheïst, i don't believe in God or Allah or anything else, what's a common reply we get? "You believe in the God of reason, everyone needs something to believe in yadda yadda bla bla" (or, if we're talking to a real dense/American person "You'll burn in hell!").

Also, Christianity just gets more attention then other religions, lets face it, what does Average Joe know about Boudism, or Shinto, or even the Islam?

The problem is more with the Christians (and other religions) constantly telling the rest of the world how right they are.

Take a look at the USA, now, if i am remembering correctly (i'm not a US citizen), the US constitution made sure religion was seperated from the education system, yet, since Dudya is elected, they're teaching "creatisionism" in Texas, and putting up posters "In God we trust" in schools....

I'm an Atheïst, i don't believe in God or Allah or anything else, what's a common reply we get? "You believe in the God of reason, everyone needs something to believe in yadda yadda bla bla" (or, if we're talking to a real dense/American person "You'll burn in hell!").

Also, Christianity just gets more attention then other religions, lets face it, what does Average Joe know about Boudism, or Shinto, or even the Islam?

In all fairness to Bush, they have been doing that for the last 50 odd years

Hehe, do you now or have you ever held a religious belief and had it made fun of and treated like garbage?

My parents are religious, they *tried* giving me a religious upbringing, but i started questioning their faith in a God arround the age of 7

Guess i'm just to darn curious for my own good.

BTW, for those inteligent design folks, if God created us, who created God?

My parents are religious, they *tried* giving me a religious upbringing, but i started questioning their faith in a God arround the age of 7

I don't see a connection :/

The reason why Christians are bashed more than any other group on this forum is because most Americans are Christians. Not all Christians are Americans, but in the West Christianity is viewed as the religion of political neoconservatives who manifest a meditative, peaceful religion of humbleness in the form of SUVs, cruise missiles, and raving vitriol against those who do not fit the bill of the clean-cut-heterosexual flag waver in favour of abolishing capital gains tax.

One other big problem that I see is that Christianity is the only major religion that says "believe in this or you're damned to eternal torment."

- Muslims view Christians as 'people of the book' and therefore okay.
- Jews believe all nations have a place in the Kingdom of Heaven.
- Hindus believe that being a righteous practicioner of your own faith is just as good as being Hindu.
- Buddhism doesn't even have a God and it's possible to be both a Buddhist and a believer of [insert diety].

Christianity is, then, the only religion with a rigid exclusivity as far as salvation is concerned. Other religions accept Christianity but Christianity (doctrinally speaking) plays well with others but won't invite them home after school. Easy to resent, no?

I think that the vast majority of Christians are rational people with a firm grip on reality.

A small vocal minority of "Christians" spout cretinous hatemongering superstitious drivel, and deserve a roasting :)

However, tarring all Christians with the same brush makes us as bad as the worst among them.

I think that the vast majority of Christians are rational people with a firm grip on reality.

A small vocal minority of "Christians" spout cretinous hatemongering superstitious drivel, and deserve a roasting :)

However, tarring all Christians with the same brush makes us as bad as the worst among them.

I would count myself as one of those few Christians who abstain from the superstitious hatemongering. :)

I am still dealing with the problem of Christian spiritual exclusivity.

<snip>One other big problem that I see is that Christianity is the only major religion that says "believe in this or you're damned to eternal torment."<snip>

Well, I'm Christian, and I don't believe that. I'm also Catholic, and Catholics don't believe that, its a heresy.

You want to know why Christians are verbally bashed so much? It's because they're all bloody insane.

You want to know why Christians are verbally bashed so much? It's because they're all bloody insane.

Surely your not-morals don't believe in insulting people?

I have noticed this trend in several forums/web sites and it's interesting to watch.

I think the real question is, I suppose, is that if you are a politician, can you separate your religion from your politics....

And maybe more importantly....should you?????????????????

Certainly a pertenant subject in the states right now.....




just wondering why out of all of the worlds religions it is always Christianity that is chosen to be bashed? is it the most bizarre? or just the easiest to attack w/o being called rascist? or is it just funny to see christians get annoyed as it is incessantly said to be wrong. i dont really see what religion has to do with anything in this forum at all to be honest, it doesnt affect much so why does it get brought up so often? can we not all believe what we want and let others get on with what they believe to without these arguements that say this group is wrong, im right etc etc?
just a thought

Surely your not-morals don't believe in insulting people?

They do if i'm insulting a bunch of wankers.

They do if i'm insulting a bunch of wankers.

But I thought not-morals, by their very nature, don't believe in anything? Perhaps your not as good an emotivist as I thought.

But I thought not-morals, by their very nature, don't believe in anything? Perhaps your not as good an emotivist as I thought.

*Foghorn sounds*

Actually not-morals just recognise that their beliefs are expressions of emotion. Not that they can't have beliefs.

*Foghorn sounds*

Actually not-morals just recognise that their beliefs are expressions of emotion. Not that they can't have beliefs.

You should right a book:

"The Bible of Emotivism"

You should right a book:

"The Bible of Emotivism"

No need. I'll just resell the SAS Survival Guide with a different cover.

You should right a book:

"The Bible of Emotivism"

Then I could take the real thing, you could take your not-Bible, and we could have the world's biggest Bible-bashing!

I'm a genius!

No need. I'll just resell the SAS Survival Guide with a different cover.

Of course! Does it have a section about imposeing your not-morals while giving birth and cutting open a windpipe?

Then I could take the real thing, you could take your not-Bible, and we could have the world's biggest Bible-bashing!

I'm a genius!

No, you're a wanker. I don't know why I have to keep telling you this.

No, you're a wanker. I don't know why I have to keep telling you this.

I would respond, but I have to go. See ya tomorrow Coward.

I think that the vast majority of Christians are rational people with a firm grip on reality.

A small vocal minority of "Christians" spout cretinous hatemongering superstitious drivel, and deserve a roasting :)

However, tarring all Christians with the same brush makes us as bad as the worst among them.

Sadly, the idiot with the loudest voice, is the one who is heard the clearest.

Well, I'm Christian, and I don't believe that. I'm also Catholic, and Catholics don't believe that, its a heresy.
Hmmm slavation by faith is not nessisary then?

Not if I see you first. :sniper:
Wanker.

KNOCK IT OFF NOW.

Hmmm slavation by faith is not nessisary then?
Slavation by any means is strongly discouraged in modern society.

Salvation, slightly less so.

Salivation you can do as much as you want, though.

Hmmm slavation by faith is not nessisary then?

What is faith? The concept of salvation through faith a very complex one.

KNOCK IT OFF NOW.

If it means anything, CC and I are good mates, and I'm not the least bit offended...