NationStates Jolt Archive

I've been thinking lately. If I can be Catholic and have a Lutheran as a best friend and if Christians can still become popular on NSG like Zilam for example then is it possible for there to be a Christian who will treat a member of a rival religion like paganism, shamanism, or animism as they would anybody else even if the Christian was fully aware of the other person's religion? If you are a Christian would you treat such a person as you would anybody else?

I'm noit christian, but I have some good friends who are. Then again, they're not bible thumpers...

http://i169.photobucket.com/albums/u231/cheezeguy/n725075089_288918_2774.jpg

I second this lol wut.

http://i169.photobucket.com/albums/u231/cheezeguy/n725075089_288918_2774.jpg

Don't you have anything better to do than make everyone on NSG feel like shit? :confused:

I second this lol wut.

all opposed?

*waits*

the motion carries.

Don't you have anything better to do than make everyone on NSG feel like shit? :confused:

I'm going to do something uncharacteristic and actually try to be nice for a change. You came on here and asked, in all seriousness, whether or not a christian is capable of treating a nonchristian with the same respect he treats everyone else.

You actually, seriously wondered whether it was possible for a christian to treat a non christian as an equal.

What kind of response were you really expecting to get from that?

Double lol wut.

choosing that option signifies that you beleive that there is not one Christian who would treat people of religions that are enemies with Christianity as they would the common man

choosing that option signifies that you beleive that there is not one Christian who would treat people of religions that are enemies with Christianity as they would the common man

Okay, this is probably deserving of another lol wut.

I'm going to do something uncharacteristic and actually try to be nice for a change. You came on here and asked, in all seriousness, whether or not a christian is capable of treating a nonchristian with the same respect he treats everyone else.

You actually, seriously wondered whether it was possible for a christian to treat a non christian as an equal.

What kind of response were you really expecting to get from that?

I have an opinion and beleive it is absoluteley possible that such a Christian exists, this thread is just to gather opinions. If you reread my OP you'll notice that I did not state my opinion whatsoever until now.

I have an opinion and beleive it is absoluteley possible that such a Christian exists, this thread is just to gather opinions. If you reread my OP you'll notice that I did not state my opinion whatsoever until now.

I know you didn't state your opinion. I am curious as to what could possibly compell you to ask that question.

Did you honestly expect people to say that a christian isn't capable of respecting another christian? Did you honestly expect that someone would believe that christianity creates some dichodemy where every single adherant of the religion views every single nonbeliever as an enemy?

What did you really expect to happen here?

I've been thinking lately. If I can be Catholic and have a Lutheran as a best friend and if Christians can still become popular on NSG like Zilam for example then is it possible for there to be a Christian who will treat a member of a rival religion like paganism, shamanism, or animism as they would anybody else even if the Christian was fully aware of the other person's religion? If you are a Christian would you treat such a person as you would anybody else?

Definitely. Everybody either gets tackled, pied or thrown into mud regardless of faith. :)

I know you didn't state your opinion. I am curious as to what could possibly compell you to ask that question.

Did you honestly expect people to say that a christian isn't capable of respecting another christian? Did you honestly expect that someone would believe that christianity creates some dichodemy where every single adherant of the religion views every single nonbeliever as an enemy?

What did you really expect to happen here?

I wanted to see how bigoted the antichristians here are. You can't deny that there have been ridiculously blatant fallacies posted here concerning Christianity by such posters. They make it seem that Christians are a bunch of lynching lunatics that shout nothing but "UNCLEAN HERETIC!" when few of us seemed to actually know or dare to post something along the lines of "in actuality the moderate ones are quiet about their religion and life and live day-to-day life like any other ordinary person"

I wanted to see how bigoted the antichristians here are. You can't deny that there have been ridiculously blatant fallacies posted here concerning Christianity by such posters. They make it seem that Christians are a bunch of lynching lunatics that shout nothing but "UNCLEAN HERETIC!" when few of us seemed to actually know or dare to post something along the lines of "in actuality the moderate ones are quiet about their religion and life and live day-to-day life like any other ordinary person"

You do realise that your own OP already seems incredibly bigoted against Christians? It's like asking 'Is it possible for black people to be tolerant of other races."

I wanted to see how bigoted the antichristians here are.

riiiiiight.

You can't deny that there have been ridiculously blatant fallacies posted here concerning Christianity by such posters.

Uh huh, I'm sure you have a link or two to back this up yes?

when few of us seemed to actually know or dare to post something along the lines of "in actuality the moderate ones are quiet about their religion and life and live day-to-day life like any other ordinary person

Do you really and truly believe that you're one of the rare few on this forum to realize this and "dare" to say it? Seriously now.

I've been thinking lately.

Therein lies the root of the problem.
Physician, heal thyself.
To be or not to be.
For that is the lolwut?

You do realise that your own OP already seems incredibly bigoted against Christians? It's like asking 'Is it possible for black people to be tolerant of other races."

I believe a better question for comparison would be "Is it possible for white people to be tolerant of other races?" since both were the majority that oppressed others and now because of it even the good ones are getting tons of "positive-discrimination" even though they no longer commit their oppressive actions.

Brian: Excuse me. Are you the Judean People's Front?
Reg: Fuck off! We're the People's Front of Judea

I believe a better question for comparison would be "Is it possible for white people to be tolerant of other races?" since both were the majority that oppressed others and now because of it even the good ones are getting tons of "positive-discrimination" even though they no longer commit their oppressive actions.

Fine. Would you consider that question to be bigoted against white people?

Therein lies the root of the problem.
Physician, heal thyself.
To be or not to be.
For that is the lolwut?

Your hostile remarks are aimed at who I was, not who I am. And unfortunately entire groups of people are suffering the same treatment. Most attacks against Christians here are attacks against who they were in the dark ages, not who they are now. Only the bible-thumper and the nutty fundamentalists are guilty of acting the way Christians did in the dark age.

Fine. Would you consider that question to be bigoted against white people?

no since I am defending those who do not deserve to be punished for what their ancestors have done.

*blinks* Uh... okaaaaaaaay.

Er, yes, as a Christian I don't particularly care what faith, or lack thereof, the other professes or does not profess. As long as they don't annoy me about theirs or mention it, I won't go out of my way to mention mine.

And if I DIDN'T feel that way, I'd have one hell of a time living in Japan (78% Shinto, 78% Buddhist, 78% no religion at all (It's a Japanese thing)) or living with my Buddhist wife.

no since I am defending those who do not deserve to be punished for what their ancestors have done.

So, just to recap, you think that when asked, in a completely serious manner, the question "Is it possible for white people to be tolerant of other races?" is defending white people and not biased at all.

... okay. I guess there's not much we can do here.

I wanted to see how bigoted the antichristians here are. You can't deny that there have been ridiculously blatant fallacies posted here concerning Christianity by such posters. They make it seem that Christians are a bunch of lynching lunatics that shout nothing but "UNCLEAN HERETIC!" when few of us seemed to actually know or dare to post something along the lines of "in actuality the moderate ones are quiet about their religion and life and live day-to-day life like any other ordinary person"

Rofl. Christianity has so many illogical fallacies that it would take seven of your god's days to count them all.

I believe a better question for comparison would be "Is it possible for white people to be tolerant of other races?" since both were the majority that oppressed others and now because of it even the good ones are getting tons of "positive-discrimination" even though they no longer commit their oppressive actions.

"Good ones?" Seriously?

I've been thinking lately. If I can be Catholic and have a Lutheran as a best friend and if Christians can still become popular on NSG like Zilam for example then is it possible for there to be a Christian who will treat a member of a rival religion like paganism, shamanism, or animism as they would anybody else even if the Christian was fully aware of the other person's religion? If you are a Christian would you treat such a person as you would anybody else?

Here's one for you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Santolla

You do realise that your own OP already seems incredibly bigoted against Christians? It's like asking 'Is it possible for black people to be tolerant of other races."
Are you comparing Christians with black people?

If I leave now, maybe no one will figure whether the above comment is anti-Christian, racist, or neither.

I wanted to see how bigoted the antichristians here are.
So you were flamebaiting?

So you were flamebaiting?

No, I was making a stand and a point. A flame war was the last thing I wanted in this thread.

I've been thinking lately. If I can be Catholic and have a Lutheran as a best friend and if Christians can still become popular on NSG like Zilam for example then is it possible for there to be a Christian who will treat a member of a rival religion like paganism, shamanism, or animism as they would anybody else even if the Christian was fully aware of the other person's religion? If you are a Christian would you treat such a person as you would anybody else?

Hmmm, it is hard for me to see what you are asking. First because I don't see any other beliefs as rival to my belief in Christianity. I don't view other beliefs as rival. My feelings toward people have absolutely no bearing on their religious or non-religious beliefs. Frankly they aren't any of my business is how I see it. I am not anyone's judge or jury and neither are they mine. My only rule of thumb is to try to treat all people how I wish to be treated. A Christian tenet but also just a damn good rule. ;)

So, the question here is essentially, "Is it possible that any Christian, ever, has failed to act like a complete ass to everyone not of their particular sect?"

Erm....I'm gonna have to go with "yes." Boy, that was...um...a tough one. Yeah.

Or, in other words, LOL WUT. :p

No, I was making a stand and a point. A flame war was the last thing I wanted in this thread.
Coming to this thread expecting a ‘bigoted’ response from ‘antichristians’ is poor practice.

Hell, calling people ‘antichristians’ when you mean, surely, ‘non-Christians’ is rather foolish.

Coming to this thread expecting a ‘bigoted’ response from ‘antichristians’ is poor practice.

Hell, calling people ‘antichristians’ when you mean, surely, ‘non-Christians’ is rather foolish.

non-christians are capable of respecting the Christian beleif as opposed to anti-Christians who hate Christianity. The plan was to have the bigoted responses be corrected by the more reasonable of the NSG community.

*blinks* Uh... okaaaaaaaay.

Er, yes, as a Christian I don't particularly care what faith, or lack thereof, the other professes or does not profess. As long as they don't annoy me about theirs or mention it, I won't go out of my way to mention mine.

And if I DIDN'T feel that way, I'd have one hell of a time living in Japan (78% Shinto, 78% Buddhist, 78% no religion at all (It's a Japanese thing)) or living with my Buddhist wife.

I do have a question about that, though really I'd be interested in hearing from any Christians with non-Christian friends or relatives.

Does it ever bother you that those that are so close to you are, according to your Holy Book, going to spend an eternity in Hell? Do you even believe that that part is accurate?

(I don't mean the question in any sort of sarcastic manner or anything; I truly am curious.)

I notice that when South Liz does for Christians what Gravlen (or whatever his name is) does for Muslims. South is called a bigot and Gravlen is hailed a hero of anti-stereotypes. :rolleyes:

I do have a question about that, though really I'd be interested in hearing from any Christians with non-Christian friends or relatives.

Does it ever bother you that those that are so close to you are, according to your Holy Book, going to spend an eternity in Hell? Do you even believe that that part is accurate?

(I don't mean the question in any sort of sarcastic manner or anything; I truly am curious.)
My Holy Book doesn't say that. Don't get me wrong, it makes it quite clear that it is wrong to not have faith in God and Jesus and all of that stuff, but there is not a checklist.
It's entirely possible that every single person on the planet that has ever lived will go to heaven; it's possible that no one has sinned so horribly that that is denied to them. It's also possible the opposite is true, but the forgiving nature that is emphasized in the New Testament makes me doubt this.
Of course, I belive that Christianity is not just a way to get to the next life, but a good guide for this world, which is why I would want people to be Christian. I know much less about their salvation, and am more concerned with the more tangible idea of a truly Christian society.

I do have a question about that, though really I'd be interested in hearing from any Christians with non-Christian friends or relatives.

Does it ever bother you that those that are so close to you are, according to your Holy Book, going to spend an eternity in Hell? Do you even believe that that part is accurate?

(I don't mean the question in any sort of sarcastic manner or anything; I truly am curious.)
Er, yes and no? Ok *Deep breath* I don't believe in the notion of a fire and brimstone Hell for all those who fail to become Christian, it doesn't really equate with a loving God who would send His Son to us, it has way too many problems for that. Also, the Bible itself is not too clear on it. Jesus said none comes to the Father except through Me, but He didn't really condemn everyone else either in such clear language. Furthermore, the notion of what Hell is itself is very unclear. The NT uses various descriptives that can be the traditional Hell, or Hades, or a more Jewish version which is just eternal separation from God. I tend to favor the last in terms of where righteous non-believers go (In that way I suppose I have wandered into more of a universalism belief system than traditional protestantism). A lot of what we currently think of Hell as or what it does, or who goes there was added long after Christ walked the earth by the Church and I'm somewhat suspect of the source of that knowledge (Either join us or you too will experience the tortures of Hell as beautifully illustrated in the smash hit, The Divine Comedy by that famous poet, Dante, reserve your copy now!).

So in answer to your question, no, I don't believe that anyone who does not become Christian will be cast into a lake of fire at the end of time. I think the punishment spoken of is that eternal separation from God and His light and warmth, which would indeed be punishment (At least to me). Also there's the question of restoration (apocatastasis) in which ALL THINGS will be made whole and without sin at the end times, which also seems to suggest that any punishment meted out to non-Christians isn't permanent either. So it really doesn't bother me because I have hope and faith that all will be made right in the end.

Oddly enough though, when my wife and I talked about this at one point in time, it really seemed to bother her, but that was based much more on her misconception that I wanted to be buried on church ground (Which would be impossible as the church I'm a member of doesn't have a graveyard, it has a parking lot) or that church rules would keep us from being in the same grave, since neither of which applies and I said I didn't mind spending the rest of time in a Buddhist grave, she feels much better about it.

"Good ones?" Seriously?

I know, like there are any!

No, I was making a stand and a point. A flame war was the last thing I wanted in this thread.

You were making a stand? But you very clear reminded someone just a bit ago that you hadn't stated your opinion... was a secret stand?

The plan was to have the bigoted responses be corrected by the more reasonable of the NSG community.

I think that's worked out pretty well.

You were making a stand? But you very clear reminded someone just a bit ago that you hadn't stated your opinion... was a secret stand?

It's double secret probation!

I think that's worked out pretty well.

I'm not sure it was intended for us to start with the OP, but eh, what can you do?

I've been thinking lately. If I can be Catholic and have a Lutheran as a best friend and if Christians can still become popular on NSG like Zilam for example then is it possible for there to be a Christian who will treat a member of a rival religion like paganism, shamanism, or animism as they would anybody else even if the Christian was fully aware of the other person's religion? If you are a Christian would you treat such a person as you would anybody else?

I love how fucking delusional some people here are about Christians and religions in general. We aren't the same, we don't fit in the same box, and you should never look at people based on their religion, but who they are as a person.

Take me for example:

I'm Lutheran, belong to a church that allows gay marriage, believes in Evolution, doesn't let the church dictate my life, belives that all religions are fine, is pro abortion, and treats everyone equally since we're all human.

I have friends who are Muslim, Catholic, Mormon, athiest, etc. and religion serves as no barrier whatsoever.

Why the FUCK would I treat anyone differently based on religion, sexual orientation, or race? Seriously, why would you think I would do otherwise just because I'm Christian?

"Oh, you're Catholic and your dickhead leader says that I'm a heretic. We should never talk to each other again."

That's total bullshit. Anyone who allows the religion to run their lives is a tool and nothing more.

It really bugs me how people here think Christians are nut jobs who think that everyone else is going to hell while we go around passing out bibles to "heretics" who "need to accept Jesus Christ as their lord and savior or else they go to hell."

You do realise that your own OP already seems incredibly bigoted against Christians? It's like asking 'Is it possible for black people to be tolerant of other races."

Just out of curiosity, are you a Christian? Because I haven't really seen any Christians offended by this post. I believe that you have to question your religion everyday. And just because the qoute may have seemed offensive, the reasoning behind it was not, and I, as a Christian, tend to look for the reasoning and the result, rather then the qoute itself. Example: your parents teach you to ride a bike, knowing full well that you will hurt yourself biking. But they also know that the end result would be positive. So the intention was good, the lessons, sometimes painful, and the end result good. So again, I don't see how a Christians would be offended by Liz's post. Unless he's a Fundie, and heck, they get offended everyday anyways.

Just out of curiosity, are you a Christian? Because I haven't really seen any Christians offended by this post. I believe that you have to question your religion everyday. And just because the qoute may have seemed offensive, the reasoning behind it was not, and I, as a Christian, tend to look for the reasoning and the result, rather then the qoute itself. Example: your parents teach you to ride a bike, knowing full well that you will hurt yourself biking. But they also know that the end result would be positive. So the intention was good, the lessons, sometimes painful, and the end result good. So again, I don't see how a Christians would be offended by Liz's post. Unless he's a Fundie, and heck, they get offended everyday anyways.

I'm not a Christian, but I'd be offended if I was. However, you might want to look at the post above yours. New Stalinberg isn't a fundie, as far as I know.

The end result seems to be more that we're bemused by why SL would ask this inane question than anything else. This isn't so much the problem, though. What really annoys me here is that SL posts something which is a pretty ridiculous question to ask of Christians and not a page later is whining about the evil biased Christian haters of NSG.

Don't you have anything better to do than make everyone on NSG feel like shit? :confused:

Posting a funny picture is hardly treating anyone like shit. The "Lol wut?" picture harmed no one, and while not the most content-filled post, it amused me at least.

As for the subject of the thread, my best friend is a Methodist. I could best be described as pagan, myself.

I disagree strongly with the Christian beliefs- God, all that kinda jazz...
This doesn't mean I don't think they have the right to believe it ANYWAY... even though I disagree with them!
And that, in turn, does not mean that I won't state my views on the matter and even argue my point of view with Christians.
However, I will not engage in pointless insult-flinging on the internet, and I try and be reasonable and not say anything which will bother people overly.

maybe it would be nice if this became a code of conduct for internet discussions ;p


Anyway, yeh, on topic, it's totally ridiculous to try and make a statement about ALL members of a group. Inevitably, there will be some that deviate from the statement- in some groups, that will be a larger or smaller proportion, but still...

I notice that when South Liz does for Christians what Gravlen (or whatever his name is) does for Muslims. South is called a bigot and Gravlen is hailed a hero of anti-stereotypes. :rolleyes:

Huh? I've never noticed Gravlen starting a thread asking "Do you believe in your heart of hearts that there may be one or two Muslims out there who don't want to kill you?"

Yeah, it's completely possible. I'm Lutheran; many of my good friends are atheist, and one girl to whom I would confide anything, who I would consider one of my truest friends is Wiccan.

Huh? I've never noticed Gravlen starting a thread asking "Do you believe in your heart of hearts that there may be one or two Muslims out there who don't want to kill you?"

I think I may have misunderstood the OP. *feels sheepish* But, it was pretty confusing.

I've been thinking lately. If I can be Catholic and have a Lutheran as a best friend and if Christians can still become popular on NSG like Zilam for example then is it possible for there to be a Christian who will treat a member of a rival religion like paganism, shamanism, or animism as they would anybody else even if the Christian was fully aware of the other person's religion? If you are a Christian would you treat such a person as you would anybody else?

I'm okay with anybody of any religion, so long as they don't try to 'force their religion down my throat'.

Uh huh, I'm sure you have a link or two to back this up yes?

In his defense all you really have to do is think about just about anything UB has posted in any thread about christians.

In his defense all you really have to do is think about just about anything UB has posted in any thread about christians.

True, but on that assumption this forum is alos extremely anti-Muslim. I mean, all you have to think about is what The Atlantian Islands posts regularly, whether the thread is about Islam or not. ;)

True, but on that assumption this forum is alos extremely anti-Muslim. I mean, all you have to think about is what The Atlantian Islands posts regularly, whether the thread is about Islam or not. ;)

Yeah :(

Heh, yes I can beleive that christians can not be complete a-holes.

And as a christian, I'm not offended by the op. The Westboro Baptist "church" is living proof that christians can be complete a-holes.

Everyone has a right to belief and protection from blasphemey. If one doesnt agree with a religion, simply dont follow it, I hate it when people outwardly blaspheme. It can really hurt. But yeah, all belief is good in my op, no matter what religion

I've been thinking lately. If I can be Catholic and have a Lutheran as a best friend and if Christians can still become popular on NSG like Zilam for example then is it possible for there to be a Christian who will treat a member of a rival religion like paganism, shamanism, or animism as they would anybody else even if the Christian was fully aware of the other person's religion? If you are a Christian would you treat such a person as you would anybody else?

I hope I treat those of other religions with the respect and acceptance that I would like to be treated.

you got "freedom of religion" in your constitution, don't you? so, then i don't really see why member of religion a would treat memeber of religion b different than a correligionary.
that would be anticonstitutional...

Except that, personally, i'd find it preferably to amend it to "freedom from religion"

I've been thinking lately. If I can be Catholic and have a Lutheran as a best friend and if Christians can still become popular on NSG like Zilam for example then is it possible for there to be a Christian who will treat a member of a rival religion like paganism, shamanism, or animism as they would anybody else even if the Christian was fully aware of the other person's religion? If you are a Christian would you treat such a person as you would anybody else?
While you're making broad generalizations why don't you also ask if there are some black people who don't like basketball, some feminists who aren't lesbians, and some muslims who don't kill in the name of islam?

I've been thinking lately. If I can be Catholic and have a Lutheran as a best friend and if Christians can still become popular on NSG like Zilam for example then is it possible for there to be a Christian who will treat a member of a rival religion like paganism, shamanism, or animism as they would anybody else even if the Christian was fully aware of the other person's religion? If you are a Christian would you treat such a person as you would anybody else?

Additionally thats a poor assumption. Religions arent primarily there to rival eachother and get points of how many souls they send to heaven. I think its more like a way of life than a competition! Sorry, just thought I would add that... :rolleyes:

Your hostile remarks are aimed at who I was, not who I am. And unfortunately entire groups of people are suffering the same treatment. Most attacks against Christians here are attacks against who they were in the dark ages, not who they are now. Only the bible-thumper and the nutty fundamentalists are guilty of acting the way Christians did in the dark age.
Well yes, but there are far too many of the bible-thumpers and nutty fundamentalists around.
Of course there are *more* of the reasonable Christians around (except that those aren't "real Christians" in the eyes of the thumpers!) but still, if someone self-identifies as a Christian I am always wary, from bitter experience, until I know whether or not I'm dealing with one of those.

Well yes, but there are far too many of the bible-thumpers and nutty fundamentalists around.
Of course there are *more* of the reasonable Christians around (except that those aren't "real Christians" in the eyes of the thumpers!) but still, if someone self-identifies as a Christian I am always wary, from bitter experience, until I know whether or not I'm dealing with one of those.

Incidentally, we "reasonables" have a varied view of the fundies that tends to range from, "they're the ones who aren't real" to "they're going to make it in technically, but they'll get a nice little lecture about how they missed the whole fucking point".

There are probably even more.

Well yes, but there are far too many of the bible-thumpers and nutty fundamentalists around.
Of course there are *more* of the reasonable Christians around (except that those aren't "real Christians" in the eyes of the thumpers!) but still, if someone self-identifies as a Christian I am always wary, from bitter experience, until I know whether or not I'm dealing with one of those.
Sadly I've experienced that before. When I was in my undergrad program I'd often talk with a classmate of mine about life, the universe, and everything (It was a philosophy class so it was allowed). He mentioned one class that he was gay and a few classes later I mentioned I was Christian. His response was to suddenly go really reserved and cautious in talking to me, even though I didn't start spouting fire and brimstone when he had previously told me his sexual orientation. I finally got through to him that I didn't care WHAT his preference was and everything was cool again (In fact he proceeded to hit on me, but that's another story), but it really did disturb me that someone whom I had gotten friendly with would suddenly change like that just because of my religion.

Edit:
http://somethingpositive.net/sp10192006.shtml Says it all really, and much better than I ever could.

It is called bigorty - and this forum is replete with it and quite tolerant of it - as this article illustrates...


http://racialrealist.wordpress.com/2007/05/10/the-good-black-person-versus-the-bad-black-person/

In this society as a christian it is your job to make non-christians feel comfortable around you; not the other way around - even though christians in a majority non-christian setting have far more need to be put at ease than non-christians. Additionally my personal feeling is that non-christians can only cope with “liking” a few christians (usually one at a time); hence the popular expression, “you’re not like the rest of them” . Indeed, with regard to their typical reaction to christians, it can sometimes appear that there are “good christians” and “bad christians”!

And as a christian, I'm not offended by the op. The Westboro Baptist "church" is living proof that christians can be complete a-holes.

Every day is proof that anyone can be an asshole, in my opinion.

Can there be christians that are perfectly nice and duly respectful people?



Obviously.
It is called bigorty - and this forum is replete with it and quite tolerant of it - as this article illustrates...


http://racialrealist.wordpress.com/2007/05/10/the-good-black-person-versus-the-bad-black-person/

In this society as a christian it is your job to make non-christians feel comfortable around you; not the other way around - even though christians in a majority non-christian setting have far more need to be put at ease than non-christians. Additionally my personal feeling is that non-christians can only cope with “liking” a few christians (usually one at a time); hence the popular expression, “you’re not like the rest of them” . Indeed, with regard to their typical reaction to christians, it can sometimes appear that there are “good christians” and “bad christians”!
That's a mighty fine cross you've got there, but tell me, how on earth did you nail yourself to it?

Can there be christians that are perfectly nice and duly respectful people?
Obviously.
That's a mighty fine cross you've got there, but tell me, how on earth did you nail yourself to it?

ROFLMAO - you stepped in it quite nicely. You should click on the link before you respond next time...

That is, unless you actually believe that Clare X Brown (http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendID=86425364) has crucified herself...

I do have a question about that, though really I'd be interested in hearing from any Christians with non-Christian friends or relatives.

Does it ever bother you that those that are so close to you are, according to your Holy Book, going to spend an eternity in Hell? Do you even believe that that part is accurate?

(I don't mean the question in any sort of sarcastic manner or anything; I truly am curious.)

My family is split accross multiple religions (Christian, Muslim and non-abrahamic) and it's really a non-issue. But then no one is rabidly religious. We live and let live. Novel concept, sadly...

I suppose you'd label me as a Christian, considering I study theology and all. And the answer is: absolutely, everyone is entitled to their religious view and I consider it extremely bad practice to try and force-feed your religion, like certain Christian (and other) groups do, giving religious people in general a bad name. Not to mention the effect caused by people doing that being generally badly educated and often having very limited knowledge about the very religion they seem so fanatic about.

I've worked as a teacher on confirmation camps (a summer camp where ~15 year olds are taught the principles of Lutheran faith. Widely considered an initiation rite in Finland, most non-church members attend these as well, partially because of the good reputation - most people remember it as their best teen-age experience, and it offers great insight to Finnish culture, as Lutheranity has had such a great effect on it) for several years, and there's something I've always taught them: That I'm not trying to make them believe what I want them to believe, I merely want them to think about spirituality in general. That I will much rather discuss with, and appreciate,an atheist who has come to his/her atheism by using their mind and making decisions by themselves, than someone religious who has never really thought about it. I would treat a person like that the same way I'd treat your average teenager, who will simply say he's an atheist and hates the church, but only does that because it'd be uncool not to.

ROFLMAO - you stepped in it quite nicely. You should click on the link before you respond next time...

That is, unless you actually believe that Clare X Brown (http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendID=86425364) has crucified herself...

Oh I did click the link. But you can't just take a blog post about racism and swap the word 'black' for 'christian' and 'white' for 'non-christian' and expect anyone to take it as anything other than an attempt to play the victim. To suggest that christians in America have been treated in any way like blacks in America have is utterly ludicrous. Try again when Christians are segregated from everyone else, or even when the overwhelming majority of the government isn't Christian.

Sadly I've experienced that before. When I was in my undergrad program I'd often talk with a classmate of mine about life, the universe, and everything (It was a philosophy class so it was allowed). He mentioned one class that he was gay and a few classes later I mentioned I was Christian. His response was to suddenly go really reserved and cautious in talking to me, even though I didn't start spouting fire and brimstone when he had previously told me his sexual orientation. I finally got through to him that I didn't care WHAT his preference was and everything was cool again (In fact he proceeded to hit on me, but that's another story), but it really did disturb me that someone whom I had gotten friendly with would suddenly change like that just because of my religion.

Edit:
http://somethingpositive.net/sp10192006.shtml Says it all really, and much better than I ever could.
I've had Christians try to kill me, twice. I've never had anybody else try to kill me. We all have these experiences, if maybe not to quite the same level (I'm just lucky, I guess). So yeah, when somebody self-identifies as Christian, I am very very wary nowadays. The trouble is, the batshit-insane Christians don't immediately come across as batshit-insane: they can sound all reasonable, until it is too late.

Oh I did click the link. But you can't just take a blog post about racism and swap the word 'black' for 'christian' and 'white' for 'non-christian' and expect anyone to take it as anything other than an attempt to play the victim. To suggest that christians in America have been treated in any way like blacks in America have is utterly ludicrous. Try again when Christians are segregated from everyone else, or even when the overwhelming majority of the government isn't Christian.

The point is not to compare Christian 'suffering' to the difficulties faced by blacks in the US. It is to illustrate that bigotry is bigotry - no matter who the subject. You can rationalize it however you wish - but much of the language here has been stereotyping, generalizing, judgmental, biased, narrow, and all the other things which make up bigotry.

The point is not to compare Christian 'suffering' to the difficulties faced by blacks in the US. It is to illustrate that bigotry is bigotry - no matter who the subject. You can rationalize it however you wish - but much of the language here has been stereotyping, generalizing, judgmental, biased, narrow, and all the other things which make up bigotry.

Ah, I see. The article was just so we'd know what bigotry is. And now that we know we can compare it to your many many examples of people on this forum engaging in anti-christian bigotry. And no doubt in the course of this comparisson we'll note how tolerated this bigotry is.


Oh dear, I think I see a problem here.

mostly it was a response to post 57. (though it wasn't to single him out as much as to illustrate the general acceptance of the bigotry expressed) I intentionally found language which reflected Tmutarakhan's choice of words, but it could also have been a suitable response to the situation NERVUN described.

mostly it was a response to post 57. (though it wasn't to single him out as much as to illustrate the general acceptance of the bigotry expressed) I intentionally found language which reflected Tmutarakhan's choice of words, but it could also have been a suitable response to the situation NERVUN described.

It's still failing. 'Bad' black people are the ones that make Whitey uncomfortable by acting too black. 'Bad' christians take to the streets to tell us all that we're going to hell for daring to respect the rights of gay people. Clearly only one of these things is objectionable.

It is called bigorty - and this forum is replete with it and quite tolerant of it - as this article illustrates...


http://racialrealist.wordpress.com/2007/05/10/the-good-black-person-versus-the-bad-black-person/

In this society as a christian it is your job to make non-christians feel comfortable around you; not the other way around - even though christians in a majority non-christian setting have far more need to be put at ease than non-christians. Additionally my personal feeling is that non-christians can only cope with “liking” a few christians (usually one at a time); hence the popular expression, “you’re not like the rest of them” . Indeed, with regard to their typical reaction to christians, it can sometimes appear that there are “good christians” and “bad christians”!

Beyond the other many flaws in this analogy, our society is majority Christian, not the other way around. Fail.

The point is not to compare Christian 'suffering' to the difficulties faced by blacks in the US. It is to illustrate that bigotry is bigotry - no matter who the subject. You can rationalize it however you wish - but much of the language here has been stereotyping, generalizing, judgmental, biased, narrow, and all the other things which make up bigotry.

Really? So bigotry against white supremacists is the same as bigotry against blacks?

Have you looked up the definition of bigotry lately?

It's still failing. 'Bad' black people are the ones that make Whitey uncomfortable by acting too black. 'Bad' christians take to the streets to tell us all that we're going to hell for daring to respect the rights of gay people. Clearly only one of these things is objectionable.

oooh, two derogatory and broad generalizing statements about two different groups. It is obviously to me that the entire concept is lost on you; the self-appointed arbiter of what is good, bad acceptable and objectionable and to what groups these generalized behaviors belong.

Really? So bigotry against white supremacists is the same as bigotry against blacks?

Have you looked up the definition of bigotry lately?

Hey! It is the straw man guy! How you doing?

The characteristic qualities of a bigot; intolerance or prejudice, especially religious or racial. (http://www.allwords.com/word-bigotry.html)

Any more simple definitions I could help you out with today?

To answer your first question - bigotry against whites can and does exist. White supremacists are not an ethnicity, gender, religion, or sexual orientation. You can no more be a bigot against white supremacists than you could be a bigot against the Dallas Cowboys. If you had a dictionary you'd have already known that. Aren't you glad you have me to help you?

flail.

Beyond the other many flaws in this analogy, our society is majority Christian, not the other way around. Fail.

majority or minority status has no bearing on the existence or non-existence of bigotry.

battle axe

Hey! It is the straw man guy! How you doing?

The characteristic qualities of a bigot; intolerance or prejudice, especially religious or racial. (http://www.allwords.com/word-bigotry.html)

Any more simple definitions I could help you out with today?

Uh, pretty feeble attempt to avoid the point.

Are you still going to insist that all intolerance or prejudice is equally wrong?

majority or minority status has no bearing on the existence or non-existence of bigotry.

Um. Did you read what you wrote? It very specifically complained about majority culture. Next time you borrow a complaint from African-Americans perhaps you should understand it first.

Uh, pretty feeble attempt to avoid the point.

Are you still going to insist that all intolerance or prejudice is equally wrong?

bigotry in all forms is wrong. Prejudice in all forms is wrong.

Intolerance is not always wrong. I happen to be lactose intolerant. :)


haliberd

Um. Did you read what you wrote? It very specifically complained about majority culture. Next time you borrow a complaint from African-Americans perhaps you should understand it first.

So, according to you, bigotry is not OK if it is directed at a minority culture, but perfectly acceptable so long as it is directed at a majority culture - Nice.

You missed the part where she was complaining about being labeled as 'good' or 'bad' black people or that black people have to prove they are non-threatening to non-blacks. That part is quite relevant to the context of the posts I responded to.
Please.. speak more of understanding while you attempt to defend bigotry. The irony is delicious!

mace.

So, according to you, bigotry is OK so long as it is directed at a majority culture... Nice.

mace.

Yeah, sure. That's what I said. :rolleyes:

But I do weep on behalf of all oppressed majorities everywhere. Especially white male Christians in the U.S. They have it hard.

But I do weep on behalf of all oppressed majorities everywhere.

They do exist. Take South Africa.

There are plenty of Christians who would regard such people as equals.

You could make a good case that such equal respect is un-Christian... but, then, does it really matter?

To answer your first question - bigotry against whites can and does exist. White supremacists are not an ethnicity, gender, religion, or sexual orientation. You can no more be a bigot against white supremacists than you could be a bigot against the Dallas Cowboys. If you had a dictionary you'd have already known that. Aren't you glad you have me to help you?

flail.

Does adding stuff to your answer long after we've moved on really seem persuasive to you?

Anyway ... *looks at definition of bigotry and doesn't see it limited to intolerance based on ethnicity, gender, religion, or sexual orientation*

*in fact, notices definition says especially religious or racial*

*wonders when MS is going to read shit before he posts it*

I've had Christians try to kill me, twice. I've never had anybody else try to kill me. We all have these experiences, if maybe not to quite the same level (I'm just lucky, I guess). So yeah, when somebody self-identifies as Christian, I am very very wary nowadays. The trouble is, the batshit-insane Christians don't immediately come across as batshit-insane: they can sound all reasonable, until it is too late.
The problem I would have with that though is that I can say I've had unpleasant experiences with cowboys, does that make it right to be wary around ALL cowboys?

Every group has its idiots, sadly the Christian kind tends to be very loud and more secure in its beliefs that its idiocy is not only right, but sanctioned by God.

You missed the part where she was complaining about being labeled as 'good' or 'bad' black people or that they had to prove they were non-threatening to those around them. That part is quite relevant to the context of the posts I responded to.
Please.. speak more of understanding while you attempt to defend bigotry. The irony is delicious!

mace.

Again with the adding shit to your post after-the-fact. :rolleyes: Just hit reply when you think you've come up with something clever.

Anywhoodle ... YOU apparently read right past the part that complained about majority culture. YOU apparently missed the part that complained about social norms. In other words, YOU missed the whole point.

They do exist. Take South Africa.

Or the American South, for that matter. At least in some parts.

The problem I would have with that though is that I can say I've had unpleasant experiences with cowboys, does that make it right to be wary around ALL cowboys?

Every group has its idiots, sadly the Christian kind tends to be very loud and more secure in its beliefs that its idiocy is not only right, but sanctioned by God.
Do cowboys specifically target you?
There would certainly come a point where it would be very imprudent of you, downright stupid in fact, NOT to be wary of cowboys. I imagine that the Comanche tended to be rather wary around all cowboys.

You can go straight to hell. Yes, you come across as precisely the kind of "Christian" that I would need to be wary in the company of.

There you go making more generalizations. When did I ever say I was a Christian? Exactly what activity did I participate in which you consider to qualify as 'bad-Christian' activity? Maybe you'd rather label me a "Christian-lover" because I refuse to denigrate them with you?

Your anger is perfect cause for you to re-examine your own beliefs. If I were that far off I would not have hit a nerve...

Do cowboys specifically target you?
There would certainly come a point where it would be very imprudent of you, downright stupid in fact, NOT to be wary of cowboys. I imagine that the Comanche tended to be rather wary around all cowboys.

I see - so if a person is 'targeted' by blacks then they are given a pass by you on their bigotry?

Again with the adding shit to your post after-the-fact. :rolleyes: Just hit reply when you think you've come up with something clever.

Anywhoodle ... YOU apparently read right past the part that complained about majority culture. YOU apparently missed the part that complained about social norms. In other words, YOU missed the whole point.

Calm down CT. Go smoke a straw man or something. You are trying so hard to make a minor point that you are missing the greater one. I know you can do better than that.

btw - anywhoodle.... love that term! -mind if I borrow/steal it in the future?

I've had Christians try to kill me, twice. I've never had anybody else try to kill me. We all have these experiences, if maybe not to quite the same level (I'm just lucky, I guess). So yeah, when somebody self-identifies as Christian, I am very very wary nowadays. The trouble is, the batshit-insane Christians don't immediately come across as batshit-insane: they can sound all reasonable, until it is too late.

Dude, yeah, I know. Some Christian kid blew out my tires when I was parked on the side of the road and then stole my coke. It was all very traumatizing. Bigotry much?

I see - so if a person is 'targeted' by blacks then they are given a pass by you on their bigotry?

If a gang of black kids is chasing you down the street with shotguns, and another black kid comes out of the side alley, you would be awfully unwise to assume he is going to be your friend.

Dude, yeah, I know. Some Christian kid blew out my tires when I was parked on the side of the road and then stole my coke. It was all very traumatizing. Bigotry much?
A Christian held me at gunpoint while shouting at me about how I must be out to molest his kids and I was going to hell for it and he was the one to send me there; he didn't really have the nerve to pull the trigger and eventually wore himself out talking. Another time a couple of Christians were in the gay bar trying to ask me if I had accepted Jesus into my life: seemed like they were on some kind of misguided missionary effort, but were friendly enough and nobody gave them too hard a time; I accepted their offer of a ride home, and ended up unconscious on the railroad tracks.

I see - so if a person is 'targeted' by blacks then they are given a pass by you on their bigotry?

I think there's a huge difference between disliking/distrusting/devaluing everyone of a certain group because they belong to that group, and being wary of a certain group of people because in the past you have had LIFE THREATENING experiences with multiple members of that group who may have targeted YOU for a specific reason. As a woman who has had some bad experiences, I have become wary of being alone at all with young men of any color or creed. I am not comfortable being alone on the train, in the street or other isolated places with young men. Do I think all men of a certain age are bad? No. I don't think most are. Anyone who is friendly and nice and demonstrates he is not going to do something crazy changes my opinion--but I START OUT wary because the instinct has developed that when I am around young men, I need to be on guard. I'm not bigoted against them. I know and like many. I don't think "all young men" are anything. But until I know them, I am wary of the potential threat there.

Also, religion is not something you are born with--it is a system of ideas and beliefs you choose. To say "black people are ___", "women are ____", "homosexuals are _____" is to put a label on who someone is inside because of their genetic makeup.

However, to characterize people of a certain religion/political party/other association in a very general way is not always wrong. If I say "All Christians believe in God", am I being a biggot? People label THEMSELVES as members of certain groups for the very reason that they share ideology with other members of the group.

A Christian held me at gunpoint while shouting at me about how I must be out to molest his kids and I was going to hell for it and he was the one to send me there; he didn't really have the nerve to pull the trigger and eventually wore himself out talking. Another time a couple of Christians were in the gay bar trying to ask me if I had accepted Jesus into my life: seemed like they were on some kind of misguided missionary effort, but were friendly enough and nobody gave them too hard a time; I accepted their offer of a ride home, and ended up unconscious on the railroad tracks.

Seems like my brethren like to discard that 6th commandment whenever's convenient, eh? They always did have mischievous streak.

I wanted to see how bigoted the antichristians here are.

Disingenuous OP, non?
And flamebaiting?

Seems like my brethren like to discard that 6th commandment whenever's convenient, eh? They always did have mischievous streak.Well, the 6th commandment does not actually forbid you to "kill"; technically it says thou shalt not "murder". Certain killings are actually a legal duty according to the old book. The view that killing me is a duty is only held by a small minority of Christians nowadays, but of course, it was universal among Christians not so terribly long ago.

I've been thinking lately. If I can be Catholic and have a Lutheran as a best friend and if Christians can still become popular on NSG like Zilam for example then is it possible for there to be a Christian who will treat a member of a rival religion like paganism, shamanism, or animism as they would anybody else even if the Christian was fully aware of the other person's religion? If you are a Christian would you treat such a person as you would anybody else?
Why would you even find the need ask such a question?

As people, I would treat them equally...I would, however, make it a point that I am not, nor will I ever be, part of their religion, and trust them to keep their religion and our relationship separate.

Why would you even find the need ask such a question?

Perhaps to become famous?:cool:
J/K!

A Christian held me at gunpoint while shouting at me about how I must be out to molest his kids and I was going to hell for it and he was the one to send me there; he didn't really have the nerve to pull the trigger and eventually wore himself out talking. Another time a couple of Christians were in the gay bar trying to ask me if I had accepted Jesus into my life: seemed like they were on some kind of misguided missionary effort, but were friendly enough and nobody gave them too hard a time; I accepted their offer of a ride home, and ended up unconscious on the railroad tracks.



Lies. Christians are agents of peace. After all, they follow the Prince of Peace (TM) dont they?


Those couldnt have been Christians. Christians arent violent. They must have been Muslims:p

I've been thinking lately. If I can be Catholic and have a Lutheran as a best friend and if Christians can still become popular on NSG like Zilam for example then is it possible for there to be a Christian who will treat a member of a rival religion like paganism, shamanism, or animism as they would anybody else even if the Christian was fully aware of the other person's religion? If you are a Christian would you treat such a person as you would anybody else?

I fully believe in acceptance, and equality.

That being said, I would treat my brother, and friend different than I would some guy on the street. I have had friends that were Wiccan before, and no issue about the topic was made, we both understood each others standpoints.

On the other hand, there is a solidarity that should bring two Christians together, an eternal bond that surpasses mortal understanding, it is the similarity of sharing the same life goals, and the same motivation fro everything we do.

Treat them the same? No, not really, it would be equivalent to treating a loved family member the same as a classmate, to make a comparison.

Unequal? No, not really, the condition of the relationships is decidedly different, there is a Christian bond that is otherwise not present, and that is a large factor, for example someone with whom I share a similar taste in vid games has something in common with me that other people might not, faith in Christ works the same way, but, imaginably to a much greater magnitude.

oooh, two derogatory and broad generalizing statements about two different groups.
You should make sure to complain to Clare X Brown too, since the 'good black people' bit is from her blog. As for the second, well if you want to just pretend that the Westboro Baptist Church don't exist then that's your problem. The rest or reality will get along just fine whether you acknowledge it or not.
It is obviously to me that the entire concept is lost on you; the self-appointed arbiter of what is good, bad acceptable and objectionable and to what groups these generalized behaviors belong.

The concept that there can be bigotry against christians? Not at all, I'm well aware of it. It's just not that widespread here. Certainly not as much as you seem to think it is.

Lies. Christians are agents of peace. After all, they follow the Prince of Peace (TM) dont they?


Those couldnt have been Christians. Christians arent violent. They must have been Muslims:p

Other than you last sentence actually... yes.

The definition of a "Christian" is one who follows the message of Christ, which is notably not violent.

I can call myself anything I want to, and my own belief that it is true does not make it more or less accurate.

If I think, and proclaim that I am a giraffe, am I? Probably not, so too, would these people not be Christians.

As people, I would treat them equally...I would, however, make it a point that I am not, nor will I ever be, part of their religion, and trust them to keep their religion and our relationship separate.

Then you are unaware of what, or who a Christian is.

Christ is every aspect of a Christians life, seperation is not possible.

When I talk to my friends about the ideas, and beliefs that we have, they don't get down on me for 'forcing my religion' on them, they are effectively doing the same thing, we share our beliefs out of care, many athiests would care, for example, that others accept the 'logic' that is so obvious to them, while Christians care about the eternal destination of the soul, as they see it.

Other than you last sentence actually... yes.

The definition of a "Christian" is one who follows the message of Christ, which is notably not violent.

I can call myself anything I want to, and my own belief that it is true does not make it more or less accurate.

If I think, and proclaim that I am a giraffe, am I? Probably not, so too, would these people not be Christians.



Oh get a sense of humor. I know Christians arent inherantly violent. But there are scritpural passages that can very easily be used to endorse their violence.


You mean the Bible contradicts itself?!? Egads!


Do I think that if there was a Jesus he wanted us to kill gays and oppress women? No, but his predicessors and some of his proteges certainly did. Hence the scriptural support for violence.

Well, the 6th commandment does not actually forbid you to "kill"; technically it says thou shalt not "murder". Certain killings are actually a legal duty according to the old book. The view that killing me is a duty is only held by a small minority of Christians nowadays, but of course, it was universal among Christians not so terribly long ago.

Indeed.

The Greek translation equates to murder.

I don't want to kill you (I didn't read any prior interaction yet, so I'm not sure why I would want to, regardless I probably wouldn't anyhow.)

The definition of a "Christian" is one who follows the message of Christ, which is notably not violent.No. The definition of a "Christian" is one who believes that a) something like a Christ (==messiah) is necessary and exists/exited and that b) Yeshua is/was Christ.

Oh get a sense of humor. I know Christians arent inherantly violent. But there are scritpural passages that can very easily be used to endorse their violence.


You mean the Bible contradicts itself?!? Egads!


Do I think that if there was a Jesus he wanted us to kill gays and oppress women? No, but his predicessors and some of his proteges certainly did. Hence the scriptural support for violence.

Oh, indeed, the OT has quite a different message than the NT... not really contradiction, but whatever.

I got the joke you were making, but I figured I would capitalize on it in a serious way.

As for Jesus wanting to kill gays, let us remember the passage: "And as Jesus ascended into Heaven He loudly proclaimed: Go ye, into all the world, making believers of all men, pyres of all gays, and slaves of all women."

It's just that that verse is often overlooked.

Ok, so thats not a real verse, but hows that for sense of humour? :p

As for Jesus wanting to kill gays, let us remember the passage: "And as Jesus ascended into Heaven He loudly proclaimed: Go ye, into all the world, making believers of all men, pyres of all gays, and slaves of all women."

It's just that that verse is often overlooked.

Ok, so thats not a real verse, but hows that for sense of humour? :p

Nice.:D

http://content.ytmnd.com/content/5/0/b/50b11797aa3f830cd3cf8dc47832fabf.jpg

Oh, Jesus!

Nice.:D

Thank you, even I'm amazed at the amount of cleverness I happened to exude there, even if jsut for a moment, lol.

No. The definition of a "Christian" is one who believes that a) something like a Christ (==messiah) is necessary and exists/exited and that b) Yeshua is/was Christ.

Umm, read the Bible there pal.

http://content.ytmnd.com/content/5/0/b/50b11797aa3f830cd3cf8dc47832fabf.jpg

Oh, Jesus!

There aren't enough picture of Jesus laughing.

Except this one, I'm not going to look it up, laziness you see, that I saw in a Lutheran Church, Jesus has his head thrown back and he's cackling... it's almost frightening, and a little comic.

Great picture, that.

There aren't enough picture of Jesus laughing.

Except this one, I'm not going to look it up, laziness you see, that I saw in a Lutheran Church, Jesus has his head thrown back and he's cackling... it's almost frightening, and a little comic.

Great picture, that.

Add to that frightening effect, the fact that here, Jesus is dressed as Ronald McDonald. That dude´s scary!

Umm, read the Bible there pal.

Don't hold your breath on that one.

Add to that frightening effect, the fact that here, Jesus is dressed as Ronald McDonald. That dude´s scary!

lol, yeah.

Why is a happy Jesus so frightening anyway? It seems like a happy Jesus would be a good thing.

At this point, I am reminded of a D&D quote that I've heard: "When the DM smiles, it's already too late."

I think it might be something like that, lol.

Don't hold your breath on that one.

Umm... I wasn't actually, but thank you for the advice.

lol, yeah.

Why is a happy Jesus so frightening anyway? It seems like a happy Jesus would be a good thing.

At this point, I am reminded of a D&D quote that I've heard: "When the DM smiles, it's already too late."

I think it might be something like that, lol.

I guess that many people, Christian and otherwise, find the concept of a happy Jesus frightening because they have the Catholic idea that our saints and martyrs have to be sad people. I heard someone once utter the following on TV or in a book: You Catholics mourn your god. I think it was Salma Hayek in ¨Dogma¨...
I think that person was right. Because that preconception is so ingrained in many of us, a happy Jesus seems preposterous and grotesque. But I´m sure, and I´m not a particularly religious person, that Jesus would disagree with his being sad, or that we have to be sad. I think he was a happy individual, and willingly gave his life for his beliefs.

I guess that many people, Christian and otherwise, find the concept of a happy Jesus frightening because they have the Catholic idea that our saints and martyrs have to be sad people. I heard someone once utter the following on TV or in a book: You Catholics mourn your god. I think it was Salma Hayek in ¨Dogma¨...
I think that person was right. Because that preconception is so ingrained in many of us, a happy Jesus seems preposterous and grotesque. But I´m sure, and I´m not a particularly religious person, that Jesus would disagree with his being sad, or that we have to be sad. I think he was a happy individual, and willingly gave his life for his beliefs.

Never really thought about it that way.

I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm all for a happy Jesus, but seeing a pictoral relief of such a thing is just unseemly.

You know what movie rocked? Jesus Christ Superstar.

Never really thought about it that way.

I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm all for a happy Jesus, but seeing a pictoral relief of such a thing is just unseemly.

You know what movie rocked? Jesus Christ Superstar.

Yes, the pictoral seems horrid, to say the least. That´s because we´re not used to it.

You know, I´ve never watched ¨Jesus Christ Superstar¨. I´ve heard the CD, my stepdad has it. I heard the Broadway musical´s awsome too.

Yes, the pictoral seems horrid, to say the least. That´s because we´re not used to it.

You know, I´ve never watched ¨Jesus Christ Superstar¨. I´ve heard the CD, my stepdad has it. I heard the Broadway musical´s awsome too.

Nothing involving Andrew Loyd Weber is ever "awesome".

Don't hold your breath on that one.

Actually, you should consider reading the Bible anyway. It´s a good book. I read several parts of it when I was doing my Art History thesis. It´s very interesting when you put aside any religious conceptions.

Nothing involving Andrew Loyd Weber is ever "awesome".

If you say so.;) But I´ve never seen that either.

when you put aside any religious conceptions.

Lol... thats actually what I read it for... but to each their own I guess, lol.

Lol... thats actually what I read it for... but to each their own I guess, lol.

*shrugs*
Maybe you´re right.:)

*shrugs*
Maybe you´re right.:)

Wow, an admission most don't readily give... not that it's much of one, lol.

I recommend you watch JCS, it's religious/historical value is pretty much void... but it's stupid/comic value is through the roof.

I once saw a version where it was a post-modern neo-fascist time period, with really weird techno-strippers or something... hilarious and ridiculous.

Wow, an admission most don't readily give... not that it's much of one, lol.

I recommend you watch JCS, it's religious/historical value is pretty much void... but it's stupid/comic value is through the roof.

I once saw a version where it was a post-modern neo-fascist time period, with really weird techno-strippers or something... hilarious and ridiculous.

Ok. I´ll check online if I can watch it there. Oh hell no, will someone see me renting it at the video store. Tell you later how it went. On other news, just finished watching ¨Moon Child¨ with Gackt and Hyde and... I hated it!:sniper:

I recommend you watch JCS, it's religious/historical value is pretty much void... but it's stupid/comic value is through the roof.

I once saw a version where it


Especially the stupid part, because it is after all an Andrew Loyd Weber preformance.

In case you cant tell, I dont like that man.

Especially the stupid part, because it is after all an Andrew Loyd Weber preformance.

In case you cant tell, I dont like that man.

Well, after you explained you dislike of him, I guess I was able to pick up on the subtle linguistic tact you used in describing said dislike.

:p

Well, after you explained you dislike of him, I guess I was able to pick up on the subtle linguistic tact you used in describing said dislike.

:p


Anyone who creates such works of "art" as Cats or Starlight Express is deserving of nothing but scorn.


:p

Umm, read the Bible there pal.I have. A Christian is someone who believes that Yeshua is and did what the NT says about him. It's a cult about the person, the "message" has always been secondary.

Anyone who creates such works of "art" as Cats or Starlight Express is deserving of nothing but scorn.


:p

http://boingboing.net/images/lolcat_splash.jpg

I have. A Christian is someone who believes that Yeshua is and did what the NT says about him. It's a cult about the person, the "message" has always been secondary.

Actually, the message is focal to belief in Christ.

I cannot accept that you have read a shred of the NT if you maintain that general belief in vague figures is actually more strongly encouraged than belief in Jesus and His ideals, and the practice of those ideals.

You have lent yourself absolutely no theological credibility.

http://boingboing.net/images/lolcat_splash.jpg

:D

Actually, you should consider reading the Bible anyway. It´s a good book. I read several parts of it when I was doing my Art History thesis. It´s very interesting when you put aside any religious conceptions.

I meant for UB. I read the Bible all the time as I am a Christian.

I meant for UB. I read the Bible all the time as I am a Christian.

I´m suggesting you to read it without taking into consideration the Christian elements of it. Read it in an analytical fashion. And before anything, let me stress that I´m not attacking yours or anyone else´s belief system. I just recognize a great literary value to the Bible. Without it, for example, I would´ve never been able to understand Medieval art or the period´s ideas.

I´m suggesting you to read it without taking into consideration the Christian elements of it. Read it in an analytical fashion. And before anything, let me stress that I´m not attacking yours or anyone else´s belief system. I just recognize a great literary value to the Bible. Without it, for example, I would´ve never been able to understand Medieval art or the period´s ideas.

A good idea. The Bible has a lot of secular literary value... as well, of course, to many, religious value.

Actually, the message is focal to belief in Christ.Not at all. The focus point of Christianity is the nature of Yeshua. It is his divinity or connection to the divine that makes people worship him. It is his death that according to Christianity is the sacrifice to unmake original sin and the Fall of Man, to restore Man to what he was created to be. This concept of salvation is central to Christianity and it dwells entirely on Yeshua being somehow divine. The "message" you refer to is only cheap decoration.

A good idea. The Bible has a lot of secular literary value... as well, of course, to many, religious value.

Exactly.

Not at all. The focus point of Christianity is the nature of Yeshua. It is his divinity or connection to the divine that makes people worship him. It is his death that according to Christianity is the sacrifice to unmake original sin and the Fall of Man, to restore Man to what he was created to be. This concept of salvation is central to Christianity and it dwells entirely on Yeshua being somehow divine. The "message" you refer to is only cheap decoration.

You may not have read the part where I denounced your credibility.

In that case, I state again, that you have no credibility on the matter due to the fact that you have little comprehension about what Christianity is really about.

The message of Christ is focal to who He was in His divinity.

Imagine your favourite painting. Now cut in half that image... is it the same painting? No, it is only half of it, in the same way do you cut out half of what Christianity is.

You may not have read the part where I denounced your credibility.

In that case, I state again, that you have no credibility on the matter due to the fact that you have little comprehension about what Christianity is really about.

The message of Christ is focal to who He was in His divinity.

Imagine your favourite painting. Now cut in half that image... is it the same painting? No, it is only half of it, in the same way do you cut out half of what Christianity is.
I have every comprehension what Christianity is about. And it is definitely not about what the bible says or what you think that the bible says. The church was not built on the bible.

I have every comprehension what Christianity is about. And it is definitely not about what the bible says or what you think that the bible says. The church was not built on the bible.

Ok.

:rolleyes:

And certainly the Church wasn't built on the Bible, the compilation didn't happen for about 300 yrs.

It was, however, built on the... wait for it... teachings of Jesus, which did include, of course, His deity, along with other values, and codes of behaviour.

In short... no, I don't really think you do know what Christianity is about.

Ok.

:rolleyes:

And certainly the Church wasn't built on the Bible, the compilation didn't happen for about 300 yrs.

It was, however, built on the... wait for it... teachings of Jesus, which did include, of course, His deity, along with other values, and codes of behaviour.

In short... no, I don't really think you do know what Christianity is about.

That´s ture. Before that, there was no canon Christians could go for. The Bible, as we know it today, started being compiled at the Nicea Council in 325 AD. Constantine called the formation of this council to stop with the conflicts in between the different Christian sects and to decide, among other things, the matter of the Divinity of Jesus and the devotion days.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

The definition of a "Christian" is one who follows the message of Christ, which is notably not violent.

Except for attacking a group of law-abiding traders with a whip? Hanging out with a motley colection of revolutionary Zealots and Sicarii? "I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword" (Matt 10:34)? "But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one." (Luke 22:36)? ;)

I have every comprehension what Christianity is about. And it is definitely not about what the bible says or what you think that the bible says. The church was not built on the bible.

No shit. The Church was built on its own greed, its desire for power, and on the backs of the pagan cultures is subjegated.


What I am about to say is coming from a non-Christian. Do not mistake the teachings of ANY church for the teachings of the Bible. That can be applied to any religion. Any religious institution has an alterior motive.

Except for attacking a group of law-abiding traders with a whip? Hanging out with a motley colection of revolutionary Zealots and Sicarii? "I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword" (Matt 10:34)? "But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one." (Luke 22:36)? ;)

Attacking traders with a whip? I must not recall that one.

"I come to bring..." =/= "Do violence in my name"

Jesus also told his disciples (In the garden of Gethsemane) not to use violence. And Jesus never Himself commands violence, and often commands peace (where possible).

I have every comprehension what Christianity is about. And it is definitely not about what the bible says or what you think that the bible says. The church was not built on the bible.

United Beleriand, may I ask you and please do not take offense, because I´m not trying to insult your beliefs or anything but, what´s your Christian denomination?
I ask because you sound a lot like my ex-mother-in-law. I mean, your views are very similar to hers and she is, as far as I know still, a Jehova´s Witness.

No shit. The Church was built on its own greed, its desire for power, and on the backs of the pagan cultures is subjegated.


What I am about to say is coming from a non-Christian. Do not mistake the teachings of ANY church for the teachings of the Bible. That can be applied to any religion. Any religious institution has an alterior motive.

I have to make a correction there... the Catholic Church did as you described.

My personal faith is exactly that, personal faith, just as my God is a personal God.

I have to make a correction there... the Catholic Church did as you described.

My personal faith is exactly that, personal faith, just as my God is a personal God.

Well, the Catholic and Orthodox churches.


The Protestants built it on the blood of catholics:p

Well, the Catholic and Orthodox churches.


The Protestants built it on the blood of catholics:p

ROFLMAO!

Em... I think I´m gonna retire from this argument before I get burned by Christians and non-Christians alike. Ciao!!

Attacking traders with a whip? I must not recall that one.

My bad, I was recalling John 2:13-16 and the translation seemed to imply that the traders were being chased out as well. I've just checked the Westcott-Hort and it seems that this isn't what the original Greek says.

Well, the Catholic and Orthodox churches.


The Protestants built it on the blood of catholics:p

Not just the blood of the Catholics! Luther would've just been another Huss without the Printing Press.

So that brings Protestant credit to both Blood and Ink. :p

My bad, I was recalling John 2:13-16 and the translation seemed to imply that the traders were being chased out as well. I've just checked the Westcott-Hort and it seems that this isn't what the original Greek says.

But John disagrees with the synoptic Gospels, which describe Jesus as "overturning tables" and in other ways driving out the moneylenders, but not with the use of actual violence against people.

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a53/GodOfWar102/1201405110427.jpg

Can Christians be extremely bigoted and/or ignorant to advanced sciences and other religions? Yes.

Can Muslims and Jews be just the same? Yes.

Can Atheists be just the same? Yes, though typically more fond of sciences.

Can ANY group of people have extremists who make up things to support a prejudice claim? YES.


For future reference, learn to properly phrase your questions when starting topics.

And for anyone who wants to fire the 'omg atheist!' gun, i'm not, i follow the Bahai'i faith.

But John disagrees with the synoptic Gospels, which describe Jesus as "overturning tables" and in other ways driving out the moneylenders, but not with the use of actual violence against people.

We must never lose sight that our Bible is a translation of a translation of a translation. In this process, idiomatic expressions may be altered or not used at all if they lack an equivalent in the languages they´re translated to. Perhaps the text of John, which was translated from the Hebrew into the Greek lost some of it´s meaning. And then, when you translate that text into Latin and then into other languages, it even loses more. Take, for example, the ethimology of the word ¨saitan¨ which in Aramaic meant obstacle. Take a good look at it and you´ll see that in translating it, because there was no equivalent in Greek, you get ¨Satan¨ in English and ¨Satnás¨ in Spanish.
What I´m meaning to say is that we may or may not know exactly what John tried to convey in his gospel about violence.

We must never lose sight that our Bible is a translation of a translation of a translation. In this process, idiomatic expressions may be altered or not used at all if they lack an equivalent in the languages they´re translated to. Perhaps the text of John, which was translated from the Hebrew into the Greek lost some of it´s meaning. And then, when you translate that text into Latin and then into other languages, it even loses more. Take, for example, the ethimology of the word ¨saitan¨ which in Aramaic meant obstacle. Take a good look at it and you´ll see that in translating it, because there was no equivalent in Greek, you get ¨Satan¨ in English and ¨Satnás¨ in Spanish.
What I´m meaning to say is that we may or may not know exactly what John tried to convey in his gospel about violence.

Right, I'm just saying that Jesus did not necessarily literally use a whip to drive out the moneylenders.

Right, I'm just saying that Jesus did not necessarily literally use a whip to drive out the moneylenders.

Oh, I know, Der Teutoniker, and I understand. I was just giving an example.;)

We must never lose sight that our Bible is a translation of a translation of a translation.

In many cases, this is true, but in some of the newer versions, they are going back, and comparing with the original languages, if something is uniquely idiomatic, they usually put a footnote, and explain the meaning.

Oh, I know, Der Teutoniker, and I understand. I was just giving an example.;)

Thats what I figured.

I thought you were leaving?
lol, I think we're the only ones left.

In many cases, this is true, but in some of the newer versions, they are going back, and comparing with the original languages, if something is uniquely idiomatic, they usually put a footnote, and explain the meaning.

Oh, yes. But most of what was written originally, unfortunately, is no longer available and therefore, lost to us. But yes, at least some scholars are having the decency of doing what you´re stating.

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a53/GodOfWar102/1200102011355.jpg

I'm here too. :)

Thats what I figured.

I thought you were leaving?
lol, I think we're the only ones left.

Oh, I was going to. But then I felt the need, or compulsion of pointing that little fact out.

LOL, maybe we´re the only 2 left that are making any sense...

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a53/GodOfWar102/1200102011355.jpg

I'm here too. :)

eww....

:p

Don't you have anything better to do than make everyone on NSG feel like shit? :confused:

Nope (http://www.roflcat.com/images/cats/270911970_db35fdd4ca.jpg).

Well, yes, but not at the immediate moment.

Maybe.




I'll get back to you on that.

It was, however, built on the... wait for it... teachings of Jesus, which did include, of course, His deity
Most Christians do believe that the deity of Jesus was part of his original teachings, but that is sufficiently unclear that you shouldn't be saying "of course" about it. I don't believe for a minute that that was his message at all. You have your own views on how the NT texts came to be: this business about the gospel of John being "translated from the Hebrew" is a new one on me, and I would be interested to know where you got it from; you should at least be aware that most who do not have a religious motive for believing in the basic faithfulness of the text regard "John" as a late composition with little relationship to what Jesus actually said.

Deifying Jesus is as destructive to the basis of morality as deifying the Emperor of Japan or any other human. It undercuts the ethical message I believe he was trying to teach. It makes all the difference in the world whether you think "Jesus said these things because they are right" or "These things are right because Jesus said them": if the basis of morality is "Do what God tells you" then you are open to being talked into anything.