It is just as ignorant to bash people of other races as it is to bash someone else's religion, or to just single out misguided people by their religion.
There are misguided Christians, Yes, this does not mean ALL christians are this way. Stop being so ignorant and saying things like "Why do Christians kill little brown people" or "Christians do, blah blah blah, because God told them so." Doesn't that ust sound Childish?
If you have a problem with Christianity, or Christians, I would like if you would be mature about it and pose a question to me, either in this thread or the Aeropagus thread, if your just going to be a bigot, then be a bigot in to yourself, we're all stocked up on Ignorant here.
"I am a Christian, in the only sense in which he wished anyone to be: sincerely attached to his doctrines in preference to all others, ascribing to himself every human excellence, and believing he never claimed any other." -Thomas Jefferson
You really have a great point. I think that being ignorant about someone's religion is precisely the same thing as being ignorant towards someone's race. Both religion and race are a sort of way of life for people, and they need to be respected by everyone.
"We can do no great things, only small things with great love." -Mother Theresa
Until I see some major effort by what is deemed to be the "Christian majority" to counteract the "misguided Christians" I'm going to judge based on my own experiences. Furthermore how is it ignorant for me to judge Christianity when I’m basing most of my opinions off the very source of the school of thought and by the actions of the people who follow that school of thought? The "those aren't real Christians" statement is simply a no true Scotsman statement.
To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. -Teddy Roosevelt
Korith, it may be ignorant to "bash" Christians, but it is intelligent to criticize them. If an institution cannot be criticized, then it is too weak to withstand any valid beliefs it may otherwise hold.
For instance, if one says "Christians should begin to act more Christ-like and inch away from the masks of self-glorification they preach by," they are criticizing Christianity, respectfully. The dilemma herein lies in the fact that numerous Christians - though not all - have deliberately alienated themselves both emotionally and spiritually from society while they "bash" others for lifestyle choices, sexual affiliation, beliefs, etc.
Thus, you are asking society - including those whose lives have been beleaguered by fundamentalists - to respect (or "not bash" if you please) Christianity when those very godly Christians force more people away from the religion than they could have otherwise changed positively?
I have lost virtually all respect for Christianity and such a defecated, spiritual institution has twisted into a self-profiting business. God has become a market of itself and Christians everywhere are screaming Christ's name at the first mention of profit. The Ten Commandments no longer apply to most Christians because hey, they can always repent, right? And Christians can judge, as we know they do; I am not generalizing. Priests, pastors, and entire congregations rally and spend thousands of dollars to protest homosexuality when they're not permitted to judge in the first place. Is that not God's job?
As far as I am concerned, these Christians need a firm kick in the áss or the "bashing" will continue. Essentially, Christians are just now encountering the problems they've managed to create over a series of hundreds of shady years.
We can only ask one question: What Would Jesus Do?
"We know how cruel the truth often is, and we wonder whether delusion is not more consoling"
quote:Originally posted by bauhaus: Stop the Gay bashing, stop showing up at my front door trying to convert me, then bash my non belifs. Stop the pro choice bashing, stop my basic rights bashing, stop the women bashing.
People can Bash whatever they ****ing want! ****ing *****!
hey korith man wat is this stuff about man? everyone is saying one thing i dont undresatnd im a christian very strong in my faith. are you saying were bad people and no baubaus i have a very dear person to my heart who is gay and i dont discriminate them. as i said your all talking about bashing each other the topic as gotton lost is there no cristians in te rooom!!!!!!!!!
Stop the Gay bashing, stop showing up at my front door trying to convert me, then bash my non belifs. Stop the pro choice bashing, stop my basic rights bashing, stop the women bashing.
Korith, we don't bash all christians. Just the ones whom deserve it. So i will follow onto jazzey's idea so.. bashbashbashbashbashbashbashbashbashbashbashbecauseyoudidntpayattentiontomygoodpostbashbash bashbashbashkorithyouwhinerbashbashbashbashbashabashbecauseiamextremelyboredbashbashbashbashbashbashbashbashbashbashbashbashbashbashbashbashbashbashbashbashbashbashbashbashbashbashbashbashbashbashbashbash[bashbashbashbashbashbashbashbashbashbashbashbashbashbashbashbashbashbashbashbashbashbashbashbashbashbashbashbashbashbashbashbashyahaaww.
quote:Originally posted by bella123: Christians, particularly the fundamentalist types, are constantly claiming they are under attack. There are two questions involved, are they really under attack? and do they deserve to be under attack? To the first we have to determine what is meant by attack. Certainly we can hold the present administration is on the offensive against them when one of the highest appointed officials "preaches" it is time for them to give up a central tenet of their faith which Dr. Elders characterizes as a "love affair with the fetus." That is no different than referencing Dr. Elders' love affair with murdering the innocent. Inflammatory words are not needed. It is not only the administration. The Keyries Joel community lost it special school district and the reaction of the media was quite against the finding. When there is a protest against the opening of a MacDonald's in a Hassidic neighborhood because of some primitive superstition about milk and meat in the same dish the media gives it sympathetic coverage. They can smell cheeseburgers a mile away. It does not appear to be noticed that it is an objection from religious fundamentalists when they are Jewish funadamentalists. The media and the administration feel quite free to judge Christian religions. More generally they feel free to judge any religion they consider to be fundamentalist. This includes fundamentalist Moslems. Strangely this never includes the most primitive and fundamentalist religion of them all, Judaism. Be that as it may it is clear there is a public willingness to condemn certain forms of public expression of religion and not others. The next question is, do they deserve it? On one hand one can say, yes, but in so doing one has granted some person, group or agency the power to judge what a group deserves. But if one says no then there is a question of letting any religious belief transformed into action pass as acceptable.
Okey, first of all. This is a bunch of rambling. "What is an attack?" Don't give me that. The word attack itself can be seen as reletive and subjective, however I believe it is easy to tell when a person is purposely offencive and making an attempt to "discredit" someone else's belife. This is an attack, plan and simple. After this, it next question shouldn't be "is [it] deservent of an attack" but rather, "is it right to attack someone else's believe in the first place?" The answer is clearly, NO.
Now it can be argued that Christians attack other people's believes all the time. However I think this is over generalizing. Christians believe that there is only 1 way to heaven, and that is through Christ Jesus. This belief rules out any other possiblities. So people often see that as, "Christians think they are the only ones right." Well, yes and no. Yes we think we are right, why would someone believe in something if they thought it was wrong? So we by default have to discard any other possibilites. However, Christians generally have a, "Let them believe what they want to, we'll just tell them what we think" policy. Granted there are some misguided people, who under the banner of God, make it a point to make fools of themselves. This is by no means the collective fault of ALL Christianity, no more that the KKK is a collective fault if ALL white people.
quote:And there is the point, it is not the belief but the action arising from the belief. Believe what you want but do not put the belief into action. But as all religious thinkers have held in one form or another, belief without action is meaningless. And thus religion confronts today's world. The objections to fundamentalists are not in their beliefs but in their actions. They oppose abortion and perhaps even gambling, sex and dancing for all we know. That they would "dare" to take political actions based upon those beliefs is what singles them out for attack.
Actions, that stem from belief, cannot be seen as "wrong" without also critizing the believes as well. Your fooling only yourself if you think so. This seems like a feeble attempt to justify critizing someone's belief in an indirect way by changing the target from something perhaps "theological" to something more real, or phyicial.
quote: Yet we do not see this on the other side. Like it or not the American Civil Liberties Union has the purpose of removing the Christian heritage from the public life of the US. That may or may not be a good cause and is certainly in consonance with the thinking of Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine and others who were around when this country started. So if one religious viewpoint "deserves" it do not they all? And if not, why not? Is there some place in the nation an ultimate arbiter of acceptable actions for a religion? In the public mind it has been adjudged that Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson may not become rich but Billy Graham can live like a king. [Not only live like a king but pass on his kingdom to his son according to a news report of 12 December 1995. Heritable holiness is a bit of a new idea in Christianity.] The only apparent difference is Dr. Graham does not promote actions based upon belief. And therefore he is not in conflict with anyone's political agenda. Faith with and without actions is an interesting question to fundamentalists in that they hold being born again merits salvation as an act of faith but then do go on to promote actions as a demonstration of that faith. This perceived duality of between belief and actions springs from the bit of a skeptical, perhaps even hypocritical point of view. Clearly I know I can believe something and not act upon it but how do I know you can? Or rather if you do not act upon your professes beliefs how do I or does anyone know you really believe what you say? As we can not get into each other's heads do we take each other on faith or actions? That is not a question I intend to answer here. Suffice to say we can believe Billy Graham because he is harmless and distrust the fundamentalists because they prove they act as they believe. There is and continues to be a different standard and the term fundamentalists has become no better than a perjorative. Consider "moslem fundamentalists" when referring to the Middle East when the enlightened of Middle Eastern Muslims makes an Orthodox Jew look like a superstitious primitive. It is time to talk of fundamentalist liberals in order to put the perjoratives back where they belong. These are liberals who hold with the core beliefs without regard to any fact or sense of reality that may inflict itself upon their benighted intellects. A fundamentalist liberal believes they have the core doctrine of moral superiority over everyone else and brooks no question of their beliefs. Anyone who disagrees is immoral to say the least; to say the very worst, illiberal. We have here a competition of religions where the religion of government has supplanted personal religion and the former will brook no interference from the latter save for that pesky 1st Amendment. The reason we are seeing the increasingly more serious attack from the government and from the establishment is simply that we are in the midst of a Jihad, a holy war. In a larger sense, it is establishment consensus against independent thought and action by those not in the establishement. The human mind works to choose sides and create us against them scenarios. The political us against the political them it the easiest to establish. That it is fundamentalist liberals against fundamentalist Christians is perhaps the most amusing aspect of all.
Well, it seems anyone who believes in something and acts as they believe can be called a "fundamentialist". This is also an unfair and broad characterization. Such as it is, this entire "atrical" is brutaly subjective. Someone who has conviction for what they believe, be it "right" or "wrong" --both of which the general question asked is, "does it coincide with my own "opinion/belief" which raises the argument of who is the real "Fundamentialist"-- should be allowed to sustain those believes, should they choose to act on them or not, without the all out persecution of people with differing beliefs.
quote:Now, i will be amused if you can respond in a collective manner while keeping the facts. Oh, and i don't mean this for christians as a whole...but you know who you are.
Your done.
"I am a Christian, in the only sense in which he wished anyone to be: sincerely attached to his doctrines in preference to all others, ascribing to himself every human excellence, and believing he never claimed any other." -Thomas Jefferson
Christians, particularly the fundamentalist types, are constantly claiming they are under attack. There are two questions involved, are they really under attack? and do they deserve to be under attack? To the first we have to determine what is meant by attack. Certainly we can hold the present administration is on the offensive against them when one of the highest appointed officials "preaches" it is time for them to give up a central tenet of their faith which Dr. Elders characterizes as a "love affair with the fetus." That is no different than referencing Dr. Elders' love affair with murdering the innocent. Inflammatory words are not needed. It is not only the administration. The Keyries Joel community lost it special school district and the reaction of the media was quite against the finding. When there is a protest against the opening of a MacDonald's in a Hassidic neighborhood because of some primitive superstition about milk and meat in the same dish the media gives it sympathetic coverage. They can smell cheeseburgers a mile away. It does not appear to be noticed that it is an objection from religious fundamentalists when they are Jewish funadamentalists. The media and the administration feel quite free to judge Christian religions. More generally they feel free to judge any religion they consider to be fundamentalist. This includes fundamentalist Moslems. Strangely this never includes the most primitive and fundamentalist religion of them all, Judaism. Be that as it may it is clear there is a public willingness to condemn certain forms of public expression of religion and not others. The next question is, do they deserve it? On one hand one can say, yes, but in so doing one has granted some person, group or agency the power to judge what a group deserves. But if one says no then there is a question of letting any religious belief transformed into action pass as acceptable. And there is the point, it is not the belief but the action arising from the belief. Believe what you want but do not put the belief into action. But as all religious thinkers have held in one form or another, belief without action is meaningless. And thus religion confronts today's world. The objections to fundamentalists are not in their beliefs but in their actions. They oppose abortion and perhaps even gambling, sex and dancing for all we know. That they would "dare" to take political actions based upon those beliefs is what singles them out for attack. Yet we do not see this on the other side. Like it or not the American Civil Liberties Union has the purpose of removing the Christian heritage from the public life of the US. That may or may not be a good cause and is certainly in consonance with the thinking of Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine and others who were around when this country started. So if one religious viewpoint "deserves" it do not they all? And if not, why not? Is there some place in the nation an ultimate arbiter of acceptable actions for a religion? In the public mind it has been adjudged that Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson may not become rich but Billy Graham can live like a king. [Not only live like a king but pass on his kingdom to his son according to a news report of 12 December 1995. Heritable holiness is a bit of a new idea in Christianity.] The only apparent difference is Dr. Graham does not promote actions based upon belief. And therefore he is not in conflict with anyone's political agenda. Faith with and without actions is an interesting question to fundamentalists in that they hold being born again merits salvation as an act of faith but then do go on to promote actions as a demonstration of that faith. This perceived duality of between belief and actions springs from the bit of a skeptical, perhaps even hypocritical point of view. Clearly I know I can believe something and not act upon it but how do I know you can? Or rather if you do not act upon your professes beliefs how do I or does anyone know you really believe what you say? As we can not get into each other's heads do we take each other on faith or actions? That is not a question I intend to answer here. Suffice to say we can believe Billy Graham because he is harmless and distrust the fundamentalists because they prove they act as they believe. There is and continues to be a different standard and the term fundamentalists has become no better than a perjorative. Consider "moslem fundamentalists" when referring to the Middle East when the enlightened of Middle Eastern Muslims makes an Orthodox Jew look like a superstitious primitive. It is time to talk of fundamentalist liberals in order to put the perjoratives back where they belong. These are liberals who hold with the core beliefs without regard to any fact or sense of reality that may inflict itself upon their benighted intellects. A fundamentalist liberal believes they have the core doctrine of moral superiority over everyone else and brooks no question of their beliefs. Anyone who disagrees is immoral to say the least; to say the very worst, illiberal. We have here a competition of religions where the religion of government has supplanted personal religion and the former will brook no interference from the latter save for that pesky 1st Amendment. The reason we are seeing the increasingly more serious attack from the government and from the establishment is simply that we are in the midst of a Jihad, a holy war. In a larger sense, it is establishment consensus against independent thought and action by those not in the establishement. The human mind works to choose sides and create us against them scenarios. The political us against the political them it the easiest to establish. That it is fundamentalist liberals against fundamentalist Christians is perhaps the most amusing aspect of all.
Now, i will be amused if you can respond in a collective manner while keeping the facts. Oh, and i don't mean this for christians as a whole...but you know who you are.
quote:Originally posted by Korith: It is just as ignorant to bash people of other races as it is to bash someone else's religion, or to just single out misguided people by their religion.
There are misguided Christians, Yes, this does not mean ALL christians are this way. Stop being so ignorant and saying things like "Why do Christians kill little brown people" or "Christians do, blah blah blah, because God told them so." Doesn't that ust sound Childish?
If you have a problem with Christianity, or Christians, I would like if you would be mature about it and pose a question to me, either in this thread or the Aeropagus thread, if your just going to be a bigot, then be a bigot in to yourself, we're all stocked up on Ignorant here.
I agree with the replies to this post, that was a very well-written statement. The thing is on this board, the issues here are all relgiously-based. Gay marriage, racism, etc. It brings out the most extreme in people's opinions -- both pro-Christian and anti-Christians. It does not paint Christians nor does it paint others in a very attractive light.
To get real opinions, you would have to have a conversation, not on a board. People are consatntly trying to use the anonymousness of the 'net to act as if they're oh-so-opinionated.
However, it does make for some fun discussions. I feel bad for you, Korith, because intelligent and articulate Christians are hard to find on this board.
Topics 
