Why do people hate on Christians so much?

[AbAbber2k]

Originally posted by: Babbles

Originally posted by: Jeff7

I will say this - Buddhism isn't like the rest. "Question everything" is one thing that they say. Or right from The Buddha: ?In properly organized groups no faith is required; what is required is simply a little trust and even that only for a little while, for the sooner a man begins to verify all he hears the better it is for him? Accept nothing you cannot verify for yourself.?

I've been a self-avowed Buddhist for about six years now and Shakyamuni Buddha did say, "Be a lamp unto yourself" which is basically the 'question everything' mentality. However I think one has to be careful to use the word "faith" because things are translated though many, many years, to be caught up in semantics can be, at times, silly. Such as in the above quote, what is the difference between "faith" and having "trust"? It's all the same, it just depends on what words you choose to hear. I am not so sure Shakyamuni Buddha said that, but I'll take your word for it.

Originally posted by: Jeff7
I don't think Buddhism has been responsible for any kind of religious wars or outright oppression. But then, my history knowledge is somewhat less than thorough.

As pro-Buddhist as I like to be, unfortunately it too - as with everything in the world - has had it's dark sides. You have the more common and cliche modern examples of Buddhist monks blessing Kamikaze pilots during World War II but it does go back further than that. One of the more lesser known things is how the Tibetan Buddhist wiped out the local shamanistic religions in Tibet. Apparently the Tibetan Buddhists were pretty fond of torturing and imprisoning people up until the Chinese kicked them out. The Tibetan monks stripped everybody of their personal land and if you weren't a monk, you were essentially a serf.
Or at least that is some of the stuff I have come across, who knows maybe I too am wrong. Don't get me wrong, that is not to say Tibetan Buddhist are all bad - reading a book now by H.H. the Dali Lama - but that is just to say not everything was peachy keen in the past either.

Originally posted by: Jeff7
He sounds right-on to me. The very basis of many religions actively discourages thinking. Look at Genesis - right away, God tells humans that knowledge is a bad thing. And don't question the teachings. That's blasphemy and you'll go to Hell for it. Don't think, just accept it on blind faith, and you'll go to Heaven.
An organized religion that asks its followers to kindly refrain from thinking and just do what they're told.....it sounds quite dangerous to me.

I don't think you could be more wrong.

I think most religions, in the grand scheme of thigns, encourage thinking. Hell, just take a look at how many univerisities that were started by the Catholic church. Many great scientists in the world were men and women of religions. The Vatican built one of the oldest observatories in the world. Throughout history Buddhist and Hindus have been know to be great logicians, then you have the entire mathematical and science advancements done by the Muslims back in the day. Yes, suppression of thought will be found in religion, however it can be found anywhere and is not clearly a trait only of religious groups.
Personaly I think you are using your point of view as some sort of excuse to attack religion when the reality is I don't think your opinion has much merit.

Originally posted by: Jeff7
Calling religion "fairy tales" isn't near to being insulting. I think that showed restraint compared to what some of us really think about organized religion.

Yes it is and it is a shame that you don't see it. I don't consider myself a practicing Christian in any way, however I don't go around and belittle other people's beliefs. I think that is just a wrong thing to do regardless of one's personal ideology.

Originally posted by: AbAbber2k

Originally posted by: Davegod75

Originally posted by: TheShiz
I don't hate them, its just blind acceptance of fairy tales tends to project lack of intelligence, so I just avoid them pretty much.

of course there are intelligent religious people, and stupid non religious people.

"Unfortunately, for reasons justifiable and unjustifiable, individuals hostile to belief in God often malign faith in Him as the lure of emotion clinging to an idea with the mind disengaged."

great quote from Ravi Z.

Why do people who are hostile towards God, believe that because someone has faith that they must be intellectually lacking?

Because being able to apply the Scientific Method is the mark of at least some level of intelligence?

Are you a scientist and do you apply this so called "scientific method" to your everyday life and additionally judge other people based on it?

I'll tell you this. I consider myself a scientist; been doing analytical/research chemistry for over seven years now. Most of the people I have worked with at various laboratories have been people with one religious belief or another.
I find it interesting in that most scientists have no problem reconciling their personal religion along with their professional scientific practices. It is the arm-chair internet "scientists" (and I use that term loosely) that seem to have a mis-understood opinion when it comes to science and religion. What many of you people seem to think how science and religion interact is hardly how what we the scientist actually seem to think.

"You people..." :laugh:

My comment was tongue in cheek. The existance of god CANNOT be proven using the scientific method. EVER. Even if the world and christianity last a billion years, no one will ever prove/disprove the existance of god.

 

[Vic]

Prejudice, bigotry, and scapegoatism are always popular, and hating Christians is one of the last acceptable forms of those left to Americans nowadays. The answer is that simple. How else do you think more than 1 billion people can be lumped into a single stereotype?

Originally posted by: kogase
People, especially Americans, hate anyone who tries to tell them what to do, or tells them they know what's best for them. Christians are very loud on this front, whether they are doing door-to-door proselytising or wide-scale political activism. Of course many people who say they hate Christians are making major generalizations. Episcopalians, for example, are very different from Southern Baptists.

This is hilarious. Telling other people what to do and how to live is America's favorite pasttime. When we're not telling people what to do, we're telling them what not to do.

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: Babbles
Are you a scientist

Well I have a science degree, but I'm not employed in research. I think I qualify.

and do you apply this so called "scientific method" to your everyday life and additionally judge other people based on it?

I would like to think my actions are based on logic, yes.

I'll tell you this. I consider myself a scientist; been doing analytical/research chemistry for over seven years now. Most of the people I have worked with at various laboratories have been people with one religious belief or another.
I find it interesting in that most scientists have no problem reconciling their personal religion along with their professional scientific practices.

In my experience most scientists who identify with a certain religeous group do not really _believe_ in the doctrine. They generally go along to church for social reasons and because that's what their parents did, and what they've always done.

Admittedly some really do believe, bu I think those people are in denial. You _cannot_ be a scientist and believe in the bible for example - there are too many direct contradictions.

 

[Sphexi]

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt

Originally posted by: FelixDeKat

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt

Originally posted by: CStan

So what's YOUR basis on hating Christians? I really want some insight on this. Is it it's views on sex or gays? Church scandals (like priests and alter boys)? Its "track record" (Mostly from the Roman Catholic Church: Crusades, abuse of power in the middle ages, greed and corruption by some officials)?

In order:

1) A track record of murder, greed, theft, corruption, attempting to destroy science and scientists, selling fear, ad infinitum ad nauseum.
2) Refusal to accept the facts that science has now disproved their beliefs on the origin of the earth and of mankind.
3) Sex scandals
4) Inability to explain how god allowed the sex scandals to happen if he's really up there watching.
5) The whole concept of God as a vindictive, arrogant bastard who will watch every move you make and consign his worshippers to an eternity of torment for eating fish on Friday or using a condom just because he loves them so much. Seriously, how do you wrap your mind around that?

:roll:

Hate is a two way street GagHalfrunt. Stop the hate and the ignorance. And smile, because God loves you.

The ignorance? ROFL, see, that's the part that makes people with brains hate (or at least scorn) religious freaks. Anyone that doesn't believe the same fairy tales as you must be ignorant. I was raised a catholic and I can guarantee that I know far more about the real workings of the church than you do.

Do you dispute that Christianity has a long history of violence and murder directed towards those who disagree with the Church?

Do you dispute that the Catholic Church has been practicing systemic pedophilia for hundreds or thousands of years?

Do you dispute that Christianty has always violently opposed scientific thought and has murdered scientists for proving that the christian doctrine is WRONG?

Do you dispute that the best way to spend the money collected for the poor and unfortunate would be on the poor and unfortunate and not on stainded glass, gold fixtures and out-of-court settlements?

Tell me in detail what I'm ignorant about. I'll be happy to provide you with all the gory details of those the church has murdered in God's name because he loves all mankind so much.

The bolded part is where I'm having a problem. Why would ANYBODY with a brain hate anybody else? You're implying that people "with a brain" are smarter, and somehow above petty things like religion, yet they're not above pure and simple hatred. You do realize that Christianity as a whole is based on principles that are against hatred, no matter who the person may be or what they may have done?

Obviously there are exceptions to the rule, and there are people out there who call themselves Christians, or Catholics, or Jews, or Muslims, or whatever, who simply do not follow the religion and instead choose to abuse the name of it to further their own twisted beliefs. But this happens everywhere, outside the religious world as well. I've seen plenty of non-religious people in the news committing crimes that simply make my stomach turn, and then blame it on something stupid like video games. But I don't see anybody here ranting about how they hate video games, because of their track record of intolerance, breeding violence and racism, etc. But the minute someone does something wrong, and the fact comes out that they went to church a few times when they were young, they're branded as a religious zealot, and all of the little emo haters come out of the woodwork to crow about how they were right, and we're all just going to rot in the ground when we die.

In a way, I certainly hope you are right, because it's not going to be a picnic in the afterlife if you're wrong.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: Babbles
Are you a scientist

Well I have a science degree, but I'm not employed in research. I think I qualify.

and do you apply this so called "scientific method" to your everyday life and additionally judge other people based on it?

I would like to think my actions are based on logic, yes.

I'll tell you this. I consider myself a scientist; been doing analytical/research chemistry for over seven years now. Most of the people I have worked with at various laboratories have been people with one religious belief or another.
I find it interesting in that most scientists have no problem reconciling their personal religion along with their professional scientific practices.

In my experience most scientists who identify with a certain religeous group do not really _believe_ in the doctrine. They generally go along to church for social reasons and because that's what their parents did, and what they've always done.

Admittedly some really do believe, bu I think those people are in denial. You _cannot_ be a scientist and believe in the bible for example - there are too many direct contradictions.

Okay, just for sh!ts and giggles, name one.

 

[Babbles]

Originally posted by: AbAbber2k
"You people..." :laugh:

My comment was tongue in cheek. The existance of god CANNOT be proven using the scientific method. EVER. Even if the world and christianity last a billion years, no one will ever prove/disprove the existance of god.

To attempt to do so what be rather pointless.

Even with a scientific method we are unable to prove/disprove much; just look at those that are trying to prove how gravity really works. Substitute the word 'god' with 'gravity' and you may understand a bit more.

Originally posted by: Atheus
I would like to think my actions are based on logic, yes.

Many actions are based on logic - pants first then shoes - but would you really consider all actions to be part of some sort of scientific method?

In my experience most scientists who identify with a certain religeous group do not really _believe_ in the doctrine. They generally go along to church for social reasons and because that's what their parents did, and what they've always done.

I think you are readily dismissing people's beliefs. What are you trying to say? On one hand are these people logical and live by the scientific method, but on the other hand they are just pawns and sheep that keep the status quo? Maybe they are, maybe not.
However if you are not employed in the scientific field (by your admission) then how much experience do you really have with scientists?

Admittedly some really do believe, bu I think those people are in denial. You _cannot_ be a scientist and believe in the bible for example - there are too many direct contradictions.

Well guess I need to send some memos out to some people who seem to to think they are able to believe in both. Especially the one that is leaving for seminary school because I suppose he doesn't understand that get can't believe in both. Also that P.E. (industrial engineer) that would pray before he would eat lunch - guess he didn't get the memo he isn't supposed to be doing that.

There is only a difference between science and religion because you want there to be some difference. Take the you* out of it, then it all works out to be the same.

*And by 'you' I don't mean you the person, but just the generic anybody looking from outside in.

 

[AbAbber2k]

Originally posted by: Vic
Okay, just for sh!ts and giggles, name one.

Oh for fvcks sake, just google "bible contradictions" or do a fvcking forum search. This is a topic that has been beaten to death over and over and over again by different people every fvcking day since the day the bible was written.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: AbAbber2k

Originally posted by: Vic
Okay, just for sh!ts and giggles, name one.

Oh for fvcks sake, just google "bible contradictions" or do a fvcking forum search. This is a topic that has been beaten to death over and over and over again by different people every fvcking day since the day the bible was written.

No... that's the Bible contradicting itself. He was referring to the Bible contradicting science. He posted, and I quote, "You _cannot_ be a scientist and believe in the bible for example - there are too many direct contradictions."

This is an understandable belief for those who have ZERO understanding of ancient literature. However, for those of us who do, we understand that it was all written in a type of code by people who had a different viewpoint of the world that we do today, and to interpret it literally from a modern worldview would be to entirely miss the point. As the simplest example I can think of off the top of my head (that is not Biblical, but which IMO demonstrates the point well), the reference to King Arthur pulling the sword from the stone was never meant to be taken literally, but meant that he had skills as a blacksmith, which in ancient times was cutting edge technology that would seem like magic to primitive peoples.

Get it?

 

[Mo0o]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: AbAbber2k

Originally posted by: Vic
Okay, just for sh!ts and giggles, name one.

Oh for fvcks sake, just google "bible contradictions" or do a fvcking forum search. This is a topic that has been beaten to death over and over and over again by different people every fvcking day since the day the bible was written.

No... that's the Bible contradicting itself. He was referring to the Bible contradicting science. He posted, and I quote, "You _cannot_ be a scientist and believe in the bible for example - there are too many direct contradictions."

This is an understandable belief for those who have ZERO understanding of ancient literature. However, for those of us who do, we understand that it was all written in a type of code, and to interpret it literally would be to entirely miss the point. As the simplest example I can think of off the top of my head (that is not Biblical, but which IMO demonstrates the point well), the reference to King Arthur pulling the sword from the stone was never meant to be taken literally, but meant that he had skills as a blacksmith.

Get it?

goodluck trying to convince all the fundies to not take the bible literally

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Mo0o
goodluck trying to convince all the fundies to not take the bible literally

Fundies make up only a relatively small faction of Christianity. Look a few posts up where I said, "How else do you think more than 1 billion people can be lumped into a single stereotype?"

The largest faction of Christianity -- by far -- is Catholicism, which embraces scientific theory like evolution and which developed the theory of the Big Bang -- Text.

 

[Mo0o]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Mo0o
goodluck trying to convince all the fundies to not take the bible literally

Fundies make up only a relatively small faction of Christianity. Look a few posts up where I said, "How else do you think more than 1 billion people can be lumped into a single stereotype?"

The largest faction of Christianity -- by far -- is Catholicism, which embraces scientific theory like evolution and which developed the theory of the Big Bang -- Text.

But Fundies make a lot of noise regarding politics and their views on the world. As far as Catholics go, didn't they try Galileo as a heretic for trying to defend heliocentrism?

 

[OS]

i have many good friends who are religious that i have known for many years and they have never once tried to impose their beliefs on me, despite my atheist/agnostic heathen ass.

of course i can certainly understand the nonreligious who get annoyed when fundies tell them you're a sinner, repent now, blah blah, etc.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Mo0o

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Mo0o
goodluck trying to convince all the fundies to not take the bible literally

Fundies make up only a relatively small faction of Christianity. Look a few posts up where I said, "How else do you think more than 1 billion people can be lumped into a single stereotype?"

The largest faction of Christianity -- by far -- is Catholicism, which embraces scientific theory like evolution and which developed the theory of the Big Bang -- Text.

But Fundies make a lot of noise regarding politics and their views on the world. As far as Catholics go, didn't they try Galileo as a heretic for trying to defend heliocentrism?

IMO, Fundies are like porn shops. They get a lot of attention because people give them a lot of attention.

As far as Galileo, that was (1) 400 years ago, and (2) the church might have let him off had he not forced the church to lose face.


There are many reasons not to like the Catholic church, but all of those are in fact political in nature, not theological. The sole purpose of the church when it was founded by Emperor Constantine was to consolidate and enforce the conformity of religious thought for the purpose of political power. As the church today no longer has anythling of the political power that it once had, it is only important that it not be allowed to regain that power.

 

[thepd7]

I've read the first two pages and I am confused by a couple of things:

What are these crimes that the Christians have committed (other than the crusades) that have killed millions?

Along with what someone else said, of all the priests in the US/World, what percentage have molested a child? Have the same percentage of Muslims been involved in a suicide bombing? If so, do muslims have a "history" of suicide bombing?

Someone said there is a history of child molestation for hundreds OR THOUSANDS of years. What is your proof that other than the last 20-30 years there has been any child molestation in the church?

Also, in the above you would be mainly referring to priests, which are Catholic, which is not = Christianity.

I am specifically talking to GagHalfrunt, who obviously has has some experience with the catholic church.


I would also like to point out the church hasn't murdered scientists in a long time. Since the Holocaust was closer than the last murdered scientist by the church should we only remember Germans by that?


Also, someone said Bush is a member of a "fundamentalist" Christian group. Which one, and how are you defining fundamentalist?

Originally posted by: Babbles
Hating on Christians, or religion in general, is seemingly the "in" thing to do on the internet, and specifically ATOT.

I do find it interesting that in many cases what people cite as reasons to hate on religion are things that they themselves are doing. In my short life I have met far more closed-minded people who bashed on religion than religious people who are closed minded. The little sub-culture that trashes religion sort of creates an un-attackable position because people can hate on religion and that is progressive. Yet if religious people talk back, then all of sudden they are impressing their views, closed-minded and so forth.
To each their own, I suppose.

This is a great post. Specifically the end of it. Its very true that people will push their opinions (there is no God, science proves it, your a moron for being a Christian, etc, etc) yet there are doing the same thing they say Christians do: telling Christians they are wrong and trying to change their beliefs.

As far as the sharing religion thing goes: Yes the Bible says to, and heres the thing:
If you had something amazing that really helped you and changed your life, why wouldn't you share it with someone? The caveat is, I don't agree with sharing Christ with people you don't know, or preaching on the street. If we use my example above and say it was something that could make lots of money, you wouldn't go on the street saying "I HAVE A SYSTEM THAT WILL MAKE LOTS OF MONEY," no one would believe you. You would tell your close friends who know you about it and let them decide whether or not to do it.

I went to a school with tons of different races and religions. I have friends who are Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, Jewish, Baha'i, and Christian. I have learned more about their beliefs and they know about my beliefs. One of my Jewish friends asked me if I thought she was going to hell and we talked about it for a few hours. I have told them about my relationship and about Jesus, not its up to them to decide and me to show them how my life has changed because of him.


cliffs: To GagHalfrunt: Prove a history of war (other than crusades)
Prove Christians have killed millions
Prove molestation has been going on for hundreds of years
Prove that catholics = all Christians

To Rainsford: Tell me what the "fundamentalist" group that the president is in and tell me what makes them fundamentalist.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: thepd7
cliffs: To GagHalfrunt: Prove a history of war (other than crusades)

All wars are political in nature, not religious.

Prove Christians have killed millions

While I understand that 2 wrongs never make a right, it is a fact that communism has killed more people in the last 100 years than Christianity has killed in the last 2,000.

Prove molestation has been going on for hundreds of years

Same as above, public school teachers have molested more children than Catholic priests have. In fact, a thread is posted here regarding a new molestation almost every week. Imagine if we blamed the public school system for those isolated instances of abuse the same way some people have chosen to blame the Catholic church.

Prove that catholics = all Christians

Obviously, this is false, in the same fashion that not all Christians are fundies. It is ridiculous in the extreme to lump more than 1 billion people into a single stereotype. One may as well be racist.

To Rainsford: Tell me what the "fundamentalist" group that the president is in and tell me what makes them fundamentalist.

While I strongly oppose President Bush and his administration (because of the war and its policy against civil rights), I see no reason to tell lies about him while doing so. The President is a United Methodist, a moderate sect known for its tolerant views, and not a fundie.
Ironically (relevant to this discussion), it is Bill Clinton and Al Gore who are Southern Baptists, while John Kerry is a Catholic. It never fails to amaze how reality is most often the opposite of perception.
It is true that the President does pander to the fundie vote, but he doesn't need to work very hard at that given the fact that the Democrat party has done virtually everything in its power to ostracize the fundies.

 

[HermDogg]

I posted this in the other enormous religion thread, but it seems appropriate:

On the reverse side, please do not make the argument either for or against by referring to "atrocities in the name of religion" or the "hey if it makes people happy, back off." Neither of these are good reasons to think one way or the other, they are irrelevant to the discussion of truth. The only way that it is relevant is the argument that a truly omnipotent and all-powerful God would not have allowed such atrocities to be committed in his name, and in this sense I would agree.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: HermDogg
I posted this in the other enormous religion thread, but it seems appropriate:

On the reverse side, please do not make the argument either for or against by referring to "atrocities in the name of religion" or the "hey if it makes people happy, back off." Neither of these are good reasons to think one way or the other, they are irrelevant to the discussion of truth. The only way that it is relevant is the argument that a truly omnipotent and all-powerful God would not have allowed such atrocities to be committed in his name, and in this sense I would agree.

I agree with your first part, but not the second (which I bolded). "Atrocity" is a human perspective. "His Name" is a human concept. The fact is, we do it to ourselves, and in our names, and seek divine justification to assuage our own guilt. This has nothing to do with God.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Vic
While I strongly oppose President Bush and his administration (because of the war and its policy against civil rights), I see no reason to tell lies about him while doing so. The President is a United Methodist, a moderate sect known for its tolerant views, and not a fundie.
Ironically (relevant to this discussion), it is Bill Clinton and Al Gore who are Southern Baptists, while John Kerry is a Catholic. It never fails to amaze how reality is most often the opposite of perception.
It is true that the President does pander to the fundie vote, but he doesn't need to work very hard at that given the fact that the Democrat party has done virtually everything in its power to ostracize the fundies.

Word is the Dub doesn't even attend church on Sundays. He only uses the Fundie BS to fool the Evangelicals into bel;ieving that he is on their side.

Back to the topic, even Christians hate on Fundie Christians. Almost all my friends are Christians or would answer they are Christians if asked and none of them would put up with the "God Warriors" Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and Anal..err Orel Roberts type of Fire and Brimstone BS'ers. I never get into any heated discussions about religion with them as the topic usually never comes up and if it does it's just an also mention.

 

[HermDogg]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: HermDogg
I posted this in the other enormous religion thread, but it seems appropriate:

On the reverse side, please do not make the argument either for or against by referring to "atrocities in the name of religion" or the "hey if it makes people happy, back off." Neither of these are good reasons to think one way or the other, they are irrelevant to the discussion of truth. The only way that it is relevant is the argument that a truly omnipotent and all-powerful God would not have allowed such atrocities to be committed in his name, and in this sense I would agree.

I agree with your first part, but not the second (which I bolded). "Atrocity" is a human perspective. "His Name" is a human concept. The fact is, we do it to ourselves, and in our names, and seek divine justification to assuage our own guilt. This has nothing to do with God.

The point I make is that if he were indeed all-powerful and all-good, he would not allow atrocities in his name. The human concept of "atrocity" is still grounded in the idea of evil. Even though it may merely be human justification, I would think that God wouldn't allow his name to be bandied about in such a fashion. The bible says smitings have happened for less.

 

[daniel49]

its the far left agenda tolerence for everything except christianity.
Its just sad to watch some of these people spew all the hate and bitterness out.
Most christian people I know would be the first ones to give you a hand when you need it, but some feel so threatened by it.
To deny that christians do things they shouldn't at times of course would be ridiculous.
they're just men and women too, and people sometimes do stupid and wrong things.
The church is filled with sinners, its not a place you come too because you have attained perfection. Its hopefully a place you learn to become more like Jesus.

Although I have met people who attended church all thier life and have never really met God. Church became a duty or a social function to them. During the middle ages The church was power and became corrupt as men who sought power more then God usurped authority. And this is always still a danger of that.

Many non believers feel threatened by christians becoming politically active.
But any person in any walk of life desires that thier family. community, country reflects the values that they believe in.
And a christian working towards that end is no different then an atheist working for the country to reflect his values.

I would say Christians in general believe very strongly in the seperation of church and state. But they just don't buy off on the way that the courts have expanded that to include everything.
ie...a nativity scene on city property
..... a hs valedictorian that can't mention God in her speech of whats helped her in life
.....we can't even say christmas vacation at school now its winter break, we can't have a christmas program its a winter program where we watch our kids sing now, and Lord help us if they sing a traditional religious holiday song.
..... and this nonsense goes on and on and on of traditions they have been in place for 200 years all of a sudden becoming church and state issues.

these are perversions of what seperation of church and state was meant to be.
And the wholesale casteration of traditions that have helped our country become what it is.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: daniel49
its the far left agenda tolerence for everything except christianity.
Its just sad to watch some of these people spew all the hate and bitterness out.
Most christian people I know would be the first ones to give you a hand when you need it, but some feel so threatened by it.
To deny that christians do things they shouldn't at times of course would be ridiculous.
they're just men and women too, and people sometimes do stupid and wrong things.
The church is filled with sinners, its not a place you come too because you have attained perfection. Its hopefully a place you learn to become more like Jesus.

Although I have met people who attended church all thier life and have never really met God. Church became a duty or a social function to them. During the middle ages The church was power and became corrupt as men who sought power more then God usurped authority. And this is always still a danger of that.

Many non believers feel threatened by christians becoming politically active.
But any person in any walk of life desires that thier family. community, country reflects the values that they believe in.
And a christian working towards that end is no different then an atheist working for the country to reflect his values.

I would say Christians in general believe very strongly in the seperation of church and state. But they just don't buy off on the way that the courts have expanded that to include everything.
ie...a nativity scene on city property
..... a hs valedictorian that can't mention God in her speech of whats helped her in life
.....we can't even say christmas vacation at school now its winter break, we can't have a christmas program its a winter program where we watch our kids sing now, and Lord help us if they sing a traditional religious holiday song.
..... and this nonsense goes on and on and on of traditions they have been in place for 200 years all of a sudden becoming church and state issues.

these are perversions of what seperation of church and state was meant to be.
And the wholesale casteration of traditions that have helped our country become what it is.

Yeah a place where you can speak your mind about religion and not worry about being tried as a Heretic.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: HermDogg

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: HermDogg
I posted this in the other enormous religion thread, but it seems appropriate:

On the reverse side, please do not make the argument either for or against by referring to "atrocities in the name of religion" or the "hey if it makes people happy, back off." Neither of these are good reasons to think one way or the other, they are irrelevant to the discussion of truth. The only way that it is relevant is the argument that a truly omnipotent and all-powerful God would not have allowed such atrocities to be committed in his name, and in this sense I would agree.

I agree with your first part, but not the second (which I bolded). "Atrocity" is a human perspective. "His Name" is a human concept. The fact is, we do it to ourselves, and in our names, and seek divine justification to assuage our own guilt. This has nothing to do with God.

The point I make is that if he were indeed all-powerful and all-good, he would not allow atrocities in his name. The human concept of "atrocity" is still grounded in the idea of evil. Even though it may merely be human justification, I would think that God wouldn't allow his name to be bandied about in such a fashion. The bible says smitings have happened for less.

I don't follow. An all-powerful God would -- by definition -- be both "good" and "evil" according to human perspective. Not just our narrow and selfish view of what we, from our limited perspective, judge to be good. So we have no way of knowing what he would and would not allow. Consider those smitings in the context that ancient peoples thought things like disease, accident, etc. as the consequences of evil acts (a widely-help belief to this day in fact, think of things like the "Kennedy curse," and the "curse of King Tut," etc.). In context with that thought and this discussion, might I suggest you read the entire book of Job and Ecclesiastes 3?

 

[HermDogg]

Originally posted by: daniel49

Many non believers feel threatened by christians becoming politically active.
But any person in any walk of life desires that thier family. community, country reflects the values that they believe in.
And a christian working towards that end is no different then an atheist working for the country to reflect his values.

I would say Christians in general believe very strongly in the seperation of church and state. But they just don't buy off on the way that the courts have expanded that to include everything.
ie...a nativity scene on city property
..... a hs valedictorian that can't mention God in her speech of whats helped her in life
.....we can't even say christmas vacation at school now its winter break, we can't have a christmas program its a winter program where we watch our kids sing now, and Lord help us if they sing a traditional religious holiday song.
..... and this nonsense goes on and on and on of traditions they have been in place for 200 years all of a sudden becoming church and state issues.

these are perversions of what seperation of church and state was meant to be.
And the wholesale casteration of traditions that have helped our country become what it is.

Many non-Christians are frightened by Christians becoming poltiically active because the Christians believe that everyone should not only tolerate them, but allow them to participate in religious ceremonies. When a Chrsitmas play is performed in a public school, it can be offensive, say to Jehovah's Witnesses. There may be non-Christians that go to that school. What's wrong with calling it "Holiday Break" or "Winter Break"? The damage would come if the non-Christian child either has to a) not participate or b) participate in something he doesn't believe in. How is that worse than your child not being able to sing about Jesus in school?

A similar argument can be made for nativity scenes. Why should your religion be the only one who's allowed to display their beliefs on the front lawn? Either you have symbols for every religion, or none.

And please name one tradition that has been "casterated" (sic) that helped our country become what it is.

 

[HermDogg]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: HermDogg

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: HermDogg
I posted this in the other enormous religion thread, but it seems appropriate:

On the reverse side, please do not make the argument either for or against by referring to "atrocities in the name of religion" or the "hey if it makes people happy, back off." Neither of these are good reasons to think one way or the other, they are irrelevant to the discussion of truth. The only way that it is relevant is the argument that a truly omnipotent and all-powerful God would not have allowed such atrocities to be committed in his name, and in this sense I would agree.

I agree with your first part, but not the second (which I bolded). "Atrocity" is a human perspective. "His Name" is a human concept. The fact is, we do it to ourselves, and in our names, and seek divine justification to assuage our own guilt. This has nothing to do with God.

The point I make is that if he were indeed all-powerful and all-good, he would not allow atrocities in his name. The human concept of "atrocity" is still grounded in the idea of evil. Even though it may merely be human justification, I would think that God wouldn't allow his name to be bandied about in such a fashion. The bible says smitings have happened for less.

I don't follow. An all-powerful God would -- by definition -- be both "good" and "evil" according to human perspective. Not just our narrow and selfish view of what we, from our limited perspective, judge to be good. So we have no way of knowing what he would and would not allow. Consider those smitings in the context that ancient peoples thought things like disease, accident, etc. as the consequences of evil acts (a widely-help belief to this day in fact, think of things like the "Kennedy curse," and the "curse of King Tut," etc.). In context with that thought and this discussion, might I suggest you read the entire book of Job and Ecclesiastes 3?

So God is not all-good? All-powerful does not mean that he is both good and evil, merely that he has the power to do what he wishes. He has set down rules, and punished for them accordingly. Yet these punishments aren't always doled out; it's selective. Surely God must have (at least in reference to humans) the same rules of Good and Evil that he expects humans to follow? Otherwise isn't it sort of pointless?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: HermDogg

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: HermDogg

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: HermDogg
I posted this in the other enormous religion thread, but it seems appropriate:

On the reverse side, please do not make the argument either for or against by referring to "atrocities in the name of religion" or the "hey if it makes people happy, back off." Neither of these are good reasons to think one way or the other, they are irrelevant to the discussion of truth. The only way that it is relevant is the argument that a truly omnipotent and all-powerful God would not have allowed such atrocities to be committed in his name, and in this sense I would agree.

I agree with your first part, but not the second (which I bolded). "Atrocity" is a human perspective. "His Name" is a human concept. The fact is, we do it to ourselves, and in our names, and seek divine justification to assuage our own guilt. This has nothing to do with God.

The point I make is that if he were indeed all-powerful and all-good, he would not allow atrocities in his name. The human concept of "atrocity" is still grounded in the idea of evil. Even though it may merely be human justification, I would think that God wouldn't allow his name to be bandied about in such a fashion. The bible says smitings have happened for less.

I don't follow. An all-powerful God would -- by definition -- be both "good" and "evil" according to human perspective. Not just our narrow and selfish view of what we, from our limited perspective, judge to be good. So we have no way of knowing what he would and would not allow. Consider those smitings in the context that ancient peoples thought things like disease, accident, etc. as the consequences of evil acts (a widely-help belief to this day in fact, think of things like the "Kennedy curse," and the "curse of King Tut," etc.). In context with that thought and this discussion, might I suggest you read the entire book of Job and Ecclesiastes 3?

So God is not all-good? All-powerful does not mean that he is both good and evil, merely that he has the power to do what he wishes. He has set down rules, and punished for them accordingly. Yet these punishments aren't always doled out; it's selective. Surely God must have (at least in reference to humans) the same rules of Good and Evil that he expects humans to follow? Otherwise isn't it sort of pointless?

If he is all-powerful, then he has established things as they are. Not how we would wish them to be.
As to your second point, allowing evil is not the same as committing evil. You are now entering into realm of the fallacy of theological fatalism. By the argument you are attempting to make, it would be pointless either way. After all, what point would there be in having punishments for rules that were not permitted to be broken?
At the same time, most of what humans consider to be evil centers around the concept of death. And yet, what is death to the divine perspective?