This Christian/Non-Christian Thread really ittitates me

[Perky]

Look. For the Record,

Many of you who bash "Christianity:" ad nauseum should at least have the courtesy to read the text, before you start opining on either the Historicity of Jesus or things of faith in general. Your opinions come off as pretty asinine and ignorant without some modicum of Biblical understanding.

Read the Book of Romans, read the book of Hebrews if you want to understand the Chosen People dichotomy.

Many many thing have been done in the name of Christianity from the Crusades through the televangelists which Christ reviles. Let there be no doubt, But to slam Christinity because of its bad actors is grossly unfair to those of us who believe in God.

James says that the only true test of one's faith is one actions. Faith with out action is dead. The wrong actions are obviously worse.

I am not got going to question Pat Robertson's faith, I have little doubt that he believes is CHrist and is therefore a brother in the Lord. I do have the right, indeed the responsibility as his brother to question his actions and his words. What I will not do is allow this uninformed disparagement of Christianity because of his actions to go unchallenged.

James also says judgement begins in the House of God. Jesus turned the religious establishment on its ear many, many time during hie earthly ministry. He was absoutley critical of its bad actors: The pharisees in particular. But he was also a good Jewish boy who undetsood his roots going back to Abraham. He never criticized the Faith. he criticized those who in the name of the faith were doing things that run counter to the Faith. Jesus never criticized non-Jews for their actions. And in that light, that is where Christians have the right to go after the fundies and the charletans. intolerance.

But to the point: If you are not a believer, do not come at us who are with an uninformed view of Biblical Chritianity based solely on the actions of the few. It is grossly unfair and insulting.

Look at the work of Bonhoeffer, look at the minisitry of MLK, If you want a modern example. Look at John Wimber and the work of the Vineyard or look at Jim Wallis and the work of Sojourners.

Until you are willing to focus on our good actors with the all the fervor you have for our bad actors, I for one would appreciate it tremendously if you sat down and shut up. You do not know what you are taling about.

[Bluebear]

1. " I for one would appreciate it tremendously if you sat down and shut up."

You know, when you post the board almost becomes a chapel. :thumbsup:

[RC]

4. Such a good Christian example this thread is, huh?

And people wonder why Christianity gets slammed.

[Bluebear]

5. "Your opinions come off as pretty asinine and ignorant"

:crazy:

Sign me up, sign me up.

[ultraist]

107. Ironic isn't it?

The OP is very judgmental, calling people asinine and ignorant, judges another self proclaimed Christian as not being a Christian, and then goes on to ask others, not to judge! :rofl:

To that I say: Practice what you preach!

[Perky]

31. I am supposed to roll over

when people criticize in general its absouutley proper to defend my faith against people needlessly and sometimes self righteously slamming it.

[SidDithers]

57. What ever happened to "Turn the other cheek" ?...

just wonderin'

Sid

[Perky]

91. That is certainly challenging

I don't know...

I mean I could ignore the criticism of people of faith I suppose...but myy sense is that to say nothing is to give the fundies the full floor and the lefties with the image that they reperesent the heart and soul of all CHristinity.


I am not willing to give that much place to Pat Robertson... Its my faith too.

[Perky]

92. That cerainly is a challengin

I don't know...

I mean I could ignore the criticism of people of faith I suppose...but myy sense is that to say nothing is to give the fundies the full floor and the lefties with the image that they reperesent the heart and soul of all CHristinity.


I am not willing to give that much place to Pat Robertson... Its my faith too.

[Dogmudgeon]

2. Your own ministry

Could it be that your own ministry is to encounter those who mock Jesus (in lieu of such bullies as Robertson, Bush, etc.) and help them get to the core of what is really bugging them?

It's almost never Jesus -- it's just about always a fear of tyrants acting in Jesus' name. Such an encounter can lead to an opening for healing among Christians and non-Christians -- and fallen-away Christians -- alike.

Your own irritation may have a similar resolution. It is extremely difficult to be a Christian when so many who have claimed to be the Lord's are actually Satan's. To introduce an Eastern idea that is compatible with Christianity, this world is a world of deception and illusion, like the Tibetans' "second Bardo". The ability to see it clearly for what it is, is a gift of Grace for those who follow Christ. That the blind will be given sight is one of the fondest hopes for all people, not simply today's Christians. Living a life of illusion -- especially in the house-of-mirrors that is Politics -- is a painful thing. Guiding the lost out of illusion was one of Jesus' primary ministries.

Give it a try. It might work better than you imagined. Good luck!

--p!

[cornermouse]

3. I absolutely disagree.

When Robertson decided to thoroughly mix politics and religion, he began to affect the lives of all of us, not just the chosen few. Under those circumstances, people do have the right to speak up, whatever their faith or beliefs.

[Perky]

33. Absolutely you have the right to criticize Robertson

IO never siad yopu did not. But don't assign him the stature if of prototypical Christian/

[Walt Starr]

109. I DO consider him a shining example of Christianity

and have not been demonstrated how it is otherwise.

Get thousands of Christians in the streets protesting the bastard and you could convince me otherwise.

[Sparkman]

142. Violence and earthly methods may not come as easily in our walk.

I have protested several wars, look at the Quakers. Listen to the Pope. Remember Catholics and Protestants are Christians. And be thankful that Christians have lead their believers to reject the wars of man. The first pacifists were athiests?

[Shell Beau]

161. I am a Christian and he is by no means an example for me

or any other Christians I know.

[Walt Starr]

163. Then take to the streets if you want to convince me

I'm sorry, but I just don't see the protests against the bastard, so I take him as being overwhelmingly representative of the christian community.

Don't want people like me to consider him the icon of Christianity, THEN TAKE TO THE STREETS AND PROTEST HIS BASTARD ASS!!!

[Shell Beau]

167. Why should we have to do that when WE DON'T

consider him the ICON of Christianity?

[Walt Starr]

172. He's a Christian, so you're stuck with him

Sorry, I didn't make the rules.

Get out there and protest his bastard ass. Silence is taken as approval in this country.

[Sparkman]

179. Jim Winkler,high official Methodist (same as Bush) said Iraq unjustifiable

And both recent Popes against the Iraq War. And millions of Christians are against Iraq war. See, a problem is, like leftist non-violents, we can't use the tactics of the RW rabid neocons, they are vile and anti-Christ. Whoever advocates the killing, even "Christian" icons, they fly in the face of His ministry.

[Taxloss]

6. I appreciate your frustration, but I think in some ways you might be

misinterpreting the intent of some of the criticism of Christianity here. I was a Christian myself and appreciate many of the good things that individual churches and The Church can achieve; however, when the public, high-profile face of American Christianity is Pat Robertson (and Jerry Falwell, and Jim Dobson, and W, etc.) then there is something very seriously wrong.

For atheists, and the other non-religious, it can be intensely frustrating to criticise those individuals as representative of Christianity only to be told "they're not real Christians". Criticism from outside the church, by us, is all we can do, and it splits the left (as we see here) and is disregarded by the right. It would be criticism from within the church that would be strongly effective. But criticism from the church itself, from its decent and progressive elements, is often disappointingly muted or even not forthcoming. I feel the Christian left should be conjuring up a bit of fire and brimstone of its own against these un-Christlike individuals, not engaged in a line-drawing exercise that seems more involved with saving face than saving faith.

It sometimes feels as though the challenge of summoning up "fire and brimstone" against the religious right is left by the Christian left to the non-religious left - which is understandably frustrating. And to be told to "sit down and shut up" for not limiting remarks on religion - one of the most centrally important elements of our society - to propagandising the church is infuriating.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

9. Very thoughtful post

I think it is very difficult for the Christian left to come out in opposition (though the National Council of Churches did make a statement on Robertson's remarks) to what the far right does simply because the nature of Jesus's teachings are to forgive, be tolerant, and to worry more about your own shortcomings rather than those of others. And, of course, the Christians on the left are very unlikely to belong to Robertson's church or his organizations, which again limits their impacts.

[Taxloss]

13. Even Christ overturned the tables of the moneylenders.

Making a statement is fine, but nowhere near enough. I dislike the "bashing" posts as much as the next man - they are starting to appear here - not least because they inhibit what should be serious discussion of an important topic - reform of American Christianity.

[Perky]

41. Yes but the point was

That the moneychangers were fellow Jews. That is the mistake the Fundies make. They assume that they can beat up the world with their self righteous piety. Hesus was critical of the Pharisees not the Romans and not the Samaritans.

The poinht is that the CHristian Left (God, I hate the division there) needs to stand up and slap down this pharisee.

Non-Christians want to attack Robertson its fine by me but the stereotypifying of all Christina is hight insulting and insensitive.

And does nothing to break down walls between the left and Christianity, which ought to be as strong an alliance for Justice as it was in the days of the abolitionist movement or in desgregating ths south.

[Taxloss]

45. You said that the non-religious should promote Christianity or shut up.

And now you talk about desegregation. Maybe it's because the atheists sit a little closer to the cattle cart than you, but I for one can understand a lot of the ire - I completely agree that the Christian left needs to combat Robertson, But while he remains unchallenged in strong terms by the Christian left, the Christian left remains implicated in a deeply troubled organisation that should and must be criticised - Christianity. I don't want or like mindless bashing or insults, but as you are part of a religion that has undisputed dominance over American life, and considerable power over British life, you need to grow a thicker skin when dealing with criticism from minorities.

[Perky]

68. No I did not

????

[Taxloss]

75. Yes you did.

"Until you are willing to focus on our good actors with the all the fervor you have for our bad actors, I for one would appreciate it tremendously if you sat down and shut up."

Regardless of my respect for many churchmen who have advanced progressivism, it is not my job to give them "equal time" with dangerous threats to my life. And I will not shut up simply because I do not write a post praising MLK every time I write a post attacking Robertson. It is a question of priorities.

[Perky]

88. Not what I was saying

My admittedly ad hom argument was that those who fail to consider whether or christians are not bad actors on the public stage, are offensive. I am not saying that Robertson and his ilk should not be slammed publicly... I am simply saying that their is also wheat amon the chaff.

To criticize all of CHrisitianity on the basis of the idiocy emananting from one quarter of a very large and pluralistic community is offensive to the millions of CHrisitian who just roll their eyes when the fundies tee off on something.

I wish we policed ourselves better...I really do. But simply becasue nobody un the community apparently has the balls to Criticize them does not...or at least should not give license to the non-relgious saying that we are all a bunch of ignorant boobs and that our aith is a farce.

[Taxloss]

95. I agree that you should not be called ignorant, but

you need to grow those balls quick. Because we're not going to stop slamming the religious right. It is dangerous. And that assault automatically means strong criticism of Christianity as an institution - there is no way around that.

[Sparkman]

171. OK, replace the word "focus" in this quote with "acknowledge" and then?

[Taxloss]

173. ... you get a completely different quote?

I acknowledge that good is done by the church, I said so in post #6. The part that needs the focus is the part doing bad - Robertson and his ilk.

[Perky]

35. Again... If you want to challenge Pat Robertson

Go For its, ALl I am saying it he dones not ecpress the vies of all CHristians...Not by any stretch... ANd if youy intend to attack Christianity and least read the Book. and lookt at genuine Christianity.

We really are not evil or arrogant Promise.

[Taxloss]

39. But we ARE attacking Pat Robertson.

The problem is that you are not. And it is precisely because we are aware that his views are not representative of many Christians that makes this perplexing - why not defend your faith from the nutjobs who are taking it over?

And I have read the book, and I don't think you're evil.

[Perky]

44. Gi back and read the posts

there are a lot of ad Hominen attack on Christiianity and clearly from some critical quarters of DU some real lack of knoweldge about some basic tenets of the Faith.

[Taxloss]

47. I have read the posts.

Ad hominem attacks are of course unwelcome and unacceptable. But that does not change my point.

[Perky]

50. yes,,,well

Ever since some on on this site said in a post that "the Holy Spirit could suck his ----" SOme of us felt that the bashing of CHrisitianity needed to be challenged now and again.

[Taxloss]

55. Clearly, that sort of comment is not acceptable.

But that does not change my point.

[evilqueen]

106. Why do you assume we haven't read "the book"?

Do you think serious criticism of Christianity today only comes from those who haven't read it? Not so.

[youthere]

156. most atheists and agnostics I have met on DU

know "the book" better than most christians. they also know more about the history of the christian church. they could teach us more than a few things.

[burythehatchet]

52. you write good when infuriated

[Taxloss]

67. Thank you. nt

[Shell Beau]

162. well... you write well

Sorry, I had to correct.

[Zenlitened]

94. Excellent post.

:thumbsup:

I think you've addressed the OP's statements quite accurately, in this and following posts, whatever the denials to the contrary.

[Taxloss]

101. Thank you.

You've read my work, you know my efforts against the religious right.

[Sparkman]

154. This DOES NOT SPLIT THE LEFT, Christ lived and ministered to non-belivers

Don't you see, that non believers feel alienated or put off or feel Christians are judgemental of their worldly ways. Christ was not judgemental, but spoke truth about the consequences only. "We are in the world, not of the world, if we were of the world, the world would love it's own. But I have called you out of the world, and the world hateth you." I hang with and enjoy the companionship of all, and tolerate non Christian behaviour with joy, not disdain, for the people I know. Love is unconditional, the kind of love Christ has for ALL people. Phileo is the third type of the concept of Love, in Greek.
I would never participate in this "SPLIT" phenomenon, but some non-Christians and some Christians, might.

So we work for unity, of all religions and faiths and non-faiths for the sake of the nation. That's the American Way, in my book.

[Taxloss]

165. I don't think you've really understood my post.

[Sparkman]

169. Re-reading now.

[theHandpuppet]

7. Perky...

Here's a lesson from Jesus I do not see reflected in your post:

"Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake. Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you."

Maybe its time for a morning review of the The Beatitudes.

[Is It Fascism Yet]

8. Your big mistake is in believing that people who slam Christianity

would be willing to read the bible to find out why they shouldn't! I personally rejected the bible as "just some ancient propaganda" a long time ago, and therefore, you cannot alter my behavior by asking me to read what I consider to be a worthless book.

[Dem Agog]

10. *yawn*

Spent 12 years in a Christian school, going to church 7 days a week, 5 of which were for school. I have read the Bible from front to back, and memorized large passages for Bible class, which was mandatory every day I was in class.

What turned me away from Christianity the most, before I started considering (and later dismissing) the religion on the lack of its logical merits, were the Christians themselves. I have never met a nastier group of people than the kids and adults I had to endure during that twelve year prison term. I'll take the threat of Hell anyday.

I'm not uninformed. In fact,I daresay I'm more informed than most "Christians" out there. What it all boils down to is that beyond Christians usually being an ugly group of people, the religion is too simplistic and perverse for my tastes. I won't worship a God and glorify his murder of his own son, while hypocritically telling women they can't control their own bodies.

I won't participate in a nearly-satanic ritual of drinking pretend blood every week, and I wonder about people who do that unthinkingly, without realizing that they're glorifying a murder. "Thou shalt not kill" but here drink this wine and eat this bread, pretend you're cannibalizing the blood and body of a murder victim, keep your eyes closed and concentrate hard... can't you just feel that halo over your head as you ritualistically glorify killing? Yummy. It's just gross and really beyond the pale. I think everything based off that twisted cornerstone of "communion" (and Christians do consider that the "cornerstone" of their religion) is just messed up.

PS: Your tone and attitude was pretty much the kind of crap I grew up around. I don't like to associate with people of your ilk who call themselves "Christians". Athiests and pagans are often kinder and more well-spoken.

[Is It Fascism Yet]

12. Since I recall similar experiences, I second your sentiments here. N/T

[Bluebear]

17. No Jew ever told me "God made Adam & Eve, not Steve"

No Buddhist ever warned me that the rapture is coming and I will left behind and won't be able to buy food unless I take the mark of the beast in which case I am screwed anyhow. I don't see Hindus trying to take over our government and display their holy scripts in schools and courthouses. No Shintoist has stopped stem cell research.

Yes, Jesus Christ had wonderful lessons to convey about peace and understanding, I just think a bunch of his followers through the ages have polluted the message.

[Dem Agog]

21. So true Bluebear

Yes, Jesus Christ had wonderful lessons to convey about peace and understanding, I just think a bunch of his followers through the ages have polluted the message.

Jesus Christ had sound teachings.. it's a shame "Christians" had to spring up and twist them into something as sick as modern day Christianity.

[Inland]

40. But that only means you don't get out much.

Seriously, if you think that conservative jews are't like conservative christians, let me give you a clue: they are conservative. Hence the adjective.

I suspect that you know liberal or secular jews, who pretty much correspond to the liberal christians and secular decendants of christians you meet here. But the liberal christians get slammed because their religion breeds a Pat Robertson but the jews don't get slammed because their religion bred a Kach movement. Huh.

Same with Hindus. They aren't trying to take over OUR government, but go to India, and you'll see the Hindu party making pretty good strides towards oppressing the muslim minority. And the communal violence there would be considered out and out civil war if we had proportional deaths here. But hindus don't get slammed because of the association. Huh.

Shinto. World War II. Nuff said.

Muslims. Well, it's not cool to point all THAT out, so you don't mention them at all.

Painting with a broad brush, unfair association, and a really suspicious failure to apply the same standards to different people is bigotry and hypocrisy. You really should stop.

People are what people are, not what other people are.

[burythehatchet]

53. actually there's a Shintoist who is always IN MY FACE about

outlawing stem cell research. That stupid asshole. Beware of snowflake lovin' Shintoists.

[Thtwudbeme]

22. This is Stephanie, did you read the

funny as hell Wiccan joke on my original thread?

My sister practices Wiccan and I sent it to her...let me see if I can find it for you, and I will either post it here or PM it to you...

Stephanie

[Dem Agog]

24. No I missed it!

Would love to see it, PM me? :-)

[Thtwudbeme]

25. I will PM this too!

But, it's just so funny that I had to share it-I can't tell you who the original poster was though :( the thread is so big I can't find it!



A Wiccan dies and is standing outside St. Peter's
Pearly Gates. St.
Peter looks into the book of life and he says, "Well
I'm sorry. You're
not listed. You'll have to go to hell I'm afraid." The
Wiccan says,
"Well that sucks, jolly good though." He steps into
the elevator and
descends downward.

He steps out of the elevator and out onto a warm
beach. The wind is
softly blowing the sand around him keeping him just
cool enough to
enjoy
the weather. He looks out and sees people swimming in
an ocean
oblivious
to life's problems.

Satan walks up to him hands him a drink and says, "Hey
buddy, welcome."
The Wiccan looks at the drink and Satan reads his
mind, "Here you can
drink as much as you want and you won't be feeling the
effects in the
morning."

The Wiccan and Satan continue to talk and Satan is a
lovely man. The
Wiccan can't believe all of the hype he's heard.

All of a sudden lightening cracks and the sky opens
up. The Wiccan
looks
up in shock. Through the hole he sees a man falling.
He's on fire and
screaming.

He plunges toward the earth and at the last second the
earth swallows
him whole with a belch of fire and brimstone.

The Wiccan is stunned, "What the hell was that?" He
asks Satan.

Satan looks at the Wiccan and says, "Christians. They
wouldn't have it
any other way."

[insane_cratic_gal]

42. LOL!

that's very good

[Locrian]

90. LOL!

That was perfect!! I love it.

[Perky]

46. I apololgize

In as much as I am able to on behalf of those who put you on a dreadful walk in your youth.

I certaily appreciate the sentiment of being forced to march to an autocratic method.
But the Yoke of Jesus is light and His burden is not heavy.


Many have attepmted to make it purtitanical for reasons that defy logic, but again that is not authentic Christianity.

[trotsky]

71. How does one define "authentic Christianity," anyway?

Because I guarantee you that Pat Robertson would tell me that YOU don't follow "authentic Christianity" either. In fact, the wars and struggles between the various sects of Christianity pretty much prove that you yourselves have no clue as to what truly constitutes "authentic" Christianity unless "authentic" means "That which I believe."

[Modem Butterfly]

74. Real answer: Authentic Xianity is in the eye of the beholder

Sarcastic answer: Tie an alleged Xian up and throw them in the nearest lake or pond...

[Perky]

78. and see if they float...?

WHy not just put them in the gas chamber and see if they survive,

[Modem Butterfly]

84. Some people just don't understand sarcasm...

[Shell Beau]

166. I think the answer lies in oneself.

Hypocrisy-bad
Murder- bad
Lying-bad and so on, and so on. As humans we all do things we aren't supposed to do. But if you want to convince others to live as a Christian, you have to make it known that you do all of those things. Robertson coming out and saying what he did makes me believe he is very hypocritical. Is he still a Christian? I don't know. To me only God knows that answer. Shunning homosexuals? Again hypocritical. It is only God's job to judge. We as humans have to make judgments daily. Who is a "true" Christian? No one really. We all sin and none are perfect. But as Christians we believe we are forgiven for that. I am sure God looks on in disappointment when he hears such things from the likes of Robertson. None of us are what we could or should be. I understand the anger towards Robertson, I feel it too. I don't feel it towards Christianity at all. I try to appreciate any and all beliefs. (by that I don't mean cultish beliefs, murder, etc. Or anything really outside of the norm)

[HadItUpToHere]

51. for catholics. it isn't "pretend" cannibalization-

catholics believe that the wafer and wine actually transforms into the actual flesh and blood of christ.

:eyes:

[TK421]

141. You know what this reminds me of? Theres another religion with

similar rituals...its called "Voodoo", and for the most part that has been written off as bullshit,too.:banghead:

[johnnie]

11. .

:popcorn:

[TK421]

144. Mmmmm...popcorn.

[Douglas Carpenter]

14. those who bash progressive Christians are not serious about building a

progressive majority..and their actions are just as harmful to the progressive cause as the DLC..and just as stunningly myopic

[Perky]

48. Hey now

Wait a minute... NOw you have gone tooo far...LOL

[Douglas Carpenter]

56. sorry I just couldn't resist

The devil made me do it

[papau]

110. Well said :-)

:-)

[jody]

15. When Pat Robertson stops portraying himself as "THE" spokesman for Christ

then you might have a point.

Your anger might be more productive if you attacked false prophets like Robertson.

Jesus warned, "For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if possible, they shall deceive the very elect." (Mat24:24)

[Taxloss]

18. I completely agree. It's YOUR faith,

most critics of Christianity are not attacking you, Pat is. Save your anger for him.

[Dem Agog]

23. Absolutely! Fix YOUR fanatic religious freaks...

People are telling Muslims that they need to bring their religious extremists under control. Christians need to understand that they TOO need to bring THEIR religious extremists under control.

If you don't like how Christianity is being portrayed, blame Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, George Bush and James Dobson. These are your poster boys (all white, all male). These are the people who speak for your religion. Your PR campaign's ALL screwed up!

People view Christians suspiciously because of the extremists and if you don't like it then FIX it. It's not our problem, it's YOURS. We don't care if your religion goes away and disappears and is stomped out. Presumably you do... so you fix your own religion's problems from within before demanding respect from outsiders.

[Perky]

61. Excellent Post

I simply do not understand why CHristian have been so tolerant of the outlandish crap thes fundies pull.

We should not need Barry Lynn to Criticise RObertson.. We should be doing it publicaly and very loudly.

Sadly the NCC is not the right vehicle to do that.

[Sparkman]

159. Please include Pope Benedict XVI comments, against the Iraq war, as ICON.

Both Pope John Paul (rip) and Pope Benedict have condemned the Iraq war and have criticised Bush's policy. Even though politics is not frequently addressed by Popes. When Protestant or Catholic leaders criticise the U.S. presidency, it's not easy for them because of the separation of church & state in most matters. You'll notice that the number of churches that voice support for a Republican or a Democrate is VERY TINY. There is a rule to not indorse candidates that only a few church leaders break.
** The private indorsement for the Republican party in many churches is really a violation of Christian tenets.

[Inland]

117. Actually, everyone's anger is better directed towards Robertson

So why posts directed towards religion generally and christians?

If Robertson is a false prophet and not a leader, then why hold all christians responsible?

[Roland99]

16. ittitates or irritates?

[Bluebear]

28. :)

[Thtwudbeme]

19. Hi Perky...since it's my thread that's annoying you, I thought I better

answer-

Here is the reason that I love my thread....Take a look at the dialog...look how many people have responded and are "talking" to each other via the internet.

The thread hasn't been locked in over 250 posts; unheard of for a religion thread!

As far as my "ignorance" is concerned...I am back in school studying to be accepted to Divinity school.

Telling people that you are annoyed by dialog and opinions is perhaps the worst form of ignorance.

Stephanie

[Perky]

59. The criticisim was not at you Stephanie

I thought your post was fine...It was on some of the statements that followed but more about the somewhat ignorant bashing of CHrisitinity in General. Surely as a divinity student you must be offended by some of the scorched earth policy towards Chrisitianity in general

[Thtwudbeme]

65. No, not really Perky

If you read my comments on DU...I get just as irritated at the Liberal fundies as I do the Conservative ones. Basically it's the same, with a different political slant.

I am probably one of the worst "scorched earth" offenders you will find on DU, and I have a deep belief in God.

Here's my biggest problem with Christianity right now...I think it should be stricken from any mention in the pledge, and on the money, and from ALL public political discourse. (Please note the intentional lack of a comma...I do NOT mean "public discourse.")

By hanging on to the Christian myths, we as a society, are holding ourselves back from true progress through the HOPE of a better afterlife.

That's a huge problem.

Stephanie

[Perky]

76. So faith has no place in the public square at all?

Is it all religious-political dialogue you seek to silence or is it just the fundies you want to muzzle?

[Thtwudbeme]

82. That is the reason I made note of my lack of comma

that sentence is very easily misread, isn't it?

"All political public discourse," not "all public discourse."

No, I never want to shut down religious discourse...but, in the matter of public policy..yes, I want it ALL gone. Every single bit of it-

[Perky]

100. I could not disagree more

All of have something of value to bring to the table of discourse. All of us have an equal say in how this socityr should be run. The fact that you and I disagree on some issues, and the undergirding of my position is based in part on my belief system, should not prohibit me from the right to enter into that discourse on my terms

That is fundamental to a pluralistic society and essential to progrees as opposed to the passion of Faction.

I do not reasonably expect that my way of looking at the world is going to win at the end of the day. But neither should I be told that my position is meritless because of how they are grounded.

UNless of course your religion is Fascism.

[Bluerthanblue]

140. I couldn't agree more

and while i believe i understand, and participated in Stephanie's thread till it became obvious that i was trying to push the river, the notion of 'checking your faith' at the door of any place at all, is simply impossible in my experience.
Any more than i could become 'neuter' or deny my female nature, my maternal and nurturing impulses, or my life experiences, or my principals in ANY situation- let alone public discourse.
Let me be very clear that i am NOT advocating proselytizing, or ramming my faith down anyones throat, or expecting others to drink any beverage i may bring to the table. But the notion that ANYONE comes 'baggage- less' to ANY situation, worse yet demanding it, is ludicrous.

We are, after all complicated beings. And our 'faith' where ever that 'faith' may rest (even if it is in logic, science, or self) is not something we can turn on or off, if it is, as you say quite well- authentic. A part of us, not something we pick up, and put down at will.

Thanks Perky.

[ClintonTyree]

20. You're certainly entitled to your opinion.............

however, when so many people look to Robertson, Falwell and their ilk for guidance and continue to support them after such vicious acts, they're open for as much criticism as can possibly be heaped upon them.
If so many people are going to accept these morons as their leaders, their spokesmen, they cannot expect to avoid the slings and arrows that come their way.
Or maybe they can. The Republicans seem to be doing a fairly good job of doing just that, or at least attempting to, anyway.
I think you'll find that most people who have shunned the bible as a moral authority for all things are more informed than you think. I am a confirmed Lutheran, went to all the classes, was a good boy, but now you couldn't get me to set foot in that church again. The fact that I DID educate myself about religion, not only the church's viewpoint but others as well, was paramount in my making that decision. The MORE people are educated about a subject, the more they tend to question the entire premise as gospel.
Like I said, you're entitled to your opinion as the rest of us are entitled to ours. Let it go.

[mopaul]

26. I've read the bible until i was sick

read it through 3 times, cause i seemed to miss something the first two times. it makes absolutely no sense to me at all, and that's just the way it is, some are deeply affected by it, others not.

i wish i could just ignore chrisitanity, but alas, i cannot. i wish it were just a harmless pastime, but it's becoming very dangerous, and starting to infringe on MY life, so i'll pass on trying to reach out and understand it.

another great benefit from losing one's religion: you don't get all pissed off when someone criticizes it.

[papau]

27. I agree with you Perky - but DU has a few folks that found Church and

the folks in Church unpleasant - and who then adopted phrases that they know are not on point - more or less to shake the cage of folks like you and me.

Don't let it get you down - those folks are still good people - and in the end you can sit back and note the surveys that have over 85% of Dems as people of faith in Christ - indeed Atheist is running under 5%.

Du is a place to vent - and folks do!

peace

:-)

[Taxloss]

29. Yes, just sit back and relax.

Everything's fine.

[papau]

32. Everything's fine - or at least "normal" for DU :-)

:-)

After coffee we will get to the real problems - which not to say Pat is not a real problem -- just saying the problen is Pat - and not all the other stuff some would add to the topic.

[Taxloss]

34. The problem, for both of us, is indeed Pat.

I hope you read my post #6.

Yes, there are bashers on both sides, and it would be a pity if that obscured the real, and serious, argument to be had here.

[papau]

102. Your post 6 was excellent-and on point. Pat has been taken to the woodshed

by the muck-a-mucks of the various Churches -

And that got a 10 second mention for one newscast on one chanel for one day.

Just as the Media runs with the GOP - they also do not air anything critical of a born-again that has a problem with logic or their faith and it's duties.

But I have noticed some Reuters news writers referring to Pat as a Talk Show Host and an investor in natural resources.

Which is spot on!

:-)

[Thtwudbeme]

30. OK, maybe you can help me out-where do I fit in?

I have spent three years now back in college to get my undergrad degree in order to attend Divinity School. I am a former paramedic, and an Episcopalian.

I find the some of the "Sunday School" Christians, and the New Agers on DU just as shockingly ignorant as I do the fundies--I read their posts spouting off about "what Paul said!" or...and this is one of my favorites right now..."Stephanie, you need to read the Gnostics!" (Let me answer that right now...the head of the Religion Dept. at Chapel Hill is friends with Elaine Pagels...if you don't think I have now read just about all of the Gnostic translations that are in print for both public reading, and student stuff you need to try to go take all these classes)

So, now...when I start a thread attempting to have a dialog on the use of language...I get told...to read the gnostics. I see people arguing about whether or not Jesus was "real," and whether or not there is concrete evidence of his existance. (there isn't, btw--yes, yes, I know about Josephus yada yada yada...yes, there was a neat movement in the 80's and 90's searching for the historical Jesus...I know) However, the dialog for the most part was great...250 posts of people being polite to each other. And I did learn some things, and pick up one helluva good joke.

Now, I am reading that someone is annoyed with that dialog; and she is quoting a biblical source to explain that the "authority" agrees with her...or she agrees with the accepted "authority" in her mind.

You have got to have figured out that I am a Christian....but, exactly where do I fit in?

[papau]

36. My background has a few overlaps with yours (17 years in St Vincents -

the Episcopal Accolyte Guild)

And I am aware of the concept that "concrete evidence" of Jesus does not exist because all early Christains were liars and Josephus we also toss.

I did not read your 250 post thread but it sounded like a good one - I suspect you fit in just fine.

I was only responding to PERKY and the thought that there is often a thread or two going on DU that dumps on Christains and/or people of faith

Afraid I am lost as to the "authority" and the prior thread's discussion. But I see no problem with suggesting folks read Romans or Hebrews and discuss the Chosen People dichotomy. Nor do I see a problem with suggesting references to James attitute toward "bad actors" and a discussion about whether or not James was correct that the pharisees were "bad actors" would be interesting.

I'd like to see more posts with references to Bonhoeffer, or MLK, or John Wimber and the work of the Vineyard or Jim Wallis and the work of Sojourners - but that just does not happen at DU in GD

[lynettebro440]

60. Maybe it boils down to

simple honesty. I also grew up going to church for 8 years, 6 days a week in a catholic school. I switched and became Episcopalian after I got married. I baptised my children out of fear. I since have studied all the religions to see what the heck it was they were all talking about. The only thing that I can come up with is love and honesty. What religion shall we call that one? The one that unites all, in all beliefs.

You claim you are a christian. Well, because you have claimed jesus into your soul, then you are carrying on his word. You are not allowed to join bandwagons when the time suits you. If I remember correctly jesus was pretty close to a peace loving hippie. He was the dude who would go out and try to stop conflict and illness. I can imagine that you are a person that used you christianity when all the christians were uniting to take over the world. But now that your beliefs is being carried on by shall we say "a crooked few" as bush would say, you want to see your individuality in the religion. The most amazing thing about christianity is it spreads it's self thin in all areas, but yet is the most vulnerable. You want to spread the word of jesus around to all of us "atheists and others who don't believe in what you do" then please, be the leader of our peace movement. Be the front man in teaching the true beliefs in jesus because I seem to believe it was about honesty and loving each other. But please don't ask the rest of us to turn the other cheek when all people of religion seem to want to do is slap it.

Thanks for listening.

[Thtwudbeme]

69. I appreciate your post, but I would like to correct one thing:

I have zero interest in "spreading" my faith to atheists, Wiccans, Buddhists, agnostics, Jainists...or anyone.

I consider that so horribly wrong...to try to get someone to think like me...that I never even considered it.

I believe in God...I consider it a miracle that billions of people are all different...why in the world would I want to mess with that?

;)

Stephanie

[immoderate]

121. I appreciate your goodness, but...

Have you considered that it is possible to reach a good conclusion from a false premise?

Is it a miracle that all snowflakes are different? Something to think about.

--IMM

[Thtwudbeme]

135. Yes, I have considered that-

Have you considered that "Miracles are contrary to what we know of nature?" IE: Miracles aren't ALL "good."

;)

[lynettebro440]

63. self delete

[trotsky]

86. Ah, the "might makes right" argument.

Majority rules! Screw the atheists, they're only 5%! Bunch of whiners! We're #1! We're #1! Woo hoo!

Tell me papau, does your religion promote modesty?

[papau]

105. Trotsky - reguarding civility - and quiet conviction - The

atheists have a belief in something that can not be proven - that there is no God.

And I respect their faith in that belief.

But my comment as to 5% was just to note that the posting level - on this topic - by those who are atheist - does not correspond to the actual number of Atheists in the Democratic Party.

I believe in minority rights - I am a Democrat.

peace and modesty and civility - for all of us

:-)

[Taxloss]

114. I completely agree that the silence of the Christian left is disturbing.

Where are they? Why aren't they posting? Good for you for identifying that we're doing all the work right now.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

134. They're on page B29 of your local paper, if they can get

any press coverage at all or in a little filler article under the headline "Other News." At least that's what happened when the heads of all the mainstream Protestant denominations condemned the invasion of Iraq.

It's the old story--the outrageous and wacky attract more attention in the media than the ordinary and sensible.

[trotsky]

115. Ah, so you too have

"adopted phrases that they know are not on point - more or less to shake the cage of folks like you and me".

Atheists don't have a "belief" that there is no god, but you persist in saying so. After you slam others for doing something, you turn around and do the same thing?

Perhaps you should act like you wish others to act - isn't that thought buried somewhere in your religion?

[papau]

128. Atheists don't have a "belief" that there is no god - so now they are

Agnostics - and not atheist?

Or do you claim a right to hold a thought against a challenge - and not need "prrof" your thought is correct. I guess certain thoughts need not be proven - and indeed are not "faith" because you say so.

What Bull Shit.

"act like you wish others to act"

Yea - with you the only response possible is "whatever"

[Beetwasher]

130. So You Have A Belief That There Is No Qrtflmr?

You know, Qrtflmr, it ittitates.

[papau]

132. quite correct - I have faith that there is no Qrtflmr! :-)

Although I can't prove it!

:-)

[Beetwasher]

136. That's Not Surprising

What else do you have faith in that doesn't exist and for which you have no proof either way?

[papau]

143. As Galileo said - you know the Scientist that was into reason -and who

rejected conjecture

"there are many hypothesizes that have not been proven"

[Beetwasher]

149. Yeah, So?

And you have faith in the existence or non existence or truth or falsity in regard to all of them?

[papau]

151. yes n/t

n/t

[Beetwasher]

155. LOL! Really? Ok Einstein, How Many are there?

LOL! Good grief :eyes:

I guess you also think you know how many angels dance on the head of a pin.

The funniest thing is, you probably do believe your own bullshit.

[immoderate]

122. Correction warranted.

Let me enlighten you (along with Trotsky) that your information is wrong. It is surely the consensus of atheists on this board that we have no "belief that there is no god." This is a position we have been painted with by theists to make us look as irrational as they are.

--IMM

[papau]

129. You and the friends you ride with on this topic can make up rules

all you want.

And others can laugh at your rules.

"belief that there is no god." is the definition.

Learn to live with it.

[Beetwasher]

133. And You Believers

can whine all you want how you don't believe in silly yet dangerous fairy tales, but you do, and we laugh at you. Learn to live w/ it. If you can define what I believe, then I can define what you believe.

[papau]

145. :-) - looking forward to your definition of what you "believe" and what is

proven and what is faith -

should be an interesting post.

[Beetwasher]

147. Heh?

Why don't you start? Since you seem to know all about what I believe and I never professed to faith or to know what is proven.

[papau]

150. I am just hoping - but not expecting - you to profess to logic - but

now is time for lunch -

I sure am sure that you and I will discuss this on other threads in the future!

peace

:-)

[Beetwasher]

153. Logic is as Logic Does, You Are the One Appealing to Faith and Not Logic

It is not logical to assume you know what another believes...Yes, run away to lunch, why don't you eat some logic while you ittitate.

[beam me up scottie]

164. Logic???

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

This from a person who is arrogant enough to presume to define me ?

You either need an education or a clue.
Maybe both.

Arrogance is telling people what they do or do not believe based on your own narrow world view.

Glad to finally see the truth come out.

All of those passive-aggressive games were a cover for bigoted views and intolerance of non-religious people.

Very illuminating.

[Zenlitened]

137. You are a laugh riot, you really are!

:rofl:

Learn to live with your definitions? I don't think so. But by all means please do work yourself into a "close my DU account!" lather again. That's funny stuff!

[papau]

148. You wish so hard - I would not ever push to close your DU account

but if you can not control your fear, perhaps it is time to switch to a different Board that is not labled Democratic - as in Democratic Party - underground.

[Zenlitened]

152. Hmmm... beginning to ramble now? This should get interesting.

And I like the "projection" you've added to your technique. Controlling one's fears? Very telling.

[beam me up scottie]

174. Wrong. Why do you make up stuff?

Is your argument so weak that you have to be disingenuous?

READ: (and while you're doing that, the sound you will hear is me and the friends I ride with laughing at your silly ideas)

Etymology

In early Ancient Greek, the adjective atheos (from privative a- + theos "god") meant "without gods" or "lack of belief in gods". The word acquired an additional meaning in the 5th century BCE, expressing total lack of relations with the gods, that is, "denying the gods, godless, ungodly", with more active connotations than asebēs, "impious". Modern translations of classical texts sometimes translate atheos as "atheistic". As an abstract noun, there was also atheotēs: "atheism". Cicero transcribed atheos into Latin. The discussion of atheoi was pronounced in the debate between early Christians and pagans, who each attributed atheism to the other.

In English, the term atheism is the result of the adoption of the French athéisme in about 1587. The French word is derived from athée, "godless, atheist", which in turn is from the Greek atheos. The words deist and theist entered English after atheism, being first attested in 1621 and 1662, respectively, followed by theism and deism in 1678 and 1682, respectively. Due to the influence of atheism, deism and theism exchanged meanings around 1700. Deism was originally used with a meaning comparable to today's theism, and vice-versa.


Types of atheism

There are two main forms of atheism:

* Implicit atheism, also known as weak atheism and negative atheism, is the absence of belief in the existence of deities. A weak atheist may consider the nonexistence of deities likely, on the basis that there is insufficient evidence. Theists claim that a single deity and/or group of deities exist. Weak atheists do not assert the contrary; instead, they refrain from assenting to theistic claims. Because of a lack of consideration, or because the arguments and evidence provided by both sides are equally unpersuasive, some weak atheists are without opinion regarding the existence of deities. Having considered the evidence for and against the existence of deities, others may doubt the existence of deities while not asserting that deities do not exist. They may feel that it is impossible to prove a negative, or that the strong atheist has not been relieved of the burden of proof, which is also required of the theist, or that faith is required to assert or deny theism, making both theism and strong atheism untenable. Agnosticism is the epistemological position that the existence or nonexistence of deities is unknown and possibly unknowable. Agnostic theism regards understanding that the existence of deities is unprovable and continuing to hold theistic beliefs. Similarly, agnostic atheism concerns understanding that the existence of deities is unprovable while being without theistic beliefs. For a discussion of agnosticism and its variants, see: agnosticism, weak agnosticism, strong agnosticism, agnostic atheism.

* Explicit atheism, also known as strong atheism and positive atheism, is the belief that no deities exist. Rationalists are generally strong atheists. This may be based on the view that there is insufficient evidence or grounds to justify belief in deities, on grounds such as the problem of evil, on arguments that the concept of a deity is self-contradictory and therefore impossible, or on the assertion that any belief in the supernatural is not rationally justifiable. It may also be based on an appreciation of the psychological characteristics of faith and belief (see True-believer syndrome, for example), and of a subsequent critical attitude towards any system that encourages faith, belief, and acceptance, rather than critical thinking, from its adherents.

Under the broader definition of atheism (that is, the "condition of being without theistic beliefs"), which is characteristic of "weak atheism", nonbelief, disbelief or doubt of the existence of deities are forms of atheism. However, many strong atheists, agnostics, and theists use a narrower definition of atheism, according to which it is the active "denial of the existence of God or gods". Adherents of this definition would not recognize mere absence of belief in deities (that is, "weak atheism") as a type of atheism at all, and would tend to use other terms, such as "skeptic" or "agnostic" for this position.

Antitheism, is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as "One opposed to belief in the existence of a God." The word allows a useful distinction to be made between the philosophical rejection of religion and/or theism, and a position of antipathy or opposition towards such beliefs. It may be adopted as a label by those who take the view that religion is destructive. For example, in Letters to a Young Contrarian (2001), Christopher Hitchens writes that "I'm not even an atheist so much as I am an antitheist; I not only maintain that all religions are versions of the same untruth, but I hold that the influence of churches, and the effect of religious belief, is positively harmful." However, the use of the word in this sense may be regarded as a neologism by those who rely on other authorities which hold that it is more or less synonymous with atheism. For example, according to Dictionary.Com Webster's defines an antitheist as a "disbeliever in the existence of God"

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

Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of gods. This absence of belief generally comes about either through deliberate choice, or from an inherent inability to believe religious teachings which seem literally incredible. It is not a lack of belief born out of simple ignorance of religious teachings.

Some atheists go beyond a mere absence of belief in gods: they actively believe that particular gods, or all gods, do not exist. Just lacking belief in Gods is often referred to as the "weak atheist" position; whereas believing that gods do not (or cannot) exist is known as "strong atheism".

Regarding people who have never been exposed to the concept of 'god': Whether they are 'atheists' or not is a matter of debate. Since you're unlikely to meet anyone who has never encountered religion, it's not a very important debate...

It is important, however, to note the difference between the strong and weak atheist positions. "Weak atheism" is simple scepticism; disbelief in the existence of God. "Strong atheism" is an explicitly held belief that God does not exist. Please do not fall into the trap of assuming that all atheists are "strong atheists". There is a qualitative difference in the "strong" and "weak" positions; it's not just a matter of degree.

Some atheists believe in the non-existence of all Gods; others limit their atheism to specific Gods, such as the Christian God, rather than making flat-out denials.

http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html

[jonnyblitz]

37. LMFAO....what an obnoxious post

and TYPICAL. :eyes:

[beam me up scottie]

177. You think that's bad, read #129.

:rofl:

[JNelson6563]

38. Bwaahahaahaahaa!!!!!!

So let me get this straight, if someone has criticisms of Christianity they are "uninformed" and you command that no one discuss the (many) horrible people who are Christians, only the good ones.

Oy!

Here's a newsflash, your religion is based on an extremely violent and unenlightened book. Covering your ears and yelling "I can't hear you!!" will not change that. Then figure in the history of your relgion, well friend, I suggest you toughen up.

Julie

[Perky]

66. Yeah ok

[immoderate]

43. Huh?

I am not got going to question Pat Robertson's faith, I have little doubt that he believes is CHrist and is therefore a brother in the Lord.

You are trying to use reason. and you disregard irrationality.

This qualifies you for...?

--IMM

[FlaGranny]

70. The very reason that

Bush* is so revered is he says he's a "brother in the Lord." People have to be assessed by their actions, not by their words. Pat Robertson might say he is a "brother in the Lord", but his actions prove otherwise. There are many who are gullible enough to believe the words and are too blind to see the deeds. Both Bush and Robertson show total contempt for Christians, IMHO.

[immoderate]

119. With all due respect...

Both Bush and Robertson show total contempt for Christians, IMHO.

As I do for anyone who professes that unsubstantiated beliefs represent truths. But I don't act on it. I'm as nice to them as anyone else.

Having said that, it is of course their crimes against humanity that warrants action, because piety, in and of itself, is not harmful to others. It's Bush, the war criminal, and Robertson, the venal slave master, who should be "taken out."

My view on their religious beliefs is like that I held for my father's business partner, who wouldn't come to our house because my brother had a black cat. Ridiculous, but a human foible that could be tolerated.

The issue here is that there are some who associate Christian belief with virtue, when no correlation exists. It's a silly notion.

--IMM

[burythehatchet]

49. there are actually people out here who can live principled lives

without having to continue to rely on fairy tales. As for all your other idiotic comments and your impressive outrage, I believe preceding respondants have covered my feelings.

[Modem Butterfly]

54. Telling people to sit down and shut up to avoid hearing criticism...

...is a tactic best left to the Freepers, IMNSHO.

I do have the right, indeed the responsibility as his brother to question his actions and his words. What I will not do is allow this uninformed disparagement of Christianity because of his actions to go unchallenged.

You know, if you and other Xians who shared your opinion spent 10% of the energy you spend defending Xianity from criticsm on actually criticising people like Pat Roberson, you might actually encounter less criticism from non-Xians.

I find it troubling that so many Xians apparently find it easier to disavow their fellow Xians they disagree with rather than confront them as Xians. Pat Robertson will easily brush off criticism from non-Xians, but imagine if someone like Billy Graham were to take him aside and admonish him...

[Perky]

64. I agree

I wish the evangelicval center had some backbone.

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BiggJawn]

62. You lost me at "Bash"...

"...should at least have the courtesy to read the text..."

Gotta tell you something, Perky, I READ the Bible.
How do you think I came to the conclussion that I could not believe anything it says?

Indeed, I read it in more depth than your average tongue-talker has. A lot of those semi-literates only know what Pastor tells them every Wednseday and Sunday.

Ah, well....

And about this Robertson thing...I have NOT heard a lot of criticism of him coming from the Faith-Based community, it's been us in the Reality-Based community that have been raising the cry. I dunno, perhaps you Christians are still arguing over whether or not what Pat said is "Scriptual" or whatever....

Silence equals Approval, Perky....

[Modem Butterfly]

72. That was a particularly un-informed comment from the OP

Most atheists I have met have at least read the Bible, if not other religious works.

Edited for clarity.

[FlaGranny]

77. Actually reading the bible

as a map for personal life choices fills one with confusion and disbelief (and rejection for me personally), especially if you concentrate on the Old Testament like so many do. A gentle soul has to reject the atrocities of the Old Testament.

[Modem Butterfly]

85. There's a great deal of pressure to be a theist in this society

If not a Xian. Atheists are constantly challenged to read the Bible and told it will change their lives. The irony is that we read the Bible, many of us in a sincere effort to remain theists...

[jonnyblitz]

89. the bible is virulently anti-woman, a good book to read on this is

"woe to the women, the bible tells me so" by annie laurie gaylor

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1877733024/qid=1124975400/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-7317459-4928923?v=glance&s=books

[Taxloss]

96. She's a lovely person.

I've had the good fortune to speak to her a few times.

[BiggJawn]

80. Who, MOI?

Uh, MB, I SAID I had read that book. Did I not make that clear?

[Modem Butterfly]

83. Sorry, not you, the OP

:blush:

This is what happens when I post during a coffee deficit.

[BiggJawn]

120. OK... Then kiss-kiss!

Wouldn't want them to say "Oh, LOOK! the non-believers are fighting amongst themselves..."
:evilgrin:

[Perky]

73. Yep you are right

but that cuts both ways.


Christians ought to be debating internally about whether or not some of the fundies should be sat down and told to shut up.


But just as importantly Christian progressives,,, should not be silent when their faith is being slapped about by individuals who paint us all with one broadbrush.

[Taxloss]

81. When is this discussion going to happen?

Remember what Pastor Niemoller said about delay.

[mondo joe]

79. Don't assume unbelivers are uninformed.

To the contrary, many of us are well informed. That's why we're unbelievers.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

87. Jesus spoke out and questioned the established religion of his time.

I can't help but wonder where that executed revolutionary would come down on modern Christianity. Having read what he had to say, I rather doubt that he would be all that thrilled with what Christianity now stands for.

[Perky]

103. Jesus would most certainly

be turneying over table in Virginia Beach and Lynchburg. But again

Pat and Jerry do not represent Chrisitianity or all Christians.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

111. Jesus had little use for the establishment.

According to what he said, I doubt very much that he would be supportive of established Christianity even it's more benevolent forms.

For one thing, he wasn't a "Christian". He was a committed Jew who attacked the corruption of the rich and powerful bosses who were running things in the name of Judaism.

His message, once you wade through the editing of the apostles and the later church, was aimed at the poor and the dissenters. The established churches have little to do with his teachings and much to do with being money making enterprises well deserving of criticism. He was aligned with the people not the religion.

[Sparkman]

139. You missed the point..."you will know them by their fruits" so focus on...

Christians that reject political and earthly motives, if you want to judge us. Christ can't be understood by all. "None come save the spirit call", shown here by the critics ignoring the faithful living a spiritual life.

[Walt Starr]

93. Your arguments are fallacious

The Bible is not a reliable source. I've read it many times in many translations (although I do not count The Book or The Living Bible as actually reading the Bible). It's some pretty good stories buut there is no more of history to the book that There is in Homer's The Iliad.

[Lerkfish]

97. As a christian, I disagree. Complete knowledge is not a prerequisite

for a nonchristian to question or criticize. It would be nice if people would have a more open mind when doing so, but I've learned that's a rarity.

However, Posting a thread like this will unfortunately only reinforce an existing incorrect perception.

Don't get me wrong, I understand your frustration. I've personally decided to no longer enter antichristian threads in an attempt to enlighten or correct perceptions. People are very fond of their perceptions and intend to keep them. There are many who simply reject religion on its face or have a particular anger against christians. And I can't blame them for being angry. I'm angry too, about the Falwells and the Robertsons and other people who drag the name "christian" through the mud.

So....therefore, we have a large group of DUers who tend to blame progressive christians for the faults of rightwing nutjobs....which is either benign confusion or persistent willful ignorance. but I've come to the conclusion that I personally should no longer reply to such characterizations because its like tossing bricks in the grand canyon...you don't accomplish anything and you soon run out of bricks. :)

I just think its a shame that progressive christians arent allowed to enter into honest debates on DU about religion or religious news without being harried on the side by inaccurate characterizations of us and being the target of the rightoues anger over the Pat Robertsons of the world. I'm angry about the Pat Robertson's of the world, also. But I don't feel its right to target other DUers because of it. Apparently, some think that's okeydokey.

And, if they do, so be it. I'm not going to correct them any longer.

which brings me back to this thread (which will probably get locked)
I understand your frustration, but you're being counterproductive, here. If you want to continue to post in religious topics, the best you can hope for is to enlighten a few here and there that there is a difference between fundies and progressive christians. That's it. Religion is something that people hold very dear and close to their hearts, even those who oppose it, they still hold that opposition to it very dear and close to their hearts.

If anything, I'd like a MORE open minded debate. So, I disagree with this thread's attempts to narrow the debate further.

[papau]

113. Excellent post- I agree responding to these threads is not going to change

anyones opinion.

[trotsky]

116. Hmm

"I just think its a shame that progressive christians arent allowed to enter into honest debates on DU about religion or religious news without being harried on the side by inaccurate characterizations of us and being the target of the rightoues anger over the Pat Robertsons of the world. I'm angry about the Pat Robertson's of the world, also. But I don't feel its right to target other DUers because of it. Apparently, some think that's okeydokey."

I think it's a shame that progressive Christians automatically feel "bashed" by just about any thread that looks at religion with a critical eye.

What many of us non-religious folks are angry about is how the very nature of religion makes it impossible for you and Pat Robertson to sit down and figure out who is the REAL Christian. Because of that basic flaw in religion, many people feel it should not be part of political discussion at all - whether progressive or not.

[Inland]

125. All he wants to do is differentiate Pat's politics from his own.

That's a political discussion.

It necessarily involves a discussion of religion, not because it is about, as you say, whether he or Pat Robertson is the "real christian". It is necessary because the posters presume that all christians are somehow tied at the hip, out of ignorance or malice or both. So the christians try to educate by saying that they are different, different religion, different politics, different traditions, just plain different.

It is the fact that the posts do not differentiate between christians, assume they all believe the same thing, and that the several bad fruit of the tree is proof that the entire tree is sick and twisted, that insults the OP, both personally and out of the sheer ignorance of it. The result is a religious post, which is rejected because, apparently, grouping together under a false religious label is secular but making true distinctions is religious.

Think of someone confusing Trotsky with Stalin, and how you would feel about Trotsky being blamed for Stalin's crimes, and how you would react with a post giving us the inside baseball on commies. You'll get my point. At least, you should.

[Zenlitened]

98. You post really is a symptom of the religionist sickness infecting...

... our society.

Others here have pointed out -- quite well, in my view -- the flaws and outright falsehoods in your statements.

Whether you're able to listen and understand, and gain some insight into the real problem... well, I guess that's up to you.

[txaslftist]

99. Doesn't Jesus allow spellcheck?

[imperialismispasse]

160. Ha!

[etherealtruth]

104. How are threads like this productive to the DU ?

I generally ignore all threads like this now. (I'm in a contrary mood this a.m., I guess)

I don't see people trying to gain insight and understanding into each other's belief systems ...

We here on the DU have a common progressive philosophy, we have much more in common (philosophically) with each other than with the general population ... why look for and try to capitalize on division?

[Walt Starr]

108. Sit down and shut up, now where have I heard that bullshit before?

And you wonder why Christians are slammed on this board.

:eyes:

[PATRICK]

118. What if we had primaries

to choose the best Democratic world view and ran all the religions and all the ideologies? Wow.

I like the Mark Twain story where he gradually put animals and their predators into a cage and they were trained to live at leace. The he threw representative slices of humanity into a cage and they annihilated each other.

This was before Internet chat rooms. I find it amusing since down deep these are all people working for peace and justice with good hearts. At times people must be sorely tempted to try the Freeper way, to forget who we are with righteous rants defending what we were raised to be by others. A lot of that legacy of avoiding who we are has caused the mess we are in today.

"Blessed are those that seek justice for justice' sake" does not mention any motivating creed or tradition- except what might rile some by being called "the children of God" against their will. There is no dividing line to be found there at all, but children of any parent will find reasons to squabble.

[BlueJac]

112. Read Mad Magazine Fool

Your leader is the cover boy!!


:puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke:

[Pithlet]

123. Oh, goodie. The religion wars again.

The minute I heard Pat Robertson's comments, I knew the countdown to another raging religion battle on DU had begun.

You obviously don't know what you are talking about. Whether or not you you think Robertson and his ilk are true Christians, they are, for all practical purposes, Christians. That is how they are perceived. Their brand of Christianity is harmful. "True" Christians should be fighting them tooth and joining the rest of us in doing so rather than turning on us and telling us to sit down and shut up. Any Christian, true or not, who tells us to shut up has not a frigging clue what it is like to live as a non-Christian in the US. In a country that is growing more and more religious (complete with Pat Robertson type Christianity) every day. We aren't your enemies. A little empathy for our plight as well as recognizing that bashing Robertson is the right thing to do would go a long way. Not threads like the one you just started.

[jonnyblitz]

131. thank you.

:thumbsup:

[zanne]

124. A question I've been dying to ask "devout" Christians...

As an agnostic, why the hell should I have to read YOUR BIBLE? I don't see you going out of your way to see MY point of view.

[Thtwudbeme]

127. Right here to answer that!

You don't--unless you have an interest in the Bible purely in the literary sense--and that is fascinating-

I am married to an agnostic/atheist--I only have one complaint about his reading habits...and that is:

How in the HELL can he not be into Harry Potter???? What the HELL is wrong with him????

;)

Stephanie

[TK421]

126. I find it quite ittitating myself

[Prism]

138. This stuff drives me crazy

Mainly because of the assumptions made.

(OK, so I wrote this for a locked thread, but I think it applies to some of the posts in this thread).

Some people assume religious people cannot think for themselves, which is untrue. How does one explain people who convert to a religion? They've certainly given it a lot of thought and choose a belief system that works for them.

Two things in these threads that always skeeve me.

1. Much is made of Christians involved in Inquisitions, genocides, etc.

First off, we look through history. Just about every religion and non-religion is involved in this sort of behavior. From the Christian Inquisition, to the Islamic conquests, to the paganistic tribal genocides. Every religion has been involved in simply heinous activities throughout history. However, so have plenty of atheists.

This is not a religious thing. This is a human thing. There is something in human nature that can trigger barbarism and evil. Trying to pin one religion as especially evil is more about someone grinding a political axe than an honest attempt to uncover why humans have behaved as they have throughout history.

2. That religion is the only vehicle for unthinking fanaticism. Not so. Anything is a vehicle for fanaticism. People say they cannot change the mind of religious fanatics, and isn't it incumbant on moderates to change their minds? Ha! Have you ever tried to moderate someone extreme in their non-religious political views? Can I change anyone's mind about politics? If I were so inclined, could I sit here and change a ton of people from progressive to Republican? Ain't happening. (Wouldn't want to). Because they cannot be changed, does that make anyone here unthinking fanatics incompatible with democracy?

Of course not. To assert so is patently ridiculous.

Some people channel their beliefs in various ways. Some in religion, some in politics, some in ideology, etc. I think a big problem is seeing it as a bunch of brain-washed sheep under the evil spell of a belief they're not bright enough to escape, rather than seeing individual human beings who much be approached and respected on that individual level in order to engage them in productive discourse.

But blanket generalizations and condemnations feel good. They can even make us feel superior. So, hey, let's have some fun and smugly rip apart large swaths of groups.

Because that's productive and stuff.

[TWiley]

146. Christians are only those who claim to be. Nothing else required.

I do not believe there is any other indicator of Christianity other than a simple claim to it.

As a class, most American Christians are Bloodthirsty supporters of the War who hate homosexuals and many other groups. I see no similarities between this groups stated beliefs of love and tolerance compared to their actions. All they do is shoot off their mouths in condemnation of others.

Wanna be a Christian? Just claim to be one. Nothing else is required.

[Shell Beau]

168. That is just wrong! And very offensive. That is NOT

what makes one a Christian.

[Leeny]

157. You missed a few

Although it is hard to resist the impulse to bash, I do agree that you can't paint the whole faith. The faith itself, the teachings, are not the problem.

It's the power of organized religion and the times in history when it's been used against people, and not to advance humanity, like MLK.

For instance, you missed a few things. You mention the crusades and the televangelists. How about the Inquisition? How about the witch trials? You can find many examples when the power of the church was used to destroy the "heretics" and non-believers.

I don't intend to offend, but let's not ignore our history - all of it.

[jonnyblitz]

170. when you look at the overall history of christianity from the

beginning, the horrors and body count wrought "in the name of" far far outweigh any good IMO. Also xianity , throughout history, has fought tooth and nail against the advancement in scientific research and study on certain issues (from galileo to stem cell research) much to the detriment of humankind.

[Leeny]

158. You missed a few

Although it is hard to resist the impulse to bash, I do agree that you can't paint the whole faith. The faith itself, the teachings, are not the problem.

It's the power of organized religion and the times in history when it's been used against people, and not to advance humanity, like MLK.

For instance, you missed a few things. You mention the crusades and the televangelists. How about the Inquisition? How about the witch trials? You can find many examples when the power of the church was used to destroy the "heretics" and non-believers.

I don't intend to offend, but let's not ignore our history - all of it.

[Beelzebud]

175. I'll just sit here and shut up.

Please don't cut my head off.

[mopaul]

176. could this thread possibly be FLAME BAIT?...nah, surely not

[beam me up scottie]

178. More like whine-bait.

Those poor oppressed people...

[The Magistrate]

180. Locking

This has run its course to the end.