Hatred of Christianity!

[waitasec]

if one considers their self to be in a position to subject other people to their world view i call that arrogance....

 

[Jainarayan]

Do you completely separate yourself from your personal worldview when you vote?

I separate myself from my religious beliefs when I vote. I vote purely secular; the First Amendment to the US Constitution gives me all I need to practice my religion. So, there's no problem there.

 

[heretic]

Why do so many people want to point the finger at Christianity for the evil done in its name instead of pointing the finger at the human heart? Pointing the finger at Christians is the same as pointing the finger at scientists saying look how evil science is pushing these drugs that can destroy lives on every T.V. comercial that pops up.
Hey Got a sniffle? try Snif away!
Side effects include headaches,nashau,depression,liver disease,flat tires on car,dog runs away,wars and rumors of wars.........etc.
science is evil and slowly murdering people through chemical processes all in the name of the almighty dollar!
Can't point the finger at science for the evil in mans heart.
Those who are full of evil and hatred ,greed will spread it by anymeans necessary and they will use the Bible,science,or any other means necessary to justify themselves.
Its not the institution of Christianity that is evil just like its not science or medicine that is evil.Pharmaceutical companies used mans faith in science(and in doctors with dumb commercials) as a means to push there selfish agendas for profits.
I don't blame scientists or consider them evil even from all of the horror and devestation that has been done through its creations.
Attacking the establishment of Christianity for the evil that man has in his heart is the same as attacking science and medicine for the evil being done in its name.
Christianity is one of the most strongest love based religions I know of and is why it is always pesecuted and in the state of resistance against hatred!

this is true, not for christinity only but also for other religions too , how many crimes happened and still happen in the name of God or a religion , and sure the religion is far a way from them,how many times religion used to justify ugly deeds by people .

 

[fallingblood]

In this exchange you have an actual Hellenic worshipper, telling you he has associates who DO have long traditional family histories, with documentation; you then go on to state that you, an American who has merely studied this faith from afar, knows FOR A FACT that his faith died out and was only reconstructed recently... despite saying you studied what surrounded /early/ versions only in regards to your own?

I have associates who claim to have seen Jesus, or have experienced God first hand, or have had a near death experience where they witnessed heaven. Does it mean that I should except them, even though the actual evidence shows otherwise?

Can you quote me though when I said that I know for a fact? I don't think you can. Yes, I am of the opinion that the Hellenistic belief system died. The evidence points to that. All he has is what a couple of people claim, and that simply is not good enough if he can't provide any evidence. And when we can see a vast amount of time with no evidence that the religion was in existence, up until the point that we can see it reconstructed, the logical conclusion should be obvious. Especially when most of these Hellenistic worshippers don't even practice the religion in the way that the ancients do. It screams reconstruction. And again, unless they can show otherwise, as they do have the burden of proof, there is no reason for me to accept that what they are saying is true.

And who said that I merely study faith from afar? You really should stop assuming you know what I have studied, my beliefs, etc. You will only look foolish if you continue to do so.

... Does this arrogance not clue you in to possibly another reason why your faith isn't looked on too kindly? A bad reputation which you then compound with the weakening comment that his Gods cannot be addressed in writing with a capital 'G'? AND have the gall to label it 'recreational' as well?

You mean arrogance as in actually knowing what I am talking about? I don't care if he believes he is worshipping an ancient form of religion. However, if he wants to state that, and have others believe it, he has to show the evidence. History tells us something else, the evidence points to something else. Until he can show otherwise (and I would be happy if he could, as that would be helpful in my studies to see direct descendants of such a movement), there is no reason to believe it.

As for his gods not being with a capital G, that simply is how it is. I am not demeaning his gods, or saying mine is better, but that is how it works. God is a proper noun. It is a name that signifies one God. god signifies something else, a supreme being. Gods would make the assumption that there is more than one God (the god that Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc worship), which there isn't. gods signifies multiple supreme beings.

Really, I don't see why that needs to be explained. I am simply looking at the definitions.

The Norse indigenous faith also survived underground, despite a murderous campaign by yours to wipe it out. Please, tell me also about my faith's history, I'll be quite tickled.

I haven't studied Norse mythology and faith, so it would be foolish of me to say anything. I do know about Hellenistic faiths (there were more than one), and thus can speak about it. I also know quite a bit of it's history, and I know that there is no evidence that is survived. If there is evidence for such, then bring it forward.

 

[fallingblood]

no not really, certain christians are doing that on their own...

I agree that many Christians do. However, many Christians also do exactly the opposite. One only has to look at Philanthropy in the United States history. Or John Shelby Spong and the Progressive Christianity movement.

At the same time, attacking Christianity because what some Christians do, really isn't spreading tolerance. It is spreading intolerance and causes the same problems.

 

[fallingblood]

The Bible usually ends up being a reflection of the attitudes, feelings and fears of the particular believer augmented by their socio-cultural situation. So if you come to the Bible with fragmented psyche, heavy with unresolved guilt, you can be a "Christian" and spew some awful stuff all the while justifying it with Bible passages. And if you're more toward the integrated or self-actualized side of the spectrum, you can find in the Bible many beautiful writings expressing mystical, mythological and psychological truths that inspire feelings of humility, compassion and tolerance. Now, of course, the former type is probably more common under the guise of "Christianity" because ancient mythology is, in large part, a form of primitive therapy, and as such has a ready market in the fractured and injured. The divisiveness, arrogance, fear, etc. that comes out aren't intrinsic to Christianity. They are intrinsic to a damaged mind that might coincidentally be trying to use ostensibly "Christian" belief to soothe itself.

I have to say that I think this is a wonderful post. :clap

 

[fallingblood]

then, it is true...

True for some Christians. False for others.

it's just a label.
it is supposed to represent the ideal, but alas it falls short. because people fall short...

If it is just a label, it shouldn't be criticized or hated, but instead the people who commit the actions should be criticized or hated.

 

[fallingblood]

Tolerance and respect are not identical concepts regardless of what your definition states or where you got it.

Didn't say they were. However, that is an accepted definition of intolerance.

Not at all, I respect differing opinions of al stripes.
I do not respect magical thinking, which is what most religion is based upon.
I haven`t even uttered my definition of "secular" in this thread.

Magical thinking? That in itself shows a justification of intolerance for other beliefs.

Again, I`m not speaking of "Christians" I`m speaking of "Christianity".

Christianity is extremely diverse. Really, it should be called Christianities, as it is so diverse. More so, Christians define what Christianity is, not the other way around.

You are projecting your own meaning and not my intended meaning onto my words.
This is something that most Christians "generally" do when they fail to analyze a statement before they become offended by it.

I'm not projecting anything. I gave you my definition, and I pointed out where I disagreed with you. Honestly, I am not offended by what you said as I simply see it as based on ignorance (a lack of understanding). I'm used to it. I am also used to other defining what Christians must believe, or what Christianity is, just so that it fits their ideal instead of reality.

 

[fallingblood]

Why are Christians so fixated on sin and forgiveness? It seems that almost any post from a Christian is along the lines of "I am not perfect, but God forgives me"; "I'm a sinner too, but...". That' the primary reason I left Christianity behind... sin, sin, sin, sin, sin.

For Christians to focus on sin simply is ridiculous. When the NT is read, the main focus is salvation. I don't know how this all got turned around, but it is a sad state of affairs.

 

[waitasec]

At the same time, attacking Christianity because what some Christians do, really isn't spreading tolerance. It is spreading intolerance and causes the same problems.

see the word attacking doesn't work for me...
i don't see people vandalizing or picketing churches...
i don't see christians being bullied for being christian, do you? so maybe if you change the word to challenge it wouldn't be considered as spreading intolerance...
this is the 1st time in american history that the christian religion is in the position of being challenged...and it seems like an attack...but it isn't.

 

[fallingblood]

see the word attacking doesn't work for me...
i don't see people vandalizing or picketing churches...
i don't see christians being bullied for being christian, do you? so maybe if you change the word to challenge it wouldn't be considered as spreading intolerance...
this is the 1st time in american history that the christian religion is in the position of being challenged...and it seems like an attack...but it isn't.

I don't mean a physical attack. Personally, I think Christianity needs to be challenged, and it is about time.

However, I also don't see Christianity actually going out and vandalizing or picketing anything. I do see some Christians doing so, but they hardly speak for Christianity as a whole. We can look at the Westboro Baptist church. They are attacking people (including other Christians). However, they hardly speak for Christianity, especially considering that many Christians, even those who oppose homosexuality, oppose the Westboro Baptist church as well.

On a side note though, there are some attacks against Church property and the like.

 

[waitasec]

However, I also don't see Christianity actually going out and vandalizing or picketing anything.

certain christians are a bit more subtle than that

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2649547-post301.html


that is not to say they are the only ones, but if you look at luke 6...
i see a double standard....

 

[Photonic]

I don't mean a physical attack. Personally, I think Christianity needs to be challenged, and it is about time.

However, I also don't see Christianity actually going out and vandalizing or picketing anything. I do see some Christians doing so, but they hardly speak for Christianity as a whole. We can look at the Westboro Baptist church. They are attacking people (including other Christians). However, they hardly speak for Christianity, especially considering that many Christians, even those who oppose homosexuality, oppose the Westboro Baptist church as well.

On a side note though, there are some attacks against Church property and the like.

What's ironic about this is that you are, while in one statement separating Christians from other Christians, you are lumping non-Christians with those that vandalize "Christian Property."

I fail to see your point in this.

 

[pwfaith]

I don't mean a physical attack. Personally, I think Christianity needs to be challenged, and it is about time.

it's about time? You do know Christianity has been being challenged since the days of Christ, right?

 

[Heathen Hammer]

I have associates who claim to have seen Jesus, or have experienced God first hand, or have had a near death experience where they witnessed heaven. Does it mean that I should except them, even though the actual evidence shows otherwise?

Can you quote me though when I said that I know for a fact? I don't think you can.

==Yes, in a few places, "I'm not trying to deny, I am flat out denying." in your initial response, and several times in this one. Now that I have pointed it out, what of it?==

Yes, I am of the opinion that the Hellenistic belief system died. The evidence points to that.

== and what evidence are we discussing here? Above you wisely point out your skepticism for those who have seen visions; but here you again make reference to evidence you have seen, and since you keep demanding evidence yourself, what is it, exactly?==

All he has is what a couple of people claim, and that simply is not good enough if he can't provide any evidence.

== well, that's anecdotal, it's true. But rather than being neutral, you try shutting him down. You should have been neutral about it, and perhaps asked further questions, rather than insulting him, IF you are an honest researcher, and since this is an area you claimed to have been interested in.==

And when we can see a vast amount of time with no evidence that the religion was in existence, up until the point that we can see it reconstructed, the logical conclusion should be obvious. Especially when most of these Hellenistic worshippers don't even practice the religion in the way that the ancients do.

== aside the fact that human sacrifice is now illegal, in what way are you aware that it is different?==

It screams reconstruction. And again, unless they can show otherwise, as they do have the burden of proof, there is no reason for me to accept that what they are saying is true. And who said that I merely study faith from afar? You really should stop assuming you know what I have studied, my beliefs, etc. You will only look foolish if you continue to do so.

== Please elaborate then and show where I made my error. Until you do, you're just being contrary while being caught with your pants down.==

You mean arrogance as in actually knowing what I am talking about?

== yet to be proven. And my objections are sound.==

I don't care if he believes he is worshipping an ancient form of religion. However, if he wants to state that, and have others believe it, he has to show the evidence. History tells us something else, the evidence points to something else. Until he can show otherwise (and I would be happy if he could, as that would be helpful in my studies to see direct descendants of such a movement), there is no reason to believe it.

As for his gods not being with a capital G, that simply is how it is. I am not demeaning his gods, or saying mine is better, but that is how it works. God is a proper noun. It is a name that signifies one God. god signifies something else, a supreme being. Gods would make the assumption that there is more than one God (the god that Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc worship), which there isn't. gods signifies multiple supreme beings.

==Actually that would be false. As a polytheist, I certainly refer to them using the capital G. Will you now alter your opinion, seeing as how you've run into two people, with other Gods, who do so, or will you maintain your position in the face of evidence? "Which there isn't" being part of that. But it does show a bit of bias.==

Really, I don't see why that needs to be explained. I am simply looking at the definitions.

I haven't studied Norse mythology and faith, so it would be foolish of me to say anything. I do know about Hellenistic faiths (there were more than one), and thus can speak about it. I also know quite a bit of it's history, and I know that there is no evidence that is survived. If there is evidence for such, then bring it forward.

Here, I tried reformatting, let me grab your attention again and see your response.

 

[cablescavenger]

I don't think Christianity has been persecuted in America, unless you're one of those peculiar folks who believe that greeting customers at Wal-Mart with "Happy Holidays" rather than "Merry Christmas" is blatant persecution. In which case, you should be discussing that with your therapist and not on an internet forum.

Not being from the U.S. can I ask why saying "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" is tantamount to persecution?

 

[Awoon]

Not being from the U.S. can I ask why saying "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" is tantamount to persecution?

Cause New Year day isnt "holy?"

 

[waitasec]

it's about time? You do know Christianity has been being challenged since the days of Christ, right?

eyieyayai...

our country is almost 80% christian....
where is the challenge?

1/3 of the world population is christian....

 

[fallingblood]

What's ironic about this is that you are, while in one statement separating Christians from other Christians, you are lumping non-Christians with those that vandalize "Christian Property."

I fail to see your point in this.

How did I lump non-Christians together. I said there are some attacks. I didn't say all non-Christians are attacking Christian property. I said that there are some attacks. I didn't say a lot, and I didn't say who attacked those properties.

You fail to see my point because I am assuming you misread what I said. Or read what I said with a bias.

 

[waitasec]

Not being from the U.S. can I ask why saying "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" is tantamount to persecution?

because it is...


i think it has to do with the notion that this country was based on christian principles...just the idea that a country is founded on christianity is not what jesus was talking about...
seems as though christians want to avoid being persecuted for their faith all together by setting up this self defeating idea when christ told them they would get their reward in heaven for being persecuted.

the last shall be first...
blessed are the meek for they will inherit the earth...
so if one doesn't have the opportunity to be meek then they aren't accountable for not being meek...