Hatred of Christianity!

[Shermana]

I just got Dawkins book The God Delusion, and I have to say that I am once again warming up to him. Even though I think he oversteps, I do like him.

That's what Mrs. Garrison said.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

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.

I've been trying to get that through people's heads for awhile. Christianity is nothing more than one of countless excuses people use to justify their bad behavior. However there are also many that are unknown and ignored by the media who are inspired by Christianity to make a positive difference in their community. If peace and charity were marketable, those with such generalized hatred of Christianity and religion would be widely regarded as blind and foolish. And like it or not, many of the greatest activist, such as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Gandhi, were religious.
True religion has been used for bad, but wearing certain colors or even shoes in gang territory may get you shot. All one has to do is examine the world to notice that many things, but especially money and ethnicity, have caused many woes upon the earth and it's inhabitants.

 

[waitasec]

For instance, slavery had little to do with religion. It had to do with economics. So yes, you have a right to be angry, if you want to have an ignorant view of history.

so god and the morality god demands is subjected to economics?

 

[Averroes]

I don't hate Christianity because I do not hate Christ....I merely distrust the interpretation. I think I am as cautious about Christianity as the Jews are.

 

[fallingblood]

so god and the morality god demands is subjected to economics?

God had little to do with it. At least in the United States. In ancient times, slavery was simply an accepted way of life. The Bible is simply the writings of humans. They may have thought that they were justified by God, but slavery had nothing to do with God.

 

[Quagmire]

so god and the morality god demands is subjected to economics?

In most cases with most people, yes (although I think you meant "subjugated").

 

[Shermana]

I don't hate Christianity because I do not hate Christ....I merely distrust the interpretation. I think I am as cautious about Christianity as the Jews are.

I find that some fellow Jews can be more open to Yashua's Christhood and the Jewishness of the Scripture once you explain away all the bogus heretical post-2nd century gentile doctrines.

 

[waitasec]

In most cases with most people, yes (although I think you meant "subjugated").

ah yes but i also meant subjected as in the "susceptible or liable"
sort of way...

 

[Walkntune]

There can never be too much focus on the black letters. Preferring to look the other way is tantamount to enabling.

You can fight against war going to an anti-war rally or going to a pro-peace rally.
It doesn't mean you are looking away but just using a different momentum.

 

[Averroes]

Or you could take a course in U.S. history, that focuses on Philanthropy and Religion, and see that everything you said is completely ridiculous.

Sure, you can demonize an entire religion based on the actions of a few. However, if you did any research, you would see that Christians also fought against slavery, the atrocities committed to Native Americans, and persecution of a number of groups. On my shelves, I have a book concerning witchcraft, by a Christian. The purpose was to show why the Witch hysteria was foolish.

You could also look at the other reasons for these actions, and whether or not the actions were committed based out of Christian ideas, or simply by people who label themselves as Christians. There is a huge difference.

For instance, slavery had little to do with religion. It had to do with economics. So yes, you have a right to be angry, if you want to have an ignorant view of history.

As an educated black man I have to say, to a certain extent I agree with the above however like I've said in another thread, Christianity as it has been today and in the past (post Jesus' arrival) was/is more based on Eurocentric Imperialism. Ever seen the movie Amistad? Or seen the letter of King Alfonso V of Portugal who in fact instructed his soldiers to use the "word of God" to attract the heathens of the African continent?

Ever seen the statement by Abraham Lincoln who is falsely attributed with the hono of freeing slaves yet still held the belieef that African human beings are not equal to that of whites?

He famously said:

"I agree with Judge Douglas that he [a black] is not my equal in many respects, certainly not in color — perhaps not in intellectual and moral endowments; but in the right to eat the bread without leave of anybody else which his own hand earns, he is my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every other man." In this statement, despite his reference to differences in "intellectual and moral endowments."

Oh how noble! Even though his belief of blacks and animals rights was too in hierarchal fashion. Oh did I mention he was a Christian?

 

[Heathen Hammer]

That is the most ridiculous statement that I have heard. So, just because some Christians are anti-homosexual, by association I am guilty of that as well? Even though I fight for homosexual rights and try to push the issue in the correct way, I am still guilty? So, am I also guilty for slavery since whites were involved with that? Even though the issue has nothing to do with me? Or maybe I am guilty for been antisemitic just because some other Christians are? Do you not see how foolish such a statement is?

Well, I find this difficult to address in specific for you, especially since in other posts you have sort of, indirectly denied being a Christian or following some important tenets. Essentially the issue is this: you will not be allowed to have your cake and eat it, too, which is what you really want, as a group. Either cease attempting to make illustrations of how beneficial your faith has been to whomever throughout history, without being willing to accept being held up to the light that your faith has, specifically, been cited by some pretty vile people as the reason for doing something heinous, on an historical scale, as well. If there was any intellectual consistency I really couldn't care less what you thought internally about your faith. It's when you want to laud it in public as if it's without blemish [and deny the ones which are pointed out] that the problems begin.

More so, I am not defining where the group begins or not. I am saying that the religion is very diverse and encompasses many different sects that fall under one umbrella term. I am not saying that those who don't or agree with me or the like are not Christians, just that they don't necessarily define who I am.

Im not accusing you, am I?

You should try to read my posts without your preconceived biases.

As should you

 

[Heathen Hammer]

So where are the mass persecutions of Muslims? If Christians try to destroy all opposing ideas, we should see more opposition to Muslims, who have the second largest religion, and one that continues to quickly spread. And why do we have more and more interfaith groups working together? That and Christians in general are becoming more liberal and accepting (at least in more modern countries).

Um, are you kidding? There's never been Muslim persecution by Christians?

Habit for who? Were not Christians also persecuted by other Christians? Yes they were. Were there not also political motivations for many of the persecutions? Yes there were.

But my point, which you try to ignore and dissemble from, is that your retribution would have been current to the persecutiuon then. Since it's continued throughout history after that, it's HABIT.
But, yes of course they are xtian vs xtian. But at least here you admit to historical persecution BY Christians, of anybody. There are many reasons people do things like that; that there are OTHER reasons doesn't deny any of the others you find uncomfortable.

And was there some backlash because of persecution early Christians faced? Yes there was.
My point is this, there are many factors that have to be considered. Until you do that, you really have no argument.

Actually, yes I do have an argument. I am arguing one of the factors. Its just a factor you wish didn't exist. Too bad.

So you can't even form a logical argument? You might at least try a little bit.

I'm not going to necessarily write a term paper for every one of your intellectually dishonest denials. I'll discard or treat lightly whatever I want.

He is not a primary source. He states that he knows someone who has traced his lineage. That is a secondary source.

But he also says he is a follower; that's what I meant by primary. Primary need NOT be simply written.

Further more, there should be evidence. I didn't say that it was less likely. I stated that there should be some. There should be writings (especially when literacy became more widespread), there should be more than enough art work. There should be some rumors or accounts from others talking about it. We see none of that.

And we have both already stated why that demand is for an unlikely type of evidence. Like, asking where Jesus' bones are, or his first dove-tail joined set of drawers. It's ok to ask, but given the effort to hide or destroy such things, it's a bit condescending.

When we see other religions go underground, we still see evidence of them existing. What we don't see are cultures that exist for over a thousand of years without leaving any evidence that they existed.

'Any' also apparently denies the tales passed down through primary and secondary sources.. like what we have here. It's also ridiculous to assume every single religion that is forced underground will leave the exact same types or evidence while its trying o hide for murderous persecution.

Great, show me some of this written medium that isn't recent, and shows that people still followed those Gods. If you can do that, I will retract my statements, and admit that I was wrong. That is all I have been asking for.

Well, not really my job, it's his. I am simply furthering his cause in this case, via discussion.

Yes it is. However, it is not the Christian myths that tell us that Christianity continues to exist, and has consistently existed throughout time. We have more than enough evidence of such.

One does not need to believe in the myths to keep them. You bring up a great point by pointing out that Christian myths are attached to cultures to. Even atheists recognize Christian myths. They are intertwined in some cultures. That doesn't mean anyone believes them.

So it is a good rebuttal, if you understand it.

Your original sentence which I was referring to at that point was "It really is not a good argument. Especially when we can see that the myth is attached to the culture itself. I know a few Greeks who love the myth, but are Christians, or atheists" so, if Christian myths are attached to some culture that doesn't follow it, that shows Christianity survived, but of Hellenic myths remain, that DOESN'T show it continued, and active following now doesn't mean anything? I don't really know what your angle is here, since it appears contradictory.

What primary source? We don't have a primary source. We have one individual who claims to know someone who has traced their lineage. That is a secondary source. And not even a good secondary source as I have already explained the problem with lineages.

Really, nothing has been presented for me to dismiss.
How am I insulting him? By saying that he follows a recreational religion?

Is that not what I just said?

I'm not sore at anything. Just like the term Gods, I see the error with it based on the definitions.

You see an error based on your own incorrect definition in the face of updated information, you mean. What was that about you chastising me for preconceived biases recently? Yeah.

I think it is misleading to purposely or unknowingly use incorrect definitions. But I guess if you want to use a definition that basically means religion, than fine. You follow a cult, he follows a cult, I follow a cult. Technically, that is wrong, but whatever.

Actually, technically it's correct.

 

[fallingblood]

Well, I find this difficult to address in specific for you, especially since in other posts you have sort of, indirectly denied being a Christian or following some important tenets. Essentially the issue is this: you will not be allowed to have your cake and eat it, too, which is what you really want, as a group. Either cease attempting to make illustrations of how beneficial your faith has been to whomever throughout history, without being willing to accept being held up to the light that your faith has, specifically, been cited by some pretty vile people as the reason for doing something heinous, on an historical scale, as well. If there was any intellectual consistency I really couldn't care less what you thought internally about your faith. It's when you want to laud it in public as if it's without blemish [and deny the ones which are pointed out] that the problems begin.

If you notice, the only time I mention Christians doing great things, is when people comment on how bad Christianity is. More so, I don't say they do those things because they are Christians. I simply show that Christians don't only do evil, as some want to point out (maybe not that they only do evil, but they choose to ignore the good that Christians have done, and instead focus only on the evil. Which is ridiculous).

More so, I have never denied that Christians do evil things. I accept that. Christians do a lot of different things. Some I agree with, some I don't. However, just because a Christian does something, that does not reflect on me personally. If a Christian is a murder, that doesn't mean I am a murder, or part of a murderous religion. To make such a connection is ridiculous and simply is void of any and all logic. The same is true for good deeds.

Christianity is extremely diverse. What one sect does does not necessarily reflect on another. What some Christians did in the past do not necessarily reflect on modern Christians. Really, am I not trying to have my cake and eat it too. I'm just trying to point out that Christians are extremely diverse, and that what one Christian does does not necessarily reflect on another. Instead, we should look at the person.

Im not accusing you, am I?

I may have misunderstood you, but that is what I assumed.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

As an educated black man I have to say, to a certain extent I agree with the above however like I've said in another thread, Christianity as it has been today and in the past (post Jesus' arrival) was/is more based on Eurocentric Imperialism. Ever seen the movie Amistad? Or seen the letter of King Alfonso V of Portugal who in fact instructed his soldiers to use the "word of God" to attract the heathens of the African continent?

Ever seen the statement by Abraham Lincoln who is falsely attributed with the hono of freeing slaves yet still held the belieef that African human beings are not equal to that of whites?

He famously said:

"I agree with Judge Douglas that he [a black] is not my equal in many respects, certainly not in color — perhaps not in intellectual and moral endowments; but in the right to eat the bread without leave of anybody else which his own hand earns, he is my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every other man." In this statement, despite his reference to differences in "intellectual and moral endowments."

Oh how noble! Even though his belief of blacks and animals rights was too in hierarchal fashion. Oh did I mention he was a Christian?

If you're an educated man then you know that Abe's time was nothing like our's today. The beliefs he had about the black man were considered common knowledge at that time, even among scientists. The "truth" they saw in racism was as obvious to them as water being wet is obvious to us.

 

[fallingblood]

Um, are you kidding? There's never been Muslim persecution by Christians?

I never said there was never persecution. I am speaking in current times. The fact is, most Muslims and Christians get along, or at least tolerate each other. As of right now, there is no mass persecution of Muslims.

But my point, which you try to ignore and dissemble from, is that your retribution would have been current to the persecutiuon then. Since it's continued throughout history after that, it's HABIT.
But, yes of course they are xtian vs xtian. But at least here you admit to historical persecution BY Christians, of anybody. There are many reasons people do things like that; that there are OTHER reasons doesn't deny any of the others you find uncomfortable.

It isn't habit. To call it habit ignores the many various factors that are involved. Me pointing out that Christians were persecuted was just one factor. Other factors were political etc.

And I am not denying that Christians have (and still) persecute people. However, we have to look at the actual factors instead of just blaming Christians or Christianity. To do so simply is dishonest, and illogical. We must look at the various factors that contribute to these different persecutions.

Actually, yes I do have an argument. I am arguing one of the factors. Its just a factor you wish didn't exist. Too bad.

I'm not wishing any factor didn't exist. I'm simply pointing out that you can't focus on just one factor and assume that makes a real argument.

I'm not going to necessarily write a term paper for every one of your intellectually dishonest denials. I'll discard or treat lightly whatever I want.

Dishonest denials? I haven't denied anything. I just refuse to make it black and white as you are trying to do. I'm trying to not just focus on one factor, but one the whole picture.

But he also says he is a follower; that's what I meant by primary. Primary need NOT be simply written.

He isn't only a primary source to him being of that religion. He is not a primary source to show that it has existed since ancient times. I don't doubt that the religion is in practice today. I do doubt that it has remained in practice since early times.

Also, as a note, I have never denied the existence of his gods. I have no problem with the idea that they exist, and really, would not argue otherwise.

And we have both already stated why that demand is for an unlikely type of evidence. Like, asking where Jesus' bones are, or his first dove-tail joined set of drawers. It's ok to ask, but given the effort to hide or destroy such things, it's a bit condescending.

Then we have to accept that to believe that the religion existed from ancient time is based on faith, not fact. And that is fine if he wants to believe that, or if anyone else does.

However, until he can provide some evidence for the claim, then there is no reason to accept it as fact.

'Any' also apparently denies the tales passed down through primary and secondary sources.. like what we have here. It's also ridiculous to assume every single religion that is forced underground will leave the exact same types or evidence while its trying o hide for murderous persecution.

Murderous persecution since when? They are free now aren't they? Well obviously since he was posting here. Yes, at one time there was; however, for the last few hundred years, at least, there would have been little reason to hide.

And we may not expect to find the same evidence we would for another religion, but we can expect some evidence. Do you except the idea that my God is the only one true God? Of course you don't. I can't provide any evidence for such a claim, and thus, there is no reason to believe it besides for faith (I don't believe that my god is the only god, but it was an example).

And again, him practicing it (he never said anything about it being handed down from generation to generation, and really something like that could easily be made up) is not evidence for anything besides that the religion exists today. That is the only argument that has been made for his religion, that can be supported; it exists today.

Again, without some actual type of evidence, there is no reason to assume it is fact.

Well, not really my job, it's his. I am simply furthering his cause in this case, via discussion.

Then we have a standstill. Without evidence, there is no reason to assume it is fact. It is an idea of faith.

Your original sentence which I was referring to at that point was "It really is not a good argument. Especially when we can see that the myth is attached to the culture itself. I know a few Greeks who love the myth, but are Christians, or atheists" so, if Christian myths are attached to some culture that doesn't follow it, that shows Christianity survived, but of Hellenic myths remain, that DOESN'T show it continued, and active following now doesn't mean anything? I don't really know what your angle is here, since it appears contradictory.

Myths don't show that a religion survived. It shows that the myth survived. The reason being that myths get attached to cultures. They become traditions. They become nothing more than stories.

With Christianity, it is not the myths that are continued today that let us know that Christianity has continually been practiced since ancient times. We have a vast amount of other evidence (art, writings, etc).

My point is that myth being continued to this day is not evidence that the religion also has continued in existence, especially when those myths are not seen as fact, or religious anymore, but as mere stories.

Is that not what I just said?

So you are admitting he really has no evidence?

You see an error based on your own incorrect definition in the face of updated information, you mean. What was that about you chastising me for preconceived biases recently? Yeah.

No, I see an error based on the accepted definitions. Especially the accepted definitions in scholarly circles.

Actually, technically it's correct.

Fine, lets use your definition. I really don't care. It is not an accepted terminology in the studies that I have done, as it defines something else, but if you want to use it, fine.

 

[Averroes]

If you're an educated man then you know that Abe's time was nothing like our's today. The beliefs he had about the black man were considered common knowledge at that time, even among scientists. The "truth" they saw in racism was as obvious to them as water being wet is obvious to us.

Doesn't matter what time they're in we still honor yhem today. Christopher Colubums was honored with discovering America, he didn't since it had indigenous people here. Abraham was honored with freeibg slaves he didn't because freedom in its way, is subjective. What about one of the so-called founder of the double helix what is his name? Crick? Who believed hundreds of years after slavery, blacks were genetically inferior? Yup. How many christians today still think the "people of Ham" are cursed? I love HAM by the way, especially honey glazed HAM

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Doesn't matter what time they're in we still honor yhem today. Christopher Colubums was honored with discovering America, he didn't since it had indigenous people here. Abraham was honored with freeibg slaves he didn't because freedom in its way, is subjective. What about one of the so-called founder of the double helix what is his name? Crick? Who believed hundreds of years after slavery, blacks were genetically inferior? Yup. How many christians today still think the "people of Ham" are cursed? I love HAM by the way, especially honey glazed HAM

If the natives in the Americas had made the daring, legendary trip to Europe before Columbus made it to America we'd all give them the respect they deserved for that feat.

 

[Averroes]

If the natives in the Americas had made the daring, legendary trip to Europe before Columbus made it to America we'd all give them the respect they deserved for that feat.

The daring trip to America? Please. There were Muslims sailing across the atlantic ocean long before Coloumdumb. Stop glorifying him accept the fact that their are christians who simply used their faith as a reason to justify hatred.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

The dating trip to America? Please. Their were Muslims sailing across the atlantic ocean long before Colodummb. Stop glorifying him accept the fact that their are christians who simply used their faith as a reason to justify hatred.

That's an interesting tale taught in black history classes.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

How many christians today still think the "people of Ham" are cursed? I love HAM by the way, especially honey glazed HAM

Which churches did you know of still teaching this, besides the ones that the KKK go to?