Hatred of Christianity!

[Erebus]

Why don't you tell me. You certainly seem 100% sure.

Heh, the only thing I've made a definite claim about here is that deities are at the very least ideas and thus will influence you. I've not said they do or don't exist beyond that.

Still, I can tell I'm starting to **** you off and I'm starting to get off topic so I'll leave it there for the time being. I think our brief exchange highlighted some points for a few people at least.

 

[Jainarayan]

His Divine Grace AC Bhaktivedanta Sawmi Prabhupada, founder of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness described Christianity as Krishnanity.

There are some parallels between Lord Krishna and Jesus that can make one sit up and take notice. Their conception and birth stories are similar, both of them being transcendentally implanted in their mothers' wombs without physical contact; both were born in lowly places (stable, dungeon); both of their births were greeted by visitations of locals and celestials; both had attempts on their lives by jealous and paranoid kings, and had to be secreted away; both were of royal lineage; both revealed themselves as God: Christ's Transfiguration to his favorite disciples, Krishna's Vishvarupa to Arjuna, his ardent devotee.

While Sri Krishna's discourse in the Bhagavad Gita is far longer than Jesus's recorded teachings, many of the sayings and verses are astonishingly similar. All this is in light of Krishna coming 3,000 years before Jesus. True Christianity, as Jesus taught and intended it, could be considered Vaishnavism-Lite (Vaishnavism being the worship of Krishna/Vishnu for those who don't know).

 

[IsmailaGodHasHeard]

No, but there is something wrong with cramming it down their throats at knife-point.

Fair enough. I agree with you. I believe in freedom of religion for anyone, and that includes the right to no religion at all if someone so desires.

 

[krsnaraja]

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!

It all started with Cain & Abel.

 

[e2ekiel]

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!

It's a backlash against Christian roots and heritage and the arrogant belief that they can run world a better way. Many secularist don't understand that this Christian heritage and thinking is the basis for what the Western world enjoys now, in material wealth and freedom of thoughts and rights. they would argue that Greek thought gave rise to science, when infact it's the Judeo-Christian understanding of God and His created universe that modern science is built on. Greek thought was devoted to a pure rationalism that effectively prevented it from developing an empirical approach to knowledge.

Interestingly the West's rejection of Christ sees the acceptance and the growth of Christianity in Asia and Africa where we see a surge of intellectualism, science, technologies and freedoms. Many are now calling this century the "Asian Century" as Europe and USA begin to falter, through the arrogance and rejection of a soverign God.

If people what to imagine a world without Christ, then extroplate from the past till present cultures of Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, the animism and Toaist religions of Asia, and pagan worship of Africa and the natives Americas.

 

[Walkntune]

It all started with Cain & Abel.

Actually it was Adam who blamed Eve who blamed the serpent who blamed the............etc..............................who blames Christianity! How the politicians escaped is so beyond me???

 

[Photonic]

What do you mean "the view of nature"?

Forcefully having sex with another person who is not wanting to engage in it, is wrong. There is no way around that.

If you need proof that rape is wrong, then I feel sorry for you

Rape is wrong only in a human context, Sir. Outside of humanity rape has no meaning.

 

[Pegg]

Something just occurred to me: the Christians and the christophobes are often the same people.

IMO, the biggest sources of hatred for any particular part of Christianity are the other parts of Christianity. For instance, when I think of all the things I've heard about Catholics from even the nastiest atheists, it doesn't hold a candle to some of the stuff I've heard from some Evangelical Christians.

Heck... even the Anglican Church, which now tends to be one of the more gentle and liberal denominations, still refers to the Pope as the Antichrist in its foundational documents.

ha, yeah well thats true too

 

[Photonic]

ha, yeah well thats true too

You should see some of the stuff Richard Dawkins gets, he read his email to people once during a documentary. Far eclipses anything he's ever said.

 

[blackout]

Prove rape is wrong from the view of nature. It is based on human society. Nothing more.

The very meaning of 'rape' comes from the idea that a person or thing is forcably used or violated in a way that is detramental/hurtful/destructive to that thing.

rape[SIZE=-1][SIZE=+0]1[/SIZE][/SIZE] (r

p) [SIZE=-2]KEY[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]NOUN:[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]

1. The crime of forcing another person to submit to sex acts, especially sexual intercourse.
2. The act of seizing and carrying off by force; abduction.
3. Abusive or improper treatment; violation: a rape of justice.

[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]TRANSITIVE VERB:[/SIZE]




[FONT=arial,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]raped[/SIZE], [FONT=arial,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]rap·ing[/SIZE][/FONT], [FONT=arial,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]rapes[/SIZE][/FONT]

1. To force (another person) to submit to sex acts, especially sexual intercourse; commit rape on.
2. To seize and carry off by force.
3. To plunder or pillage.

[/FONT]

The idea of abusive or improper treatment/violation
is intrinsic to the meaning of the word,
as demonstrated by meaning #3.

Is there anything objective about "abusive" or "improper"?
Or are these both subjective as well.

I'm thinking that ANYTHING relational is subjective.
ie, subject/object or subject/subject ... subject/object/subject? etc etc

I don't know why the idea of "objective" is put up on a pedistal
and "subjective" is treated as a lesser, almost dirty or impotent word.
Without "subjective", there is no sentient Self Aware,
experience or I'dea of Relationship- Self, Other, or World.

Without Sentient Self Awareness
(intelligent autonomy)
there are no eyes/"I's"/"ayes", or Ideas at all.
As such there are no concepts whatsoever.
no concepts of 'evil', 'objective' or anything at all.

The universe exists in the realm of the unseen.

I'deas do not exist without I's.
Without Eyes, light exists in the realm of darkness.
And what of concensus without "ayes"?

Nature views no'thing at all
without I's/eyes to see. (itSelf)

Observation and Experience will always exist in the realm of the Subjective.
(else there is no Subject. No subject? No predicate.)

Anyway, what's the point?

All (of our) Views are based on (our) Humanity,
(individual and societal both/or)
as We Humans are the Ones doing the Viewing.

WE are Nature's eyes/I's.

 

[Tonymai]

The problem here is a person identifying with a specific group (be it religious or otherwise). If a person inwardly identifies with God, he will not be bothered by any hatred against him. God is love.

 

[blackout]

Rape is wrong only in a human context, Sir. Outside of humanity rape has no meaning.

Outside of humanity, what does have meaning?

ie... WHO would be the meaning makers?
(that we as humans are knowledgable/aware of)

 

[fallingblood]

Dribs and drabs, this is nothing groundbreaking or at lightning speed as seen from your side of the looking glass. Only recently is the RCC accepting evolution as not incompatible with creation. The RCC will never waver from its position on birth control, condoms or otherwise.

The ordination of a gay bishop in the Episcopal Church in the US almost caused a schism in the Anglican Communion.

Actually, the RCC did waiver from it's position on condoms. Recently, they said that condoms are okay to help stop the spread of AIDS. And the fact that the RCC is no accepting evolution shows that they have in fact evolved.

Even the ordination of a gay bishop, whether or not it caused problems, shows that the Episcopal Church is evolving. I find it funny how you name off various changes, changes that are for the better, yet you still refuse to accept that Christianity is evolving.

What Orthodox Church? Not the Russian Orthodox Church. And Benedict XVI met with Patriarch Bartolomeos for "talks". Bartolomeos is primus inter pares, but he can't decide for the entire Orthodox Church. The schism will not be healed in our lifetimes. If one Orthodox synod refuses to participate the others will refuse also, so as not to cause another schism. The Ecumenical Patriarchate doesn't even recognize the Orthodox Church in America as an autocephalus sister Church, only as autonomous of the Moscow Patriarchate, which granted autocephaly to the OCA in 1970.

Here: Is Catholic-Orthodox Unity in Sight? | Blogs | NCRegister.com You seem to be admitting that yes, they are participating in ecumenism, but no, they aren't. You're talking out of both sides of your mouth here.

And more so, the talks are enough. They don't have to join together to be one church. They just need to accept each other. And for the most part, that seems like it has happened. We are seeing significant improvements, and that is what should matter.

No, I don't agree. Christians think that the only way to salvation is their way. No one comes to the Father except through Jesus. Well, Sri Krishna said that if you think of Him always, and become His devotee, you will surely go to Him... 3,000 years before Jesus said it.

I left Christianity, Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy to be precise, in the dust because of Christianity's provincial mindset. Christianity will never evolve.

So now it all Christians. Well, there you have it. Each denomination isn't saying their way is the only way. As you stated, they are saying as a whole, that salvation is only through there way. Quite a big difference. In fact, what you just said suggests that Christianity as a whole is quite united.

And really, does it matter if Sri Krishna said something similar? I don't see how that plays a part in this.

As for Christianity never evolving, that is just asinine. If you can't see how it has evolved over the last 2,000 years, you are blind. You even admit that Catholicism has changed and is now accepting evolution, and Episcopal Church is ordaining homosexual bishops. If that is not evolving, then you can't say that science in evolving either.

Clearly, you have a big problem with Christianity. And that problem, and I would venture to say hate, is blinding you on the subject.

 

[ChristineES]

My goodness! Rape is immoral. Hurting anyone else for your own gain would be immoral. Humans have minds to think with, we don't usually live on instinct alone. I am not sure what an animal's agenda would be, outside of surviving.

 

[fallingblood]

That is a silly thing to say. Birth-control has been infallibly declared morally unacceptable

And the use of condoms, in order to help prevent the spread of AIDS, has also been condoned. So it isn't a silly thing to say.

 

[fallingblood]

No. Rape deals with forcing a sexual act, silly.

Actually, that is only one definition. However, context did make what you were talking about clear.

 

[Photonic]

My goodness! Rape is immoral. Hurting anyone else for your own gain would be immoral. Humans have minds to think with, we don't usually live on instinct alone. I am not sure what an animal's agenda would be, outside of surviving.

Is it immoral outside of human minds though? Is there some universal law of nature I missed defining rape?

No, there is not. You can argue about it as much as you want. You can even say Humans define existence and it can't exist without us. Based on our experience this is not true anyways.

I believe rape to be about as wrong as something can be. But do I delude myself into thinking it's some intrinsic property of the universe? Hell no. I'm not that blind.

 

[fallingblood]

There are some parallels between Lord Krishna and Jesus that can make one sit up and take notice. Their conception and birth stories are similar, both of them being transcendentally implanted in their mothers' wombs without physical contact; both were born in lowly places (stable, dungeon); both of their births were greeted by visitations of locals and celestials; both had attempts on their lives by jealous and paranoid kings, and had to be secreted away; both were of royal lineage; both revealed themselves as God: Christ's Transfiguration to his favorite disciples, Krishna's Vishvarupa to Arjuna, his ardent devotee.

The problem I see with many similarity charts such as these is that they are very broad in terms. When one actually begins looking at the actual stories (stories being plural, as just the story of Jesus has two different birth stories), the similarities are not very striking.

While Sri Krishna's discourse in the Bhagavad Gita is far longer than Jesus's recorded teachings, many of the sayings and verses are astonishingly similar. All this is in light of Krishna coming 3,000 years before Jesus. True Christianity, as Jesus taught and intended it, could be considered Vaishnavism-Lite (Vaishnavism being the worship of Krishna/Vishnu for those who don't know).

This is why I actually responded to this post there. How are you an authority on what True Christianity is or what Jesus taught and intended by it?

Scholars can't even fully agree on what Jesus was teaching, or what in the Gospels is actually from him. However, if what Jesus was teaching could be considered Vaishnavism-Lite, than Judaism could also be considered that. The reason being, the basic which scholars do agree on is that Jesus was a Jew, teaching a Jewish message. And when we look at it, it was not that unique in nature.

So really, I think you're overstepping what can be said here with actual evidence.

 

[fallingblood]

My goodness! Rape is immoral. Hurting anyone else for your own gain would be immoral. Humans have minds to think with, we don't usually live on instinct alone. I am not sure what an animal's agenda would be, outside of surviving.

Domination. There have been cases in which a buck will rape another buck in order to show domination. Other animals do the same thing, and one could even say part of the process of dominating the other being is to also humiliate them. Either way, it is still purposely hurting another creature. So even in nature it really isn't out of good intentions, but out of malice.

 

[fallingblood]

Is it immoral outside of human minds though? Is there some universal law of nature I missed defining rape?

No, there is not. You can argue about it as much as you want. You can even say Humans define existence and it can't exist without us. Based on our experience this is not true anyways.

I believe rape to be about as wrong as something can be. But do I delude myself into thinking it's some intrinsic property of the universe? Hell no. I'm not that blind.

I think you're just arguing now to argue. And really, you're not getting anywhere. Rape is wrong. You agree with that, we agree with that. One can't point to an instance in which it isn't wrong. So to suggest anything else is ridiculous.