Hatred of Christianity!

[Jainarayan]

I don't know how this all got turned around, but it is a sad state of affairs.

Control, and instilling of fear starting with the early Church leadership.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

However, what one group does should not reflect on another. The WBC is an extremist view, and is denounced by many Christians. I do think that other Christians should do something more though. For me, I find the WBC to be embarrassing, and a tarnish to Christianity. Because even though I should not be judged by what other Christians do, it happens quite often.

Christians just need to stand up and fight back. They need to show that what some fringe group is saying does not define Christianity, and they should try to make it known that the disgusting actions of one group are really confined to that one group (I know that anti-homosexuality extends further than the WBC, but they have taken it to another level. There are others along those same lines, Pat Robertson comes to mind, and really, they all needed to be treated in the same fashion).

So really, I don't think that what one group does should reflect necessarily on another. However, I also don't think Christians should just stand around and do nothing when their religion is being used for such disgusting actions.

I think you are arbitrarily trying to define where the group begins and ends. Understandable. But it's then exactly as I said. Until you start to literally police your own, you're still responsible by association.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

I don't think the general Christian attitude is to destroy all and everything that disagrees with them. Yes, there are some out there that would, and throughout history we have seen that happen. But now, I don't think many are looking to do that.

If we're speaking in generalities, then i DO think that's then general attitude.

Also, there were factors in why Christians attacked all other beliefs. It was in part a backlash from their persecution.

Please. It might have been a backlash during the Roman Empire. Since then, it's habit.

It doesn't make it right, and is not an excuse, but there are more factors to consider. And I find it hypocritical that one would accuse Christians of doing something, when that same Hellenistic idea did the same thing to Christians (on a smaller scale, but it was still there).

Well, it sounds like an excuse, anyway.

And honestly, I don't care if he has this belief. I don't care if he worships the Greek gods. It doesn't bother me, and I wouldn't want to destroy it. My problem is simply a historical one. There is no evidence that his beliefs existed continually through the ages. Honestly, if they did, I would be happy. One, it would be a great research opportunity. But, there simply is no evidence of that.

Again, we are both acknowledging that evidence, of an underground activity, is less likely, and your insistence is suspect since you know this. You have a primary source making claims. You don't want to hear them. Fair enough.

I'm not shifting goalposts. I'm simply saying that just because people continue with oral stories, that doesn't mean they believe them or that they continue to worship those gods. The fact that we in the West even continue telling those stories would show that it is not true to say that just because someone continues with such a story it means they believe them.

They are also continued in written mediums. It's not just songs. But w/e.

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.

That's a ridiculous rebuttal. Christian myths are attached to cultures too.

I was only saying that forms of Hellenistic religion never wrote anything down, such as the mystery religions. Others, did in fact write things down. And even the mystery religions left us with enough to know that they existed.

And I am not demanding written evidence. I am demanding evidence. For instance, when the Christian church went underground (for a relatively short time), we see evidence of that. We have artwork that tells stories. That would be more than enough to support his claim. And in the course of over a millennia, one would expect something. Maybe no actual writings (but probably some) but artwork, or some type of archeological evidence. Something.

Anything else you've dismissed, though. Don't pretend to be so open about it now, when you've been shutting down a primary source, right here.

I am also curious as to which Hellenistic religion his is supposed to be a continuation of.

Slop insulting him and ask.

Actually it does not fit the definition fine. Christianity was a cult. However, it is a now a religion. There is a distinct difference. Calling Christianity a cult simply is just trying to discredit it.

And what is that difference, which breaks the mold of cult? Again, you're just sore at the implications, because it means you, and nothing more..

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Cult - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia You'll be hard pressed to find a discernable difference.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Basically I find most of my questions are not being answered, btw. A denial is not the same thing, just FYI.

 

[not nom]

how many times religion used to justify ugly deeds by people .

how many times are good deeds justified by religion? how many times are ugly deeds commited and not justified by religion, but something else -- and what does that say about those other things? not much, if anything at all..

 

[GA777]

No christian can be evil.
Except if people call anyone who gets baptized a Christian, then that's clearly their problem.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I didn't use such an example. And I may have been acting rash; however, I don't see why it matters that the only country that has used nuclear weapons is a supposedly "religious" one. It may have just been how I read it, but I just don't see why it matters that it was a religious country that did.

I think it depends on the particular religious beliefs of the country, but I get rather leery at the idea of someone who believes that any sin can be forgiven, or that death isn't really death, being in control of weapons of mass destruction.

 

[darkstar]

I personally don't hate Christianity. I think most have lost their way, and I think that Jesus would be very unhappy with most of his "followers"

That being said, I can't blame one person or group for the actions of another group of people hiding behind the same religion. If I did that, I would no longer be able to defend myself against accusations that I am a neo Nazi just because I wear the Mjolnir and worship the Norse Gods.
I mean, how many neo nazis have used our symbols and indeed our religion to fuel their stupidity and hatred?
I judge by actions. I hold the old church responsible for their attacks on pagan faiths. I hold groups that feel the need to attack me, and those like me accountable for their actions, but this doesn't mean all Christians are like that.

 

[fallingblood]

I think you are arbitrarily trying to define where the group begins and ends. Understandable. But it's then exactly as I said. Until you start to literally police your own, you're still responsible by association.

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?

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.

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

 

[Jainarayan]

I personally don't hate Christianity. I think most have lost their way, and I think that Jesus would be very unhappy with most of his "followers"

"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." - Attributed to Mohandas (Mahatma) Gandhi, though disputed. Nevertheless, it is a true statement. The original quote is from Bara Dada: "Jesus is ideal and wonderful, but you Christians -- you are not like him."

 

[waitasec]

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.

it depends how you look at it.
i heard dawkins talk about an atheists for jesus movement...

 

[fallingblood]

If we're speaking in generalities, then i DO think that's then general attitude.

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).

Please. It might have been a backlash during the Roman Empire. Since then, it's habit.

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.

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.

Well, it sounds like an excuse, anyway.

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

Again, we are both acknowledging that evidence, of an underground activity, is less likely, and your insistence is suspect since you know this. You have a primary source making claims. You don't want to hear them. Fair enough.

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

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.

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.

They are also continued in written mediums. It's not just songs. But w/e.

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.

That's a ridiculous rebuttal. Christian myths are attached to cultures too.

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.

Anything else you've dismissed, though. Don't pretend to be so open about it now, when you've been shutting down a primary source, right here.

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.

Slop insulting him and ask.

How am I insulting him? By saying that he follows a recreational religion? I don't deny his gods, I don't say that they are dead or anything like that. I simply state that there is no historical evidence that his religion has continued from ancient times. I don't even deny his belief in that. I simply will not blindly accept it unless evidence is provided.

And what is that difference, which breaks the mold of cult? Again, you're just sore at the implications, because it means you, and nothing more..

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

 

[fallingblood]

Basically I find most of my questions are not being answered, btw. A denial is not the same thing, just FYI.

What questions? I have tried to address everything you have presented to me.

 

[fallingblood]

it depends how you look at it.
i heard dawkins talk about an atheists for jesus movement...

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.

 

[gnomon]

There is no historical evidence because you Christians burnt all our records and destroyed all our temples and killed all our priests by the 8th century. Hmm I wonder why there is no historical evidence. Any person who would have declared himself a follower of our Gods after that period would be considered a heretic and be burnt at the steak at once which you so called followers of the Prince of Peace seem to be good at doing, that is burning heretics witches

I am part of the Hellenic tradition, you are not so trying to tell me my faith has never existed after your cult became supreme is useless. I have heard of oral songs around villages by Mt Olympus and other folklore which is not written down. Plus I told you about my freinds lineages. We, the worshippers of the Gods and the nympths and dryads have always existed. I am sorry you can't understand this but perhaps your christian intolerance is blinding you from this fact.

We have tons of things written about the Rites of the 12, to call it "reconstructionist" is pretty misleading since it never has really changed except most of us don't sacrifice animals anymore.

I am sorry but your posts are not convincing me that Christians are not arrogant. You all try to convince us that if we don't believe in your man god then we will go to hell, which was obviously stolen from our concept of tartarus to encourage the people to convert to your overblown cult. However its not convincing anymore people are waking up

That's hilarious.

 

[lunamoth]

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.

You can hear him above the wailing and gnashing of teeth?

 

[Antiochian]

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 would probably be a good question for the Native Americans who were robbed of their lives, culture, and land by--what's that word?--Christians. Or the African Americans who were enslaved, sold, beaten, and segregated by Christians. And let's not forget those poor women burned for witchcraft, and those Unitarians burned for heresy by... Christians. You're right, we have aboslutely no right to feel anger towards Christians or Christianity. Shame on us!

 

[gnomon]

It gets even funnier.

 

[fallingblood]

This would probably be a good question for the Native Americans who were robbed of their lives, culture, and land by--what's that word?--Christians. Or the African Americans who were enslaved, sold, beaten, and segregated by Christians. And let's not forget those poor women burned for witchcraft, and those Unitarians burned for heresy by... Christians. You're right, we have aboslutely no right to feel anger towards Christians or Christianity. Shame on us!

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.