Pastor alarmed after Trump-loving congregants deride Jesus' teachings as 'weak'

[SomeRandom]

I wore that flag on my right sleeve for 21 years.
Evidently it means more to me than it does others.

And I wore mine on my heart all my life.
It’s still just a flag

 

[We Never Know]

And I wore mine on my heart all my life.
It’s still just a flag

Mines been bloody. To each their own I reckon

 

[SomeRandom]

Mines been bloody. To each their own I reckon

I mean fair enough.

I can understand proudly upholding and defending the values our flags represent.

But if they’re the property of someone, then surely it is fully within their right to burn it?

I thought American values highly honoured such free speech activities?
Why the derision then? And indeed putting it on the same level as something as horrible as bigotry? Damn!!

 

[We Never Know]

I mean fair enough.

I can understand proudly upholding and defending the values our flags represent.
But if they’re the property of someone, then surely it is fully within their right to burn it?
I though American values highly honoured such free speech activities?
Why the derision then?

Do you think it would bother say LGTQ people if people openly burnt their flag?

Sure it would. Its not about the flag itself but what the flag means to them. And for the record I despise anyone that burns their rainbow flag.

 

[SomeRandom]

Do you think it would bother say LGTQ people if people openly burnt their flag?

Sure it would. Its not about the flag itself but what the flag means to them. And for the record I despise anyone that burns their rainbow flag.

Fair enough.
But if you’re protesting your government for perceived terrible slights, presumably slights against the very values said flag represents, surely burning it in a symbolic manner would be an act of upholding said values. Right?

 

[We Never Know]

Fair enough.
But if you’re protesting your government for perceived terrible slights, presumably slights against the very values said flag represents, surely burning it in a symbolic manner would be an act of upholding said values. Right?

Same as burning a pride flag would be an act of upholding values. Right?

Burning flags falls upon personal values IMO

 

[We Never Know]

Well the last three I can understand why the underlying context would be one of derision. Or rather the message conveyed. That of someone with hate and something negative

Flag burning?
Again maybe that’s just an American thing but I could care less if someone burns their national flag.
It’s just a flag. And indeed flag burning has long been associated with symbolic protests of one’s government. It is a known protest move in multiple countries, usually done in disgust of awful acts committed by said government. So I don’t really put it in the same category, truth be told

Maybe it’s more of an American thing?

Speaking of derogatory manner... Do these qualify?

Non critical thinking christian
Soulless atheist
Uneducated believer
Hell bound sinner
Etc etc

Where does the acceptable line stop?

 

[SomeRandom]

Same as burning a pride flag would be an act of upholding values. Right?

Burning flags falls upon personal values IMO

Depends on the context. I guess?

For the sake of argument assume someone found out that their government say tortured and killed a bunch of civilian families in a country they are at war with.
This, in their mind, undermines the very values that their national flag represents to them.

By burning said flag they are very publicly saying that the values represented by said flag were badly desecrated. By the very government charged with upholding said values no less.

I can see this happening after a war crime is committed. Regardless of country.

Would you say this is a valid way to signal one’s disgust?

With the pride flag, unlike war crimes, which have precedent, unfortunately. In both our countries
The only precedent I can think of in context related to the pride flags are people literally protesting the very existence of innocent people who happen to be non heterosexual.
I’m not aware of any other circumstances regarding the burning of a pride flag. But if I’m mistaken, I apologise

 

[SomeRandom]

Speaking of derogatory manner... Do these qualify?

Non critical thinking christian
Soulless atheist
Uneducated believer
Hell bound sinner
Etc etc

I would say yes, honestly

 

[We Never Know]

I would say yes, honestly

So its things we see multiple times daily here and that are acceptable right?

 

[SomeRandom]

So its things we see multiple times daily here and that are acceptable right?

I don’t think they are acceptable
But I’m not an American so I can only comment on what I see
And indeed that’s just my personal opinion

 

[We Never Know]

I don’t think they are acceptable
But I’m not an American so I can only comment on what I see
And indeed that’s just my personal opinion

Evidently they are acceptable here, it happens quite often and here is more than America right?

 

[SomeRandom]

Evidently they are acceptable here, it happens quite often and here is more than America right?

I don’t know if it’s more in America
I’m not American
But you guys are very prominent on a world stage even now. So we will look to you guys to see what you’re up to. For better or worse

World superpower and all that, right?

 

[We Never Know]

Honestly?
If that is a complaint you have, I urge you to bring it to the attention of all the staff on this website via the feedback forum.

I agree with you that such insults are entirely unacceptable in civil discourse.

I’m not in charge of RF
You get me?

I get you and understand. I also don't have a complaint.
I am just pointing out things people don't deem acceptable happen here often.
Where do we draw the line?
Are more participants on the site more important than what's acceptable?
It becomes a fine line when it comes down to it.

 

[Ella S.]

Speaking of derogatory manner... Do these qualify?

Non critical thinking christian
Soulless atheist
Uneducated believer
Hell bound sinner
Etc etc

Where does the acceptable line stop?

Man, my mind must be broken, because I don't see any of these as derogatory.

If someone called me a "soulless atheist," I'd probably agree with them. If they called me a "hell-bound sinner," I'd think they were wrong, but I wouldn't necessarily take it as an insult.

I think some believers are objectively uneducated about certain topics pertinent to their arguments or beliefs. I think some Christians lapse out of critical thinking or, maybe, never actually learned how to critically think, because critical thinking is a skill that has to be taught and learned like any other. It's not innate. Innate thinking is biased; it takes work to actively debias one's thought processes and, even then, it's not always a sure thing that you succeed. Critical thinking is difficult and has to be constantly maintained, which takes work, so even critical thinkers can lapse back into being non-critical if they get too comfortable with relying on heuristics again.

I simply would never have considered any sort of pejorative or derogatory effect these phrases could have if I didn't see a post like this one that directly asked about it. I just see them as descriptions.

I think they can be used in an argument fallaciously in the form of an ad hominem and I think, at that point, I could probably consider them to be personal attacks. I tend to think of those more as an error in reasoning, but I do think they can be disrespectful and annoying. I think that virtually anything can be used as an ad hominem attack, though. Someone could discount what I say because I'm a woman and that would be derogatory, but it doesn't make "woman" a derogatory term.

I don't think "uneducated," "non-critical thinking," "soulless," or "hell-bound" are inherently derogatory. I think they can perform perfectly valid descriptive functions. If one spoke about how unrepentent murderers are hell-bound, then, yeah, they are according to some doctrines. It's not an insult to murderers to point that out, you know? And we're all uneducated about some things, and we are all non-critical thinkers at some points in our life. And I personally don't believe that any of us have souls.

There are some terms that are inherently derogatory, I think, but seeing "uneducated" as an insult is like seeing "misinformed" or "ignorant" as insults. That's way too far, in my opinion. I am uneducated when it comes to administering medicine to horses. I am ignorant about the different models of telescopes astronomers use. I've been misinformed about a number of rather silly things. I don't think any of that should be stigmatized.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

It's the rise of the Flintstones, by which I mean the fearful, brutish element relative to the intellectual tradition of the Jetsons. Another metaphor for that is the Klingons and Federation id Star Trek. Another was the two factions that arose in Lord Of The Flies - Jack et al vs Piggy et al. The history of man has been the gradual transition from Flintstones into Jetsons, from savages to gentlepeople.

We're living through a setback now. The Flintstones feel emboldened and empowered, hence "the rise of the Flintstones." Trump the brutal, vicious, intolerant, angry, vengeful authoritarian is the image of the Old Testament god. It's not surprising that such people call Jesus a wimp. They think the same of all liberals.

I happen to agree with them about the Sermon On The Mount, but not for their reasons. which says

Another poster: "Qualities the Romans would have loved to see in their conquered subjects, which is probably why they had a lot to do with the formation of Jesus' philosophy of meekness and turn the other cheek."

My reply: "Agreed. That passage is undoubtedly what made this religion appeal to Constantine. The believers see those passages as beautiful and loving, but they're not. I see, 'stand down, little man, accept your lot, know your place, meekness is blessed, longsuffering is divine. If smitten, give your abuser the other cheek. Your reward comes after death. We promise!' I see it as I described it. So did Napoleon. What better statement of what the people teaching these thing actually have in mind for those who will take their advice than this? : "How can you have order in a state without religion? For, when one man is dying of hunger near another who is ill of surfeit, he cannot resign himself to this difference unless there is an authority which declares 'God wills it thus.' Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet." - Napoleon Bonaparte"

And what was the fate of Napoleon?
Defeat, imprisonment and death.
This is the fate of all despots and dictators, Hitler included.

Do you suppose the like of Trump and his supporters will fare any better.
History suggests not.

 

[1213]

Come on, now. If anyone other than Jesus said those things, conservatives would dismiss them as being "woke" and/or "socialist".

I think socialists dismiss the words of Jesus as much and probably are the greediest people on earth, because they think other people should give them everything for nothing. However, I don't think greediness or selfishness goes by party lines. And in my opinion there are many Republicans that live by what Jesus taught and I don't think there are many "Democrats" who do the same. Many things "Democrats" support are against love your neighbor and this:

the laborer is worthy of his hire.
Luke 10:7

 

[1213]

Jesus put the welfare of people well ahead of money, such as when he said: "Render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's...". Conservatives that are like Trump "worship" money, and they refuse to follow Jesus' Parable of the Sheep & Goats and much of what's in the Sermon On the Mount.

Sorry, I don't see any evidence for that Trump worship money.

 

[1213]

They certainly contradict MAGA standards, and everything that movement is about.

Please explain why do you think so? What is in the "MAGA standards" that is against them?

 

[Yerda]

I think socialists dismiss the words of Jesus as much and probably are the greediest people on earth, because they think other people should give them everything for nothing. However, I don't think greediness or selfishness goes by party lines. And in my opinion there are many Republicans that live by what Jesus taught and I don't think there are many "Democrats" who do the same. Many things "Democrats" support are against love your neighbor and this:

the laborer is worthy of his hire.
Luke 10:7

Can you cite examples of socialists who "think other people should give them everything for nothing"?

Can you cite examples of Reupblicans who live by Jesus' teachings?