God Hates You.......

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

You see most Christians who follow Jesus's teaching think it sinful to accuse people wrongly or deliberately attempt to belittle or humiliate them or try to make them feel inferior.

I've been wondering if perhaps you're not deliberate in your efforts. You are persistent though.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

I'm just a bit sad at how the word "gay" was ripped out of the language. It was a gay word once. A dragoon officer gaily waltzing a crinoline out of the French windows and into the bushes.

Now it's a pile-driver.

"Marriage" ought not to go the same way. We could end up with two cruisers on Clapham Common claiming to be "married".

A "pas de deux" isn't two chaps.

Why can't they think of a word of their own. That's fair enough.

0 Replies

@rosborne979,

Quote:

Actually I was thinking more along the lines of people's objections to the "church" in the original post, not to FoxFyre. As Intrepid observed, everyone on this thread (regardless of their religion or non-religion) has condemned the behavior (and beliefs) of the church in the original post.

I was also making a very general observation that religions seem to take a lot of heat from other religions, and even factions of their own religion. And I wouldn't be surprised if the challenges come more from other religious sources than from non-religious ones (but I don't know how to measure this supposition).

Yeah - it'd be hard to measure especially since in the US you have churches like the one pictured in this video (which I'd guess to be very intolerant of any religion that advocated practices different from their own and at the other end of the spectrum you have unitarian/universalist churches which
advocate and encourage inclusion and acceptance of people of all faiths.

I think each religious person probably thinks his or her religion is the most acceptable - or they'd have chosen another one. But I don't know if this would necessarily translate into intolerance - I'd view it more of a preference- but a lot of people are intolerant of other peoples' preferences- that's for sure.

But I was talking to a Sikh guy the other day and he was explaining the history and belief system of his religion and as we compared the basic premises of how he viewed his faith and I viewed mine - we found a lot of similarities.

I also think religions take on the tenor of their adherents and are dynamic in that they change from generation to generation- depending on the cultural environment and basic mindset of the times.
What I mean is though the teachings are supposedly set and remain the same - interpretation and manifestation (the teachings enacted) may change depending on the political and cultural tenor of the times.
And I think this definitely affects how other denominations or nonbelievers view denominations.

For example - I can't remember ever hearing any anti-Muslim sentiment before 9/11.
And Christianity was just Christianity until it became rightwing conservative Christianity twenty or so years ago.

1 Reply

Imagine Odette in Swan Lake played by a chap because he was the best dancer. That would empty the stalls double-quick I should have thought.

0 Replies

@aidan,

Quote:

But I don't know if this would necessarily translate into intolerance - I'd view it more of a preference- but a lot of people are intolerant of other peoples' preferences- that's for sure.

Once preference comes in Becksie you have tailor-made religions seeking out a viable, and I intend that word biologically, segment by fitting the tenets to the preferences.

The religion of atheism allows the full gamut of preferences. If you read the works of the Marquis de Sade you will get an idea of what the full gamut consists of.

1 Reply

@spendius,

But that's what people do anyway Spendius.
Human beings are human beings whether they're religious or not - that's why religious teachings aren't perfectly enacted leaving the religion, instead of the adherents of the religion, open to the scorn of those who are watching with negative expectations, and having those negative expectations fulfilled - whether those are members of other or opposing denominations or nonbelievers.

Quote:

If you read the works of the Marquis de Sade you will get an idea of what the full gamut consists of.

I watched the movie...I got the idea.

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

ehBeth wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
You see most Christians who follow Jesus's teaching think it sinful to accuse people wrongly or deliberately attempt to belittle or humiliate them or try to make them feel inferior.

I've been wondering if perhaps you're not deliberate in your efforts. You are persistent though.

You can wonder all you want but you, like Setanta or anybody else who holds me in such low esteem, have yet to show anything I've said to back up that low opinion. That they are unable to back it up sure doesn't stop them from saying it though. I do not do that to anybody, and I don't think most Christians do.

You can be certain however, other than unintended typos or misspeaks, that if I state an opinion of any consequence, it was deliberate. I am also quite deliberate in insisting that my opinions be commended or condemned for what they really are and not what some would twist them into so that they are misrepresented.

0 Replies

@aidan,

Quote:

Human beings are human beings whether they're religious or not - that's why religious teachings aren't perfectly enacted leaving the religion, instead of the adherents of the religion, open to the scorn of those who are watching with negative expectations, and having those negative expectations fulfilled - whether those are members of other or opposing denominations or nonbelievers.

That only applies to the intellectual dishonesty of those who are watching with negative expectations. Religious teachings are untouched by anything those claiming to be adherents do.

I've seen the movie too. It hardly scratches the surface. The writings show where atheism leads those brave enough to follow the logic. They are a defence of the Church in the same way that some food pornography is a defence of proper eating habits.

0 Replies

Fox just cracks me up with her bullshit. Now she claims that Leviticus is no part of Christianity. Apparently, she takes scripture as some kind of menu in a Chinese restaurant, and believes she can choose from columns A, B and C.

In the King James Version, Matthew, Chapter Five, verses 17-20:

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

So, apparently, not only did your boy Jesus believe in Leviticus, he clearly states you ain't gonna go to Heaven if you don't sign up your own self.

I don't know if Fox is more pathetic, or hilarious.

0 Replies

http://images.chron.com/apps/comics/images/2008/12/24/Pearls_Before_Swine.862.g.gif

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

0 Replies

I think Jesus spent a lot of time preaching tolerance and forgiveness: I can quote the Lords prayer.

Forgive those who trespass against us.

Quote: from the person best suited to quote on Christianity: Jesus himself. A message of forgiveness not hatred. The people who get irate about Santa Claus being graven images etc. are party poopers. And taking things a little seriously.
As a Christian. I forgive them.
My favourite bible quote:

Forgive them father: they know not what they do.

0 Replies

The simple fact is that so-called “true Christians” often endorse both violence and discrimination. The bible has plenty of examples of the endorsement of both violence and discrimination.

Anyone who claims otherwise is guilty of ignorance at the least!

0 Replies

@DrewDad,

Yea and it came to pass in 1593 that the computer network cereal bus ran on grain.

0 Replies

I am shocked -- shocked! -- that these Evangelicals think Santa Claus is a pagan idol and a lie. Nonsense! The original Santa was an actual Christian bishop, Nicholas of Myr. He lived at the beginning of the second millennium. Although I won't vouch for the miracles Nicholas allegedly worked, his existence is far from being a lie. There is a respectable historical record backing it up -- which puts Santa far ahead of this Jesus person these Baptists worship.

Tsk tsk tsk, no education, these American evangelicals ... I guess that's what you get when you learn your history in Bible school.

1 Reply

mmmmmmmm

adultery...

1 Reply

@shewolfnm,

Add a little spice to the gruel!

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Correction: Nicholas of Myra lived in the fourth century, not the tenth. Sorry.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

So you should be.

Now St Nick hates you.

1 Reply

Actually Saint Nicholas was often confused with Old Nick. He was actually from the middle east so he'd probably end up in Guantanamo Bay. I think Santa Claus is a red herring: the pagan symbols are eating a lot, giving gifts,Indoor trees, lights, Faeries on top of trees.
I

0 Replies

God Hates You.......

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know