The Horrors of christianity

Very true, which would also be a good question for another thread, why does the christain god allow its word to become so diffuse by its subjects? Does it have no control whatsoever over the laws it handed down so long ago? Intersesting topic, I'll have to start another thread and see if it is possible to keep people on the subject long enough to work out some answers.

No problem, you won't upset me, unless you are the type of person who likes to intentionally distort an issue I am trying to discuss intelligently, then I get a little peeved.
Just so you know, I would more likely be considered an agnostic by people who like to pigeon hole people with titles. I believe that it is impossible to prove that any sort of creator exists, while at the same time disproving any sort of creator exists. Really, rational people would see it this way, in my opinion.

Well, really, not just 600 hundred years ago, do you read or watch any news? Let's see, here are a few more recent activities associated with what I am trying to discuss:
Take note of how the level of anger has risen in the rhetoric coming from many Christians, particularly in reference to homosexuality. Senator Trent Lott openly compared homosexuals with thieves, expressing the fundamental assumption that homosexuality is essentially criminal in nature and deserving of similar treatment.

The website for Gary Bauer's Family Research Council speaks of "waging war against the homosexual agenda." The nomination of James Hormel as ambassador to Luxembourg has been held up for months, ostensibly due to his promotion of the "gay lifestyle."

The U.S. Supreme Court also let stand a lower court ruling which upheld the Constitutionality of an amendment to the Cincinnati city charter which prohibited legal bans on discrimination by sexual orientation.
So, in Cincinnati, it became quite legal to discriminate against gays and lesbians. If you have a gay man working for you, you can fire him at will. If you have a lesbian as customer, you can refuse to serve her if you wish. None of it would be illegal. Imagine if such were possible only against Christians.

Coincidentally, this ruling came one day after the brutal murder of Matthew Shepard in Laramie, Wyoming. He was horribly beaten, burned, and lashed to a fence overnight in near freezing rain - primarily because he was gay. Police reports the main motive to be robbery - but rarely is a person beaten and tortured merely for robbery - that kind of act requires more than greed. Such attacks were not new to Shepard - he had been beaten twice in previous months, also because of his homosexuality.
Even as he lay dying in a Colorado hospital, college students there mocked him with a scarecrow atop a float in a parade. Homophobic and bigoted Christians came to Caspar, Wyoming to picket his funeral and dance on his grave, holding signs stating that "AIDS cures Fags." A Time/CNN poll revealed that three-quarters of adults questioned think that the problem of violence against homosexuals is not only serious, but very possible in their own communities.

This incident renewed efforts across the country to pass hate crime legislation which would provide for increased penalties when crimes are committed for reasons of hatred. Mike Massie of the Wyoming legislature has tried four times this past decade to get such legislation passed, but he's been told it won't happen unless sexual orientation is dropped from the list of biases. President Clinton urged Congress to pass the Hate Crimes Prevention Act, which would have broadened the definition of hate crimes to include gays, women and the disabled - but conservative Christians strongly opposed the measure.



Government officials in both Canada and the United States have issued warnings to abortion doctors to take extra precautions. Anti-abortion extremists in Britain have warned the public that there "will be casualties" in the coming war, and that they did not intend to "turn the other cheek." As the anti-abortion rhetoric has increased over the years, so has the anti-abortion violence - property is destroyed, people are killed, and women are denied access to medical care.
When Muslim extremists place a bomb at a bus station in Israel, it is justifiably regarded as an act committed by "Muslim Terrorists." When are we going to wake up and recognize that similar acts here are being committed by "Christian Terrorists?"



Katie Couric of the Today Show questioned whether or not the murder of Matthew Shepard might be linked with the increasingly hostile displays of intolerance on the part of various right-wing Christian groups like Focus on the Family. The reaction from members of such organizations was quick and massive - so massive, in fact, that NBC had to ask Focus on the Family to cease and desist with the phone calls. James Dobson, president of the organization, has also asked for an official apology from NBC.
Apparently, he is free to accuse homosexuals of whatever he wants, linking them to crime and drug use, if that is his whim, but any suggestion that his rhetoric encourages a climate of hate and violence is to be considered libelous. Brent Bozell of the Media Research Center considers it "one of the most insidious and bigoted attacks against Christians ever seen" for someone to suggest that Christians bear any responsibility for the Matthew Shepard's death. Somehow, I doubt he takes the suggestion that Christians are exhibiting any bigotry towards homosexuality very seriously.





There was a firestorm over witches (wiccans) in Salem, Massachusetts, as Republican Governor Paul Cellucci promoted very degrading stereotypes in his election TV ads.
Cellucci's commercials attacked state Attorney General Scott Harshbarger for his 1992 role in assisting Salem police when Christian evangelists were accused of accosting the city's Wicca followers and Harshbarger threatened to prosecute for civil rights violations. Evidently, Cellucci felt that it's OK to accost Wiccans - perhaps since they don't follow a "real" religion?
Cellucci's commercials featured a police line-up of Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and a pointy-hatted, wart-nosed, stereotypical old witch. An announcer called it "scary" that Harshbarger might threaten prosecution on behalf of witches as the witch standing there cackles. Wiccans in the area were understandably upset - imagine the outcry if Cellucci had used a similarly nasty stereotype of a black or a Jew in that line-up. But of course, few in the media took notice of this stereotyping - Wiccans just don't count.
The ad also chastised Harshbarger for banning Christmas decorations from public areas in the office - so he was not only to be condemned for defending the religious freedom and rights of a minority group, but also for prohibiting public offices from becoming promotion venues for Christianity. People who don't toe the line by pandering to Christians in this country have a hard time in getting elected, even in liberal Massachusetts.


In Republic, Missouri, Wiccan Jean Webb has fought a lonely and caustic battle. Although she at times thinks of just giving up and running - times like when she picks up the phone only to hear a Good Christian Citizen let loose with a stream of obscenities and threats. Or like when previously friendly clerks at the supermarket close their registers when she approaches.
Or maybe when a Good Christian Neighbor stands outside and shouts at her that she is an evil witch who will suffer eternal damnation. Or maybe when she sees the vicious attacks painted on a large rock in a nearby field in which her children can no longer play. Or maybe when her daughter received so much abuse at school from Good Christian Children that she now has to be taught at home.
What did Jean do to suffer such torment at the hands of local Christians? What prompted the local newspaper to fire her without explanation, such that she cannot even today find further employment? Did she molest children or beat puppies? Worse: She opposed the officially dominant position of Christianity in local government.



Her community has used the Christian symbol of the fish in their official seal, and since she does not believe that religious symbols belong as part of government business, she decided to challenge it as a violation of church/state separation with the assistance of the American Civil Liberties Union. Supporters of the symbol claim that it is supposed to represent the deep commitment to religious values - but among those values are apparently things like hatred and mean-spiritedness.
Jean had already left another town, Aurora, because of the abuse her daughter received at school there and had even considered "attending the Baptist church as cover" when she moved to Republic.
What sort of country do we have that religious minorities might feel compelled to hide their faith and pretend to be Christians in order to avoid persecution?



So what do you think, have the attitudes of those involved in christianity changed? Well, surely not all of them are as hostile to people who don't think as they do, and I never said that.
But, if any of you who have attacked me here in regards to this thread ever gave the issue some real thought, you would maybe come to the conclusion that your religion needs to grow up, and learn to accept people who think differently.
Does this pertain to the point of this thread? No. But you and other people seem to have trouble following the point of it so I figured I would at least answer your comments.

 

I wanted to add, that the people who have ignored the point of this thread have also ignored the purpose of it also. As an agnostic, I am always looking for evidence one way or the other that would answer the question of the existence of some sort of creator. So far, the "believers" who have posted on this thread have gone far to confirm an opinion for the non-existence of a creator, in my opinion. They have also done much to confirm to me that their belief system still fosters anger and hostility towards anyone who does not feel as they do.

 

Statistics? I would posit that not even christianity is based on supernatural entities. Christian discipleship is based on practice in cultivating the native entity of our god/good nature. Institutions calling themselves christian exhibit precisely the same effects as any other political organization. Institutions are like any other body in that their core interest is preserving and extending the institution.

Since there is no evidence of god, then god cannot be the cause of whatever
and your questions about the qualities of god is an effort to prove what you already believe is fact allowing only your own evidence to be admitted.

The effects you see have nothing to do with belief in supernatural beings. The effects you point out have cultural/political causes, religion is just a front man. You could make a case that the euro/western proprietary model has dominated the world through guns, germs, and steel, as suggested by Jared Diamond.

 

Well, first of all I don't consider the God you portray here as mine. I am also not a christian. But onto the post: what I ment is this thread is not just focussed on the christian humans but mainly about the actions (or lack there of) of the christian god. He is supposed to have created ALL humans so why are you concentrating the pointed out horrors on only one kind of people. Why should he only take action when so called christians commit to evil and not all humans. Since the christian religion might be flawed I take it if the christian/judaism God exists he would not limit his actions to just this group of people that perhaps think of themselves as special or on the true path but this would not mean much to the creator of all human beings right?

 

You seem to assume that everyone who disagrees or is upset with your approach has to be so because they are christian themselves. This is not the case at all. What I am convinced of myself and happen to share with most religious folks is that I don't need evidence to believe in a creator. I think faith is enough and also a really beautiful thing. That atheists seem to get annoyed and frustrated by this is just as typical as the anger and hostility you project on your 'opponents' here.

 

If your purpose is to look for evidence, then you need to consider evidence.
How did the posters on here go far to advance your opinion? All you have done is tell them they don't matter, that they miss the point of the thread etc. et all.

This contradiction between stated purpose and information gathering technique , suggests that the effort is simply insincere and on that basis alone the results of the experiment should be discarded.

 

too bad nobody else will be given the opportunity to make that decision themselves considering all my posts have been deleted.
Meagain, I'm not upset, half expected it.


Sadly the type of presentation the OP proffered is accepted as a legitimate starting point for discussion. But from the outset the demeanor, language, derogatory statements, the parenthetical smart-ass remarks, the use of quotation marks on some words to denote an air disingenuous to the words alone signaled that this person was more trolling the Christian forums rather than asking a genuine question.

And I would have posted the same responses if it was in the Buddhist forum, Pagan forum, (pick your religion)forum.
My issue was with the obvious confrontational nature of the OP, NOT THE SUBJECT MATTER.
Yet he continues to post his anti-Christian inflammatory remarks in the Christianity section where they are certain to stir something up.
Hmmmm. I thought that was the definition of an internet troll???

Am I the only one who, given the limited interaction inherent in online communications, makes use of the WAY and LANGUAGE in which a person presents a topic as much as the content of the post to ascertain the intentions and motives.

My God if you people have not learned to see the BS simply based on the packaging, I fear for ya.

Well, since apparently my views are not permitted in this section of the Free Speech forums, I'll just watch.

 

:2thumbsup:

 

:iagree:

 

Is this a hypothetical group then, that we are to suppose? This the error in your logic, to assume a hypothetical group is the standard for any existing group.

We may also learn over time that many many more do not do such things making such claims.

It is not logical to assume anything based on a limited perspective, a theoretical category.

 

Ah, my apologies, it was an assumption on my part based on your comments.

Absolutely, it is about the the continued portrayal of an entity that turns a blind eye to what is going on, to put it simply. There are a few questions in there that I was interested in some other viewpoints on, but so far there have been few comments on them.

Because if I had put the other versions of this entity in with the mix, then it would have been impossible to have any kind of conversation on it. Look what has been going on with just the issue of one entity. Good idea though, maybe some more threads looking at each of the supposed gods that supposedly exist are in order. I'll have to look at what I have for notes on those also.

I wouldn't know why it would interact with all humans, since I have no way of determining if it even exists. Anything expressed on that issue would be pure supposition. I did the thread on christianity. Like I said above, maybe some more threads exploring the rest are in order.

I don't consider the supposed god of the Jews to be the same god of the christians, they don't either, so I think it is important to keep the two belief systems separate. Christians keep the Judeo/christian thing going as they have stolen parts of Judaism to support their own belief system, so let's not include the Jews here.
Sorry, For some reason I am having trouble following what you are trying to say here. It appears to be a restatement of what you said earlier, that this supposed god should be in charge of all people.
The point I was trying to make, and which Megain (sorry if I misspelled that)picked right up on, is that basically, what is the point of following the rules supposedly laid down by an entity that 1. may not even exist, 2. if it did exist would not be worth following since it allows the violence done in its name to continue to this day, and 3. would not be worth following since it has also commanded others to violence, genocide, etc., in its name for whatever reason.
This is what I was asking. It is the christians, by the way, in this instance, who are the subject of the thread, not "everyone else". So that is why I keep referencing them. The notes I have for this thread reflect the horrors the followers of christianity have done, in the name of their god, so really, it is all about them, in this instance.

 

Well, if you think about it, even those people who don't actually fo to a christian church identify with the christian concept of a god, basically making them followers of the laws that entity supposedly left for his registered followers.

So, do you make up things about this creator, what it's like, where it resides, that sort of thing. Did it really create a hell where all of us who don't believe in it will be relegated when we die?
Not trying to be an asshole here, just curious. If you think in terms of a generic creator, do you still follow tenets found in the christian belief system? Because, I would think that would make you a christian, just not a practicing one.

We disagree, then, because belief in something that cannot be proven, which is what faith is, borders on delusional activity. I always wondered, how can people have selective faith? Some believe like you say, others believe little fairy type people live in the woods, but the first lot ridicule the second lot for the way they think. What makes the first lot right, and the second wrong?

I really wouldn't know what atheists think, since I have not talked to any about this thread, mostly, the ones I know are amused by the thought process that go on with "believers".
Also, I have not projected any anger and hostility on any of my "opponents" here, they were and still are, apparently, quite capable of of projecting that themselves. I get peeved when people ignore the whole point of what I posted, and refuse to enter into any sort of intelligent debate about it.

If someone has a valid argument against what I have posted, or cares to comment on it, I would enjoy the chance to discuss it, but really, it boils down to the fact that I posted some questions, and only a few have bothered to comment on them. Instead, I get a bunch of comments that have no bearing on this matter. If someone wants to talk about other issues, then they should create a thread so that they can discuss them with any people who are interested, but they have not. Instead they end up here trolling the people who have tried to discuss what I posted.

 

I'm so happy the OP didn't post 4 pages worth on info like planned.

 

I actually have 8 total, just the 4 pared down to post. I would be happy to provide them if you like.

 

They're different branches of the same tree, try look for the similarities instead of the differences.

The point of these rules are to help people along.. they're guidelines for living a good life, but people get so caught up in ritual that a lot of them have forgotten the true meaning.. and it just snowballs so you get all these weird practises that don't really mean anything. People don't trust their own judgement any more..

1. The "entity" doesn't exist. That's a concept, an abstraction of what is..
2. "It" doesn't exist, so shit happens.
3. Because "It" doesn't exist, it doesn't command shit. People use "It" as an excuse to get what they want.. or delude themselves into thinking whatever they want is because "It" said so.


We're all alone, how daunting is that? But luckily, you always have yourself and everyone around you. What's wrong with following your own conscience, because that's all you need. You know, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you", do you need a dogma to tell you that? No! It's common sense!

 

We are all part of the energy and conscious of God . To quote Wayne Dyer , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayne_Dyer " we are God" We create our own reality , good and bad , consciously , and unconsciously . If something good or bad happens it is because of our own thoughts , not the actions of God . If you check out L.O.A. / creative visualization you will have a better idea of what I am talking about . desert rat

 

By our words we are justified.

 

only in your opinion.

You can quote obscure people all you want, it does not make it any more true.

I can agree with you on this.

Well, obviously, since your god probably does not exist, and even if it did, it could care less what goes on with its supposed creation. My point was with this thread, that horrific things have been done in the name of this entity, and if it did exist, then is it worth worshipping, since it allows these things to happen, or, more probably, it does not exist, and people do these deeds in the name of it, all of which would tell anyone that can think for themselves that religions, in this case, chrisitianity, are bad for people.

Thanks anyway, but I am fine with the way my thinking is now.

 

:lurk5: