This is why people hate Christianity and Christians... [Archive]

Pedersen

11-14-2009, 03:59 AM

So, it's OK to hate an entire group and assume everyone in that group holds exactly the same warped and twisted views, based on one warped and twisted person?

Ree, that's disingenuous at best, and I'm actually disappointed in this reply from you.

How many stories have we heard of Catholic priests abusing children? How about that compound in Texas where girls were treated as property, married off at illegal ages, etc? How about any of the Christian senators in the US Congress who have turned out to be sexual abusers?

This is a recurring theme, not just a one-off incident. At least a couple of times per year we will hear about some group of people who consider themselves to be good, god-fearing Christians, railing against the sins and iniquities of other chosen groups, who have turned out to do the same sort of things that they are decrying in their hated groups.

In other words, at least a couple times per year, we hear about significant hypocrisy in the leadership of various Christian groups.

If this story were a one-off event, then the title would have been something closer to "Can you believe that this man called himself Christian?" Instead, it's another example of an event that is too common, and besmirches the reputation of the entire group.

After all, if the leadership is so full of hypocrisy, can the congregations be so far behind?

And while you sit there and stew, consider this: A significant number of people in this country despised Bush while he was President. However, that did not stop others from other countries painting the Bush haters with the same brush as the Bush lovers. Same sort of thing.

Both examples show despicable behavior by a whole bunch of people. The behavior by those who make the judgements (in both examples) is at least understandable. After all, these people are the leaders because they are allowed to be. The people being led have to let it happen. It makes everybody who follows them into a suspect.

Crazedclerkthe2nd

11-14-2009, 06:33 AM

Pedersen, your reply mirrors my views exactly.

It's not just one person, it's a whole slew of people. The problem is that there are plenty of good, decent Christians out there but thanks to this (sadly) growing minority of abusers and false prophets and two facers, more and more folks are souring on Christ.

RecoveringKinkoid

11-14-2009, 06:52 AM

Ree, that's disingenuous at best, and I'm actually disappointed in this reply from you.

.

You're disappointed with Ree because she called a bigoted statement for what it was?

If someone makes a broad, sweeping statement about an entire group based on the action of a few people, then it's bigotry.

smileyeagle1021

11-14-2009, 07:31 AM

So, it's OK to hate an entire group and assume everyone in that group holds exactly the same warped and twisted views, based on one warped and twisted person?

Why not, the Bible does it all the time.
The term Gentile comes to mind...

Besides, it is a common enough practice among church leaderships... LDS church leadership routinely define all gay people as people who are merely too weak to overcome the "challenge of same sex attraction". Almost all churches preach that non members by definition cannot receive salvation, no matter what their character.
Those don't even base that on one person... those are based on assumptions that are based in ignorance. What goes around comes around as they say. Which is somewhat unfortunate, because I know there are many people (like you Ree) who are very good people who are Christian... that said, the church really needs to clean house.

Flyndaran

11-14-2009, 07:56 AM

Exclusive salvationists are all nasty little turd burglars. I don't care if anyone calls me bigoted for that. They believe that I deserve to go to hell, so I say that in this war they shot first.

Generally, it is the organizations and those that support them that are the most harmful. Anyone that supports the catholic church is an accessory after the fact for all the child abuse scandals, for example.

Ree

11-14-2009, 08:21 AM

If you say you believe in christ, then by definition you are a christian.Just because you say you believe Christ existed, it doesn't make you a Christian.
Christianity is not only a belief in Christ, but it is also following his examples and teachings.

These people mentioned in the link, and by others as examples to refute my statement, are not following his teachings with their actions, so to hate all Christians and Christianity because some flawed humans have behaved horrendously in its name is, in my opinion, extremely bigoted.

I am a Christian, and while I'm far from perfect, I do try to live up to the example set by Christ.
I find it offensive that someone would justify hating me and my religion because others have trouble living up to their own faith and act in contradiction to it.

The Catholic church does not teach child molestation as a part of their doctrine.
I do not condone child molestation.
To say that I am an accessory after the fact in these horrendous abuses, just because I am a Catholic, is a reckless statement.

Kalli

11-14-2009, 09:33 AM

So, it's OK to hate an entire group and assume everyone in that group holds exactly the same warped and twisted views, based on one warped and twisted person?

Ree, you've made quite a significant jump here.

Where exactly has anyone said that they assume "every christian holds exactly the same warped and twisted views" as this guy? That seems like hyperbole to me.

I think it's more the fact that Christians tend to think that because they are Christian, we should assume they are a good person. This is obviously not always the case. Terms like "she's a good Christian woman" piss me off. It is the literal epitome of the phrase "holier-than-thou" attitude.

Ree

11-14-2009, 01:14 PM

Ree, you've made quite a significant jump here.

Where exactly has anyone said that they assume "every christian holds exactly the same warped and twisted views" as this guy? That seems like hyperbole to me.Did you read the title?
"This is why people hate Christianity and Christians..."

I am a Christian, so therefore, people hate me because some whackjob with controlling behaviour and a God complex chose to warp his religion and act in the most non-Christian way possible?

BroomJockey

11-14-2009, 03:02 PM

I am a Christian, so therefore, people hate me because some whackjob with controlling behaviour and a God complex chose to warp his religion and act in the most non-Christian way possible?

"Lie down with dogs, and wake up with fleas." These people are allowed to call themselves Christian even after these heinous acts happen. There is no denouncement or excommunication from higher up the church in the majority of cases. The Church even protected child molesting priests for years. So of course the average person is going to get the idea that the behaviour is condoned and accepted, or at least excused. Since they rightly feel these acts are morally reprehensible, why would they not take a dislike to an organization and its members that seem to not mind it?

And "silent disapproving majority" gets you no points either. After all, if you're silent, no one knows your views. Frankly, every time things like this happen, churches need to get together and send group letters to newspapers, the higher-ups in the church, everyone they can, stating they're taking a stand against that kind of behaviour. Or else people are just going to assume that you're fine with it. A few more of these assholes publicly disavowed might start to salvage the Church's reputation.

Ree

11-14-2009, 04:25 PM

So, then, because some Muslim extremists advocate killing, then, the next time there is a suicide bombing in the name of Allah, it's OK to make a thread saying, "This is why people hate Muslims..."?

Rapscallion

11-14-2009, 04:30 PM

Frankly, every time things like this happen, churches need to get together and send group letters to newspapers, the higher-ups in the church, everyone they can, stating they're taking a stand against that kind of behaviour.

Newspapers are famous for printing stories along the lines of, "Priest shagged choirboy," with pages of salacious content, and then at the end sticking in two lines from someone saying that it was a minority and not representative. I'm not certain if protests happen each and every time, but I know what gets reported.

Rapscallion

BlaqueKatt

11-14-2009, 05:07 PM

So, then, because some Muslim extremists advocate killing, then, the next time there is a suicide bombing in the name of Allah, it's OK to make a thread saying, "This is why people hate Muslims..."?

No because the majority of Moslems will loudly (http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2005-07/2005-07-15-voa47.cfm?moddate=2005-07-15) and vocally (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20091106_11_0_ATlaIl280508) denounce the perpitrator*-that is rarely seen within Christianity. How many religious leaders have come out against Fred Phelps and his ilk? one has publicly denounced him-just one (http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?ID=21487).**

from this website (http://www.gppcomic.com/2009/02/05/top-ten-instances-of-christians-shooting-christianity-in-the-foot-2008/)-the writer puts it better than I can:
Not only have the evangelicals not disowned Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church, but most leaders of all denominations continue to not publicly denounce this ass-clown. I’m sure many Church leaders don’t hold the opinions that Phelps does, but by doing so little, they speak volumes to everyone. When he and his wackos show up to picket a funeral, they should be met by the entire community to drive them out. Silence is assent, and if you aren’t loudly, publicly, visibly condemning the hateful craziness of WBC because “sure, they’re radicals, but at least they’re Christians”, then you are enabling them.

*The chairman(of the council of American-Islamic relations) said, "Any effort by terrorists to hide their criminal activities under the mask of religious piety is being categorically and unequivocally rejected by mainstream Muslims."

and there's this (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jan/16/islam-synagogue-arson-gaza-antisemitism)
More than 20 prominent British Muslims have signed a joint letter denouncing antisemitic attacks and called for continued Muslim vigilance against antisemitism. Some of the UK's leading theologians, imams, writers, community activists and others have signed and circulated this message widely.

While the Pope embraces four bishops from the known anti-Semitic Society of St. Pius X. Pope Benedict XVI last year extended the olive branch to four bishops from a known organizational font of religious anti-Semitism, including Richard Williamson, a formerly excommunicated holocaust denier. This year, they rejoined the fold, and on the same day Williamson was rehabilitated back into the Catholic Church, he was still spouting conspiracy crack about the entirely debunked Protocols of Zion.

**google search for "church leaders denounce Fred Phelps" turns up nothing except artilces on what/who he's denouncing
google search for "Muslims denounce suicide bombings" you get tons of articles-they aren't afraid to speak out and let it be known they are not like the extremists-Christians don't do this.

BroomJockey

11-14-2009, 07:13 PM

No because the majority of Moslems will loudly (http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2005-07/2005-07-15-voa47.cfm?moddate=2005-07-15) and vocally (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20091106_11_0_ATlaIl280508) denounce the perpitrator*-that is rarely seen within Christianity. How many religious leaders have come out against Fred Phelps and his ilk? one has publicly denounced him-just one (http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?ID=21487).**

Thank you for making my point better than I ever could.

Newspapers are famous for printing stories along the lines of, "Priest shagged choirboy," with pages of salacious content, and then at the end sticking in two lines from someone saying that it was a minority and not representative. I'm not certain if protests happen each and every time, but I know what gets reported.

Rapscallion

Newspapers around here _love_ printing letters to the editor about stuff like this. Why? It gets them readers. It's controversy. Especially when it's from a higher-up in an organization. It's pretty much guaranteed to be printed within a day or two if it's sent in. If it's not being printed, it's not being sent.

Fryk

11-14-2009, 07:29 PM

I need to point out that in the protestant flavors of christianity, it is very difficult to disown a gourp like this. There are literally hundreds of splinter groups and offshoots in protestant christianity, and it's not like you can force a church to call itself something else. For instance, I am pretty sure that the Westboro Baptist Church is not actually part of THE Baptist Church. They just tacked the title onto their church because they base SOME of their theology off of the teachings of Calvin. There is no way to make them change their name. The baptists are pretty much stuck with the situation.
Even more to the point, the Methodist Church has nothing whatsoever to do with any of it, and ditto for the Episcopalians, the Nazerenes, Lutherans, Pentecostals, and many many other denominations. There is nothing ANY of them can do to ANY of these local groups that claim the name "Christian" as part of their title, except to say loudly that they do NOT approve of their actions, which most of them DO.

BroomJockey

11-14-2009, 07:37 PM

say loudly that they do NOT approve of their actions, which most of them DO.

Except they don't. You never hear of church leaders on talk shows condemning the actions of any of these people, no protests, not even any letters. To talk it amongst yourselves is worse than useless. And while there may not be an overriding organization for every church, they are still loosely organized, and so could communicate to send a strong message to the world. Again, they don't. Instead they let these people besmirch Christianity.

BlaqueKatt

11-14-2009, 08:11 PM

Except they don't. You never hear of church leaders on talk shows condemning the actions of any of these people, no protests, not even any letters. To talk it amongst yourselves is worse than useless.

It's akin to ignoring the crazy cat lady down the street until her house becomes a health hazard.

Or ignoring the creepy person/kid spouting off he's going to "get even/do something"-until he actually does something horrible. Then it's all either "they were so quiet/nice", or "I knew something wasn't right" But you do nothing until it's too late. You want to tell me a small group of motorcyclists has more organizational skills than any random church, and expect me to believe it?

The WBC showed up in WI, at a college campus, the(completely unorganized) students yelled them down and forced them to leave in humiliation-but an organized group of people with a common shared goal can't be bothered? Right :rolleyes:

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing."

to further the point, National Right To Life denounces those that commit violence at clinics-yet no church does or says anything about the hate-spewing "so-called/self-proclaimed" "Christians" at all.

Flyndaran

11-14-2009, 09:41 PM

Just because you say you believe Christ existed, it doesn't make you a Christian.
Christianity is not only a belief in Christ, but it is also following his examples and teachings.

These people mentioned in the link, and by others as examples to refute my statement, are not following his teachings with their actions, so to hate all Christians and Christianity because some flawed humans have behaved horrendously in its name is, in my opinion, extremely bigoted.

I am a Christian, and while I'm far from perfect, I do try to live up to the example set by Christ.
I find it offensive that someone would justify hating me and my religion because others have trouble living up to their own faith and act in contradiction to it.

The Catholic church does not teach child molestation as a part of their doctrine.
I do not condone child molestation.
To say that I am an accessory after the fact in these horrendous abuses, just because I am a Catholic, is a reckless statement.

I still absolutely believe it to be true. You are part of a corrupt organization that continues to fight any attempt to help it own up to its past.
That is of course only if you follow the church. You can believe whatever you wish in the privacy of your own home with as much intellectual honesty as you like.

Since the evidence for Christ is absurdly shaky, I consider any belief in him to either be faith based or accepting it just to avoid controversy.

One can believe he espoused anything. We don't have any christian writing older than a couple centuries after his supposed death. Since no one actually follows the dead sea scrolls, I say that no one is any more or less christian than anyone else. You are all following a heavily modified version.

Ree

11-14-2009, 11:29 PM

I still absolutely believe it to be true. You are part of a corrupt organization that continues to fight any attempt to help it own up to its past.
That is of course only if you follow the church. You can believe whatever you wish in the privacy of your own home with as much intellectual honesty as you like.

Since the evidence for Christ is absurdly shaky, I consider any belief in him to either be faith based or accepting it just to avoid controversy.
.Whatever helps you sleep at night. It's a free country, and just as you are free to believe that, I am free to believe as I do.

I do not condone pedophilia, heretics who set themselves up as God, or others who use their church to sexually assault women.

I do, however, continue to believe in Christ and hold to my Catholic teachings in spite of the fact that there are flawed humans who also do the same thing.

I care about my own relationship with God. I just don't feel it's fair to have a title claiming hate for all Christians just because some asshole couldn't keep it in his pants.

Flyndaran

11-15-2009, 01:02 AM

...
I care about my own relationship with God. I just don't feel it's fair to have a title claiming hate for all Christians just because some asshole couldn't keep it in his pants.

You support a church that has been shown repeatedly to be corrupt. That makes you an accomplice after the fact.

I don't hate all christians, but I darn near hate all churches.

The world would be a marginally better place without religion. But it would be orders of magnitude better without churches.

Ree

11-15-2009, 01:24 AM

You support a church that has been shown repeatedly to be corrupt. That makes you an accomplice after the fact.:rolleyes: Oh, we're going to go there again, are we?

Fryk

11-15-2009, 03:41 AM

And while there may not be an overriding organization for every church, they are still loosely organized, and so could communicate to send a strong message to the world. Again, they don't. Instead they let these people besmirch Christianity.

Except that they're NOT. The Baptist Church doesn't even organize with the SOUTHERN Baptist Church, Let alone organize with Episcopalians. The United Methodist church does not share any form of organization with any other denomination. They are all their own separate entities, and while they may COMMUNICATE, they are not organized together, loosely or otherwise. And I hear of Christians protesting and speaking out publicly against this sort of thing all the time. Once these people latch onto the label of "christian", which anymore I view as completely meaningless, by the way, there is nothing an outsider can do to change that. And vocally denouncing and distancing yourself from these sort of freaks is ointless when, as Raps and others have pointed out, the media decides that their efforts in countering these behaviors is not a sexy enough story to merit any real coverage.

Ree

11-15-2009, 04:04 AM

Anyone that supports the catholic church is an accessory after the fact for all the child abuse scandals, for example.

You support a church that has been shown repeatedly to be corrupt. That makes you an accomplice after the factAs a victim of childhood sexual abuse, (from a heterosexual male who was not a priest, by the way) I find those statements extremely offensive, and I am actually quite disgusted by them.

guywithashovel

11-15-2009, 05:23 AM

To be fair, you could find corrupt people in almost any organization. Granted, some organizations may have more corrupt people than other organizations do, but I don't think all individual members deserve to get thrown in the same category as them.

Now, I realize that some people in this thread who have been accused of doing this may not have meant to do that.

I also realize that I might be hypocritical for saying these things, because over the years I have caught myself harboring bitterness towards clergymen, regular church-goers, and other such people. I know it's wrong to feel that way, and I've tried to fight it, but it's still there, due mainly to the experiences I had in church as a kid.

Crazedclerkthe2nd

11-15-2009, 05:29 AM

Ok let me chime in here again.

The Bible states that one of the primary goals of Christianity is to preach the gospel to non believers and hopefully claim souls for the Lord via conversions to the faith. The issue is that there's so much awful stuff that gets publicized about churches and priests that it's not surprising to me that a lot of non believers aren't really that keen on Christianity (not to mention the former believers who have drifted away from the church).

In my view the church leadership has in some instances done this to themselves, by excusing or hiding or burying abuse rather than treating it as Christ himself would. The "people" referred to in the title of this post are non believers. I'm not claiming all Christians are bad, I AM claiming a lot of folks think most any and all Christians are holier than thou hypocrites who certainly do NOT practice what they preach.

Also on a brief note, I think it's funny every time I see the "no solid evidence proving the resurrection or the existence of Christ" arguments. The whole concept of Faith is centered around accepting something as true WITHOUT having any solid proof.

BroomJockey

11-15-2009, 06:30 AM

They are all their own separate entities, and while they may COMMUNICATE, they are not organized together, loosely or otherwise.

*sigh* Apparently, we're using different standards of 'loosely organized.'

Do they have a single person who can talk for a parish? Yeah, the priest.

Does each parish report to anyone else? If so, those parishes are loosely organized. If not, they are at least familiar with similar churches in the area? The organizations are aware of each other's existence, no? Then they are capable of communication with each other, and sending a single letter all co-signed condemning certain individuals. If they're not capable of doing that much, then they're doing just as much damage as the so-called "unbelievers." The inability to put aside differences of religion long enough to condemn obviously immoral acts would say to me that those organizations are extremist, and should be equally condemned. If they can't suck it the fuck up long enough to take out some trash, they fucking deserve the bad press. Yes. "A house divided against itself cannot stand." If Christians of various denominations are fundamentally incapable of working together towards a common, mutually beneficial goal, they have failed as Christians, utterly and completely.

And as I said, the papers around here love printing this kind of stuff. They eat it up. It's conflict, and it has a built-in audience. With a condemnation, people want to see the reaction. And they usually get it from extremists, which is why they print it. And further, a large enough group shouting loud enough CAN get coverage, damned near anywhere. So I say again, if the leaders can't condemn it, outsiders assume it's condoned throughout the organization. And ya'll deserve the reputation, for putting up with it.

Mytical

11-15-2009, 08:14 AM

I believe some people are confusing the religion with the people in the religion. Which is understandable. Let me try to explain (I am sometimes terrible at getting my point accross because I am a bit chaotic, and have STS (shiny things syndrom .. ie easily distracted).

Anybody can say they are one thing or another. Some might even be, but have been confused by others. A lot of time the 'word' is twisted for a person or groups own agenda. They then convince people that is what the original text intended. This is in ANY religion.

The idea must be seperated from the person. A 'Christian' or a 'Muslim' or even an 'Atheist' is just a person. They are HUMAN and capable of terrible deeds. People don't seem to understand that, however.

I was once told by a christian. "A christian can not be a murderer." Ok..are they human? Check. Are the perfect? Nope. Then they are capable of murder. They may not NORMALLY do it, and even mostly try to avoid it, but they are CAPABLE. It is not physically impossible for them to do so.

As to what punishment, if any, or actions happen AFTER the murder, I won't speculate on.

Hating, disliking, blaming (etc) a religion because of what the PEOPLE do who happen to identify as such is in honesty rediculous. I won't even get into the double standards that some PEOPLE have. ((IE the same Christian blamed Islam and Muslims as a whole for 'terrorist'. Forget the fact that one persons terrorist is another persons hero)). That is the key though, you must seperate the person from the 'group.

That would be like saying "All black people are criminals" (Don't shoot me, this is just an example). Or "All Americans are Racist, Nationalist, Red Necks who love their guns and tramping on everybody else." it is not only absurd, but simply not true.

HYHYBT

11-15-2009, 08:19 AM

In most of these cases, especially the ones like in the OP, there are no reasonable people who attribute the individual's action to all of Christianity, and therefore there should be no need to explicitly deny it. The pedophile cover-up is a different matter, and has in fact been widely condemned by Catholics as well as any other denomination I can think of, though certain people with an axe to grind against that church or religion in general like to pretend that it hasn't been, or that the condemnation is meaningless, or that most priests behave that way. As for Fred Phelps' church, well, does *anyone* really take them as a representative of anything beyond themselves? They're their own counterargument: the best and fastest way to move people's opinions the other direction is to let them keep on at what they do.

Fryk

11-15-2009, 12:51 PM

*sigh* Apparently, we're using different standards of 'loosely organized.'

Do they have a single person who can talk for a parish? Yeah, the priest.
completely.

Wrong. Totally wrong. You are thinking of Catholics, NOT protestants. There is ABSOLUTELY NO parish priest for all protestants. None. Whatsoever. There are Baptist deacons, Methodist bishops, and the like, but they don't report to each other. Ever. They are wholly separate organizations with their own separate heirarchies. No Lutheran reverend will ever report to a Pentecostal bishop, or vice versa. They are completely autonomous from each other. AND they are totally divorced from Catholic priests. Hell, the Orthodox churches separated from the catholics in the 14th century. The Reformation, which started the whole protestant snowball, began in 1517. They've been separated from each other for a long, long, long, long, long, long, long, long, etc. time.

Slytovhand

11-15-2009, 01:29 PM

Firstly, I'll go with the current argument - Fryk, you're mis-reading what BJ is saying. He's suggesting that in any town, all the similar religious priesthoods should have some awareness of what all the others are doing if it's going to hit the media! So, if it does hit the media, Priest X ought to get together with priest's Z,Y,A, B and C to have a unilateral letter of condemnation done up for the media... and for those priests to also have a chat with their higher ups so that they then also do something similar! Otherwise, it just seems to get ignored, and we've seen how that ends.

Next - Ree - sorry, but the Catholic Church has a massively bad history when it comes to doing bad shit to people - and then covering it up! It still happens in Australia. So, when another one comes out, yes, I find it very difficult to accept that the entirety of the Roman Catholic church laity will just idly accept such things... as against demand some really serious action! and, for that matter, why they choose to still support a church whose leaders will still condone such cover-ups (and yes, they are condoning them... cos they keep happening!)

But, as for your comment on it being ok for a thread to start up with 'Another reason why people hate Muslims' when a bunch of terrorists blow something up.. yeah, I don't see a great problem with that... it'll get flamed,and they'll get a stack of shit thrown at them for it, but I can see a thread starting......

And lastly, just to add to BK's post with links... Pagans can do it! (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/australian-witches-say-sex-fiend-robin-fletcher-not-welcome-in-their-communities-if-allowed-to-walk-free/story-e6frf7jo-1225789285284?from=public_rss)

Fryk

11-15-2009, 03:43 PM

I think I see now, Slyt, thanks.

The problem, though, is that that sort of cooperation isn't done, either. Although I think it SHOULD be. The problem is, even in denominations, where the theology lines up nearly 99% of the time, that last 1% means that people who don't belong to YOUR version of "christianity" are still going to hell. It's infuriating, and it's bullshit. One of the main reasons why I left the whole putrid mess a while ago.
The only point I'll argue here is that , even if the local religious posse got together and wrote up such a note, you'd never see it anywhere but in a letters to the editor section of a newspaper. And if you look, such letters are there all the time, at least in the cities I've lived in in my life (11 so far, apparently I was born a ramblin' man). Letters like that, from any faith, are usually treated with as much enthusiasm as a correction in a newspaper-- usually hidden somewhere near the Lockhornes cartoon.

RecoveringKinkoid

11-15-2009, 11:07 PM

Why not, the Bible does it all the time.
The term Gentile comes to mind...

.

Well, wait a minute here. Does that mean, then, that it's okay?

Cool.

This is why people hate Jews and Judaism.
This is why people hate Muslims and Islam.
This is why people hate blacks, mexicans, and gypsies.
This is why they hate gays and homosexuality.

Let's not split hairs, here.

HYHYBT

11-16-2009, 02:05 AM

The problem is, even in denominations, where the theology lines up nearly 99% of the time, that last 1% means that people who don't belong to YOUR version of "christianity" are still going to hell. It's infuriating, and it's bullshit. One of the main reasons why I left the whole putrid mess a while ago. there are such churches, but it's hardly all of them.

RecoveringKinkoid

11-16-2009, 02:13 AM

See, I don't get that. Why do you care what other people think about what you believe?

I hear that all the time. "I don't go to church because everyone there is a hypocrite.

So? What if they are? What does that have to do with you?

Pedersen

11-16-2009, 02:57 AM

So? What if they are? What does that have to do with you?

I think that Broom answered this question quite succinctly:

"Lie down with dogs, and wake up with fleas."

People who don't go to church because they feel it's full of hypocrites don't want to be labeled hypocrites themselves. Or they don't want to associate with such blatant hypocrisy. Or a combination of the two (don't want to deal with such blatant hypocrisy and don't want to be labeled hypocrites themselves).

Nothing too odd there, really.

Ree

11-16-2009, 03:16 AM

My own personal relationship with God has nothing to do with the person in the next pew, and theirs has nothing to do with me.

I don't actually attend church to keep an eye on how they're behaving.

I attend my Catholic service because I actually get something out of it.
From the opening hymn, with voices united in praise, to the sign of the cross, through the opening prayers, and on to the scriptures, the homily, the breaking of bread and the receiving of the Holy Eucharist, the closing prayers, and the final hymn, I find meaning in all of it that helps me to live my life.

Could I leave the Catholic church and go to one that seems more socially acceptable and has come under less scrutiny and controversy?
Probably...but why should I?

My Catholic Mass has meaning to me.

In another church, I wouldn't find all of those things that speak to me.

So, go ahead and accuse me of lying down with dogs. I can deal with the fleas.

RecoveringKinkoid

11-16-2009, 04:45 AM

Yeah, that is pretty much what I'm saying.

I mean, I quit a church when I was in my twenties because the clergy was laying down some serious stuff I couldn't stand by. I didn't want to sit there and by my continued attendance, give the illusion that I was okay with what was being said and practiced. And the main body of that part of the denomination was doing some pretty seriously messed up (in my opionion) stuff also. So I expressed my dismay by removing my membership. And then going out and finding a denomination and congregation I felt better about.

However, other worshippers, sitting in church for whatever reason they are there? Not for me to judge or concern myself with. If we were perfect we wouldn't need to be there in the first place.

I don't buy that stuff where people say they don't go because of the other people there. What an incredibly arrogant thing to say. Those people just dont' want to go, and that's fine. Why they are so loathe to just admit it is beyond me.

Pedersen

11-16-2009, 04:54 AM

I don't buy that stuff where people say they don't go because of the other people there. What an incredibly arrogant thing to say. Those people just dont' want to go, and that's fine. Why they are so loathe to just admit it is beyond me.

So, it is your expressly stated belief that people who have said they don't want to go because of not wishing to deal with the hypocrisy they see are being arrogant?

In other words, you're stating they these people, when asked "Why?" are being completely arrogant, instead of just saying "I don't want to"?

And they're arrogant? I'll grant that you did not call yourself arrogant for dictating what the people who have problems with those specific congregations should do, but it is fairly strongly implied that you are not calling yourself the same thing.

Which manages to make for an interesting double standard you've got going on there.

RecoveringKinkoid

11-16-2009, 05:04 AM

Yeah. It's pretty arrogant to sit there and make a judgement call on the guy in next pew because of what you've decided about his life and why he's there. Especially when you don't know what is going on in that guy's life and in his spirit.

And I'll tell you something else you won't be suprised to find out.

I'm pretty freaking arrogant myself. But not because I'm doing that.

Ree

11-16-2009, 05:10 AM

And I'll tell you something else you won't be suprised to find out.

I'm pretty freaking arrogant myself. But not because I'm doing that.:D Gotta love the self awareness and honesty.
That's rare around here. LOL

Fryk

11-16-2009, 07:02 AM

Slytovhand

11-16-2009, 07:54 AM

I find it very interesting that in this subsection of the board, right below this thread at the time of my writing this, in fact, there is an re people arguing that one shouldn't lump all scientologists together just because the Co$ leadership is doing some pretty shady things. But in this thread, if one lies with the dogs, one gets up with fleas.

Very true!

Only difference is - the Catholics have stopped harrassing, intimidating, and doing other nasty stuff to those who choose to leave the flock... the Co$ is still doing it :(

Otherwise I'd have to totally be with you on that one!

Anthony K. S.

11-16-2009, 09:53 AM

Mytical

11-16-2009, 11:04 AM

Hmm, then I am most likely arrogent. When I was young, I was rather..intense about my faith in god and christ. I knew every verse by heart, or just about. My faith was shaken, however, when I didn't realise to seperate the people from the faith.

I was going to a church called Old Philedelphia (spelling? Been 20+ years). Part of the choir, even got to preach from time to time. There was a person in the church we all called Brother Joe (not to be confused with my actual brother who is named Joe). His wife left him and he ..fell..hard. Alcohol, jail, he was having a really hard time. He pulled his life back around and came back to church.

At the time there was also a woman who sort of 'ran things'. Even the Deacon (spelling?) gave her her way. She pretty much told everybody to 'turn their back' on brother Joe. They did, when he needed the church most. That shook my faith to its core. The god I knew would NEVER turn its back on somebody, especially somebody in such great need.

So yeah, I lost the faith and quit the church. Went the opposit way for awhile in rebellion..won't talk much about that...by the time I straightened out..I had studied quite a few religions and just didn't believe any one religion had it right. I still respect Christianity, and some of my greatest debates are with a priest who runs a place called "My fathers Kitchen" (A soup kitchen). We will yell, we will scream at each other, and then we will sit and have a cup of coffee :D.

You'd swear one minute we were the greatest of enemies and the next the best of friends. Which is how it should be. Seperate the argument from the person. Because you can learn a lot .. if you will only just listen.

RecoveringKinkoid

11-16-2009, 02:15 PM

This entire discussion reminded me of a storyline that R. K. Milholland did in his Something Positive webcomic about three years ago. And one strip in particular :

Something Positive - October 19, 2006 (http://somethingpositive.net/sp10192006.shtml)

"Never confuse the faith with the supposedly faithful."

It's a good message . . . and so are R. K. Milholland's comments at the bottom.

Thanks for posting that. I have seen this comic, and this installment of it, but not the comment at the bottom. He's right. Which is why a Christian should never be shy about telling people what they are.

I don't go around making sure to mention it, but as you see here, I will not talk around it. I am one of the few church goers in my circle of friends. I don't preach to anyone or hassle or judge anyone about that. We all respect each other.

This is why as a Christian, a person should not hide who they are, even in a hostile environment (such as this board can be sometimes). The loud, vocal ones might be the only ones some people notice. Let them notice you, too, that they can see firsthand. Testify with your life. Sure, no one is perfect and we all fall short of being good examples. But if you are trying to do your best, that is all you can do. Believe me, your best is probably better than some of these loud, vocal minority Christians, who are clearly doing their worst.

I know some Christians are not forthcoming about their faith because "everyone thinks all Christians are horrible people and I don't want them to think that about me." Well, maybe they wouldn't think that if ones that weren't horrible people but were embarassed into silence would swallow their fear and be that other Christian, the one who isn't horrible.

Jesus himself said it would not be an easy label to bear.

Slytovhand

11-17-2009, 06:52 AM

This is why as a <insert religion or belief>, a person should not hide who they are, even in a hostile environment (such as this board can be sometimes). The loud, vocal ones might be the only ones some people notice. Let them notice you, too, that they can see firsthand. Testify with your life. Sure, no one is perfect and we all fall short of being good examples. But if you are trying to do your best, that is all you can do. Believe me, your best is probably better than some of these loud, vocal minority <insert religion or belief>, who are clearly doing their worst.

Edited for accuracy...

It doesn't really matter what the religion or belief, they all have good and bad points, and the good shouldn't be ashamed because of what the bad do... and if the bad do stuff, and people make comments deriding all people, then everyone should stand up and say otherwise (and let their actions be the benchmark!)

I'm pagan, and heard some really ignorant crap being sprouted... I've altered people's thinking on the subject :)

(btw, yes, I know RK, this thread just happens to be on Christians...)

RecoveringKinkoid

11-17-2009, 01:48 PM

Yeah, it happens to be Christians in this discussion, but it doesn't just go for Christians. It goes for any group of people. It goes for Pagans. It goes for people of various ethnic groups.

It goes for people who like NASCAR and people who are in the SCA.

It just happens to be about Christians right now because people have decided that that particular little bit of bigotry is okay. But you get it. "Let your actions be your benchmark." Right on. I figure if someone wants to make a judgment call on me, and put all sorts of nasty lables all over me without even trying to figure out what I'm about, that is their problem, not mine. Because bigotry sucks.

A very good friend of mine, a woman who is one of those people who you realize your soul and their soul know each other from way back, gave me a beautiful compliment once. She told me I was the "most Pagan Christian she'd ever met." Yeah, she's a Pagan. It was a beautiful compliment and I was and am deeply honored.

Flyndaran

11-18-2009, 01:58 PM

...
I'm pagan, and heard some really ignorant crap being sprouted... I've altered people's thinking on the subject :)

(btw, yes, I know RK, this thread just happens to be on Christians...)

When my christian friend found out about my pagan at the time girlfriend she had some seriously messed up ideas.
People can be good even if they believe evil things, and vice versa. The human mind is full of internal inconsistencies.

guywithashovel

11-18-2009, 11:09 PM

Ree

11-19-2009, 12:56 AM

This may be a little OT, but the person who started this thread is a Christian.

I just thought I would point that out, considering the accusations of this thread being used as justification for hatred against Christians.Regardless of whether the OP is Christian, it was the title of the thread, "This is why people hate Christianity and Christians..." that validated the accusation.
In my opinion, it was saying that the hatred was justified because of morons such as those in the link.

blas87

11-20-2009, 06:28 PM

I'm amazed, and not in a good way. And I'm disgusted at some of the brush painting some members have been doing about Catholics.

I'm not Catholic, and not a frequent church goer, heck I don't even pray before I eat, but I believe in God and try to be a good person and obey the commandments.

Ree has been taking some very un-necessary verbal bashings lately, and it's extremely uncalled for, in my opinion. I don't see how we're getting a healthy debate out of this when a few members just keep jumping in and Catholic bashing.

Rapscallion

11-20-2009, 06:50 PM

It's no great secret that the catholic church has had problems with a number of bad people within its ranks. However, I found out from someone I trust that they had a relative who was particularly ... mentally challenged. In short, lazy, and to an extent that they were pretty much classified as 'unemployable' by the state and receiving benefit for it.

The catholic church has a programme to help counsel such people and get them back to work. You don't see that on the front of newspapers.

If we did, then it would mean society would be interested in reading such news. Good news and worthy deeds are rarely seen as selling newspapers.

We're to blame for their bad press, folks. Then we're chastising them for having bad press.

Rapscallion

RecoveringKinkoid

11-21-2009, 12:13 AM

And I'd like to say that all this "well, Christians should speak up and condemn this stuff, then" is really, really rich.

We do condemn quite a bit of stuff most people find appalling. I have here and so does Ree and others.

And you see what happens to us as a result. We get pilloried for being members of "that awful group". People go into overdrive trying to prove we are just as bad as the people they are badmouthing.

I will keep saying "I am a Christian and I condemn blah blah horrible thing." But I will also, I feel sure, keep getting condemned by people with an axe to grind when I do. :rolleyes:

I guess it comes with the territory.

Slytovhand

11-21-2009, 05:38 AM

I'm sorry, but no! Those arguements just don't hold water!

I don't see any logic in saying "I choose to affiliate with group XYZ, even though I know their history has been guilty of ABC crimes to humanity - and still does condone some very questionable activities*". (sorry boys and girls, no condoms or sex education.. so all you poor Africans living in a high rate STD community - just don't do it!)

Let me draw an analogy to this very point. Pre-WWII, the Nationalist-Socialist party of Germany did some great things for the nation's economy and people's sense of pride. They bucked up against a completely stupid (retrospectively realised) set of resolutions that drove them into a depression. BUT.. because of what happened later, if you call yourself a Nazi now, you'll get flamed in any forum... and IIRC it's even illegal in some countries to proudly state that you are a neo-Nazi - even before you get to clarify it.

"I'm one of the 'good' ones" doesn't cut it... for any organisation.

You don't get to pick and choose the bits you like and reject the bits you don't. So, if you choose to be a part of a group, you do get tarred (and feathered) with both the good and the bad. Don't like the bad - don't join! If it's an official stance on something - if you don't agree with it - DON'T JOIN! I think it completely pointless to enter into a situation where a brush has been painted, and still someone decides they join and say "Oh, but I don't agree with that anyway" (or, a relationship with someone, and they then want to change them...).

Now, this thread just happens to be on Christianity - yet somehow it seems to be more about Catholocism (for some reason....??? ). The facts are that the official bodies of Catholocism does have a lot of history to answer for - and a lot of contemporary issues as well. If you're a part of that organisation, that brush will paint you as well... because it's a choice to be a part of it.

To mention a member of this board - Smiley didn't like his local church - so he left! Nothing stopping anyone else if they don't like what the official stance is on something...

AND... (when it comes to religion)... AND as Ree has said - her relationship with GOD is between her and GOD. But her relationship with an organisation... that's a little different if someone starts talking about that organisation.

And that's the difference... if 'Christianity' is being attacked - that's attacking an organisation - not your connection with your deity or beliefs!

BlaqueKatt

11-21-2009, 03:51 PM

AND... (when it comes to religion)... AND as Ree has said - her relationship with GOD is between her and GOD. But her relationship with an organisation... that's a little different if someone starts talking about that organisation.

And that's the difference... if 'Christianity' is being attacked - that's attacking an organisation - not your connection with your deity or beliefs!

yup and per psalm 26:
4 I do not sit with deceitful men,
nor do I consort with hypocrites;

5 I abhor the assembly of evildoers
and refuse to sit with the wicked.

and Matthew 6

1"Be careful not to do your 'acts of righteousness' before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.

2"So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 3But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.
Prayer
5"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 6But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. 7And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. 8Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.

technically the church is against the bible....

Ree

11-21-2009, 04:59 PM

yup and per psalm 26:
4 I do not sit with deceitful men,
nor do I consort with hypocrites;

5 I abhor the assembly of evildoers
and refuse to sit with the wicked.
Matthew 9:9-13
As Jesus was walking along, he saw a man called Matthew sitting at the tax booth; and he said to him, ‘Follow me.’ And he got up and followed him.
And as he sat at dinner in the house, many tax-collectors and sinners came and were sitting with him and his disciples.
When the Pharisees saw this, they said to his disciples, ‘Why does your teacher eat with tax-collectors and sinners?’
But when he heard this, he said, ‘Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick.
Go and learn what this means, “I desire mercy, not sacrifice.” For I have come to call not the righteous but sinners.’

All people are sinners, based on the laws of Christianity.
I don't deny that there were some terrible deeds done in the name of God.

There are currently some things going on that many people object to and call persecution by the church.

People want to live lives of debauchery and have the church look the other way. When it doesn't, they cry bigotry and claim hypocrisy and accuse the followers of being judgmental and setting themselves up as prideful beings.

The world is changing, and people want the church to change with it, but why should the church lighten its stance on sin?
Is that not caving to the whims of the general public rather than remaining true to convictions?

The church's stand on homosexuality does trouble me.
I have a gay nephew whom I love dearly.
He is one of the most truly beautiful people I know. He has such a strong social conscience and a huge heart.
He embodies everything that is considered "Christian", but, according to the laws of the church, he is a sinner when he acts on his sexuality.
According to the church, though, we are all sinners when we act on our sexuality outside of the marriage bed.

I continue to hope that the church will look at its stand regarding homosexuality, but when I have read about its current view on this matter, it does make sense to me, and that helps me reconcile my feelings a bit.
I still pray that the church will someday change or lighten its laws in this area.

I am not proud of the past deeds of some in my church in the name of God.
They were not acting as God wished, though, and that is how I am able to move past that and deal with it. While some were misguided and committed atrocious acts in an effort to convert the sinful, there were countless other martyrs who went to their graves with forgiveness on their lips for those who were murdering them.

I realize I keep coming back to the Catholic church, but it's because I am Catholic and speak on my knowledge of what my church believes. It would be foolish of me to presume to speak for any other branch of Christianity when I am not familiar with all of their laws and rules and creeds.

In my church, the laws are made by men who have prayed to God for guidance. They are human, yes, and I don't deny that there may be some who put their personal feelings over the wishes of God, but I have faith that, in the end, God speaks through these men.

Call me naive and accuse me of wearing rose coloured glasses, but I call it faith and conviction in the higher power of God.

And that's the difference... if 'Christianity' is being attacked - that's attacking an organisation - not your connection with your deity or beliefs!Read the title of the thread again.

"This is why people hate Christianity and Christians..."

As a Christian, that was attacking my connection with my God and my beliefs.

Perhaps I am comparing apples to oranges and muddying the waters, but an example of the misdeeds in secular areas and among secular organizations was used, so I was thinking about the example of slavery in the US.

At one time, many Americans owned slaves. It was perfectly acceptable to treat fellow human beings as subhuman, and for many years, black people did not have any rights in the US. They were forbidden from interracial relationships, and many were killed and imprisoned for those acts.
Eventually, things did change, but there is still a history of atrocities against fellow human beings in the US.

Does that mean, by calling yourself a "proud American," you are accepting responsibility for all those acts committed by proud Americans all those years ago, and even into the mid 20th century? In fact, bigotry and race discrimination still exists in some areas of the US.
Many people stand up against it, but many others look the other way.
Does that mean you are all lying down with dogs and letting evil triumph by being good men doing nothing?

Like I said, it may be apples and oranges here, but it was just a thought I had.

BlaqueKatt

11-21-2009, 07:00 PM

According to the church, though, we are all sinners when we act on our sexuality outside of the marriage bed.

true, but then why are some churches/religious leaders working so hard to keep them as sinners?

And the other side to that argument-if all people tomorrow stopped committing any sins-would that make the death of Jesus in vain?

Ree

11-21-2009, 07:31 PM

true, but then why are some churches/religious leaders working so hard to keep them as sinners? I don't quite understand this. Are you saying they need to change their stand on what is considered a sin, or are you saying that they need to change their stand on who is allowed to be married. To counter that, I go back to my previous statement that, just because you want to live your life a certain way, and the church condemns that, it does not necessarily make the church wrong, and it does not mean that the church should bow to your wishes.

If you are referring to homosexuality, then, yes, I do see your point. As I said, though, I wish they would soften their stance on that, but my wishes are not always God's wishes. I pray anyway that, eventually, He will speak to those who govern the church and soften their hearts so that all people will someday find acceptance and not have to live in denial of something that is intrinsic to their very existence.

And the other side to that argument-if all people tomorrow stopped committing any sins-would that make the death of Jesus in vain? Well, human nature being what it is, that won't happen, but to answer your question, no.
Jesus died for our sins, but if we stopped sinning, that does not make his death to be in vain.
It simply means that we have stopped giving in to our human impulses and decided to follow his example instead. That would be pleasing to God.

His death would then have become a sacrifice for those who have gone before us and died in a state of sin.

RecoveringKinkoid

11-21-2009, 09:11 PM

Actually, Ree, I think it all boils down to people cherish their pet hates and dont want to have to think that they are close minded or bigots for holding onto them. So they work very, very hard to justify them.

That goes for many things, not just this one.

BlaqueKatt

11-22-2009, 12:07 AM

or are you saying that they need to change their stand on who is allowed to be married.

If sex is only a sin outside the marriage bed the people saying they shouldn't be allowed to be married are themselves creating more sin-by denying loving people the ability to have relations within a loving caring marriage.

I highly doubt God would think any love was wrong.

To counter that, I go back to my previous statement that, just because you want to live your life a certain way, and the church condemns that, it does not necessarily make the church wrong, and it does not mean that the church should bow to your wishes.

And what exactly gives them the right to judge or condemn anyone-"let he who is without sin cast the first stone" I'm pretty sure Jesus said that while defending a woman who had committed adultery-I see an awful lot of stones being thrown by people that aren't free of sin themselves. And an awful lot of people that are claiming to know the mind of God-which is in and of itself a sin.

Ree

11-22-2009, 01:21 AM

I see an awful lot of stones being thrown by people that aren't free of sin themselves.I can't speak for the Christian church in which you were raised and were a former youth minister, but in my church we are taught that nobody is free from sin, including our human priests and religious, and that's why the sacrament of Confession exists. We confess our sins and make atonement for them with acts of penance. This is done by everyone, including our church leaders.

And an awful lot of people that are claiming to know the mind of God-which is in and of itself a sin.You have used numerous scripture passages to make your point, so may I remind you of Exodus 20:2-17 in which it is written that ten basic commandments were handed down by Moses, allegedly from the hand of God Himself?
Those commandments form the basic laws, not only of Juedo-Christian religions, but in everyday society as well.

As I said before, at least in my church, the leaders pray to God for guidance in making their rules. That is not presuming to know the mind of God. It is, as I said, faith and trust in a higher power, that he will speak through them, rather then them speaking for him.

Matthew 7:1-3
Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

Hmmm...seems to me we've also had a lot of people pointing out the speck in the eyes of the Christian church while ignoring the pretty large log in their own.

It's true, judgment is for God alone, but, as I mentioned, even in society, we have laws and rules, and a judicial system that hands out punishment based on these laws. These laws are based on those commandments.

"Thou shalt not kill."
"Thou shalt not covet."
Pretty basic stuff.

Prisons are filled with people who "sin" against the laws of society, and are judged accordingly.
Why is it so wrong for a church to also set out a clearly defined doctrine of what is a sin against the church, and against God?

HYHYBT

11-22-2009, 03:01 AM

I'm sorry, but no! Those arguements just don't hold water!

I don't see any logic in saying "I choose to affiliate with group XYZ, even though I know their history has been guilty of ABC crimes to humanity - and still does condone some very questionable activities*".
Partly, it depends on what you mean by "affiliating with a group": I believe that Jesus is the son of God, died for our sins, and was resurrected. Therefore, I am a Christian. What horrible things someone else does who also believes this has nothing to do with it. Demanding that I change that belief because X also believes it falls somewhere between demanding that you (a) stop liking pizza and (b) stop thinking that grass is green, because there are wicked people who agree with you on those points.

You don't get to pick and choose the bits you like and reject the bits you don't.Actually, you *do.* Naturally, it's best to pick the church that fits best with your own beliefs, but nobody has to agree with anybody else about everything except when church takes over state.

And that's the difference... if 'Christianity' is being attacked - that's attacking an organisation - not your connection with your deity or beliefs!
As has been pointed out, and ignored, many times before in this thread alone: "Christianity" is NOT an organization. Christianity is the sum total of all Christians. Therefore, "if 'Christianity' is being attacked," it BY DEFINITION is not merely "attacking an organisation," but is an attack on all of us. If the attack is meant to be against specific individuals, or against group(s) or organization(s) within Christianity, then it needs to be stated that way.

And anyway, can you truthfully say that you never associate in any voluntary way with anyone who disagrees with you on *anything*, or who *ever* does anything you don't approve of? Really?

BlaqueKatt

11-22-2009, 05:09 AM

I can't speak for the Christian church in which you were raised and were a former youth minister

Raised Roman Catholic-youth minister for an Apostolic Church-We were required to read ALL the Gospels for the Apostolic, including the ones deemed as heresy by the Catholic Church, because they refuted established Catholic Doctrine-otherwise known as the Gnostic Gospels, or "Dead sea scrolls"-which include the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Mary, and the newly translated Gospel of Judas(I wish that had been around-it states that Jesus instructed Judas to betray him as he trusted him to do so-the others would not). Also due to the book of Matthew which I quoted earlier-we did not have a grand building to be "seen by men", as the hypocrites do we had an empty barn during the summer and a warehouse during the winter.

One of my classes involved each of us bringing in a rock song and giving our interpretation of God's message found in the song-I started with the moody blues "I know your out there somewhere" (God's message of love is everywhere if you look for it-but most are taught to close their eyes to it)

We did not pray in church, again due to Matthew's words-but spoke of the messages Jesus was sent here to instill-we supported each other, and reminded each other that God loved us sins and all, or he would not have sent his only son to die in our place so that we might live. He made us in his image, to condemn anyone would be as condemning God himself. He decided to give us free will, he sent his son to die so we would not be afraid to use the gift he gave us-to reject that gift is to reject the decision of God. He is a loving Father and knows on occasion we will disappoint him-but he still loves us all, and trusts that eventually we will find our way back to the path he cleared for us. He gave us the ability to learn from our mistakes, and does not turn away when we fail-he helps us up just as we are to help others.

That is not presuming to know the mind of God. It is, as I said, faith and trust in a higher power, that he will speak through them, rather then them speaking for him.

Humans are fallible, you trust they are not presenting their own bigotry or thoughts as being from God, but you don't know-the Catholic church unilaterally decided which gospels were cannon and suppressed, ignored or destroyed many(there were over 50 gospels)-how much knowledge was lost?

Why is it so wrong for a church to also set out a clearly defined doctrine of what is a sin against the church, and against God?

They can claim a sin against the Church(which is a creation of man)-but they CANNOT speak for God, and through the blood of Christ the sins of man are wiped clean if you believe, so there is no such thing as sin against God-he made sure of that.

John 13
34"A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. 35By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another."

Ephesians 4
31Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice. 32Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you.

*disclaimer I am no longer a Christian-due to personal issues, but I can still have Theological discussions-I miss the Priest I used to have them with, in the bar....yes we shared ideas and differing viewpoints, but he liked having conversations with people that weren't in lock-step with everyone else-he referred to himself as "the only shepherd that didn't like sheep"-in other words he believed that one should have their own ideas not just parrot back what they were taught. That's indoctrination not free will.

Ree

11-22-2009, 05:29 AM

They can claim a sin against the Church(which is a creation of man)-but they CANNOT speak for God, and through the blood of Christ the sins of man are wiped clean if you believe, so there is no such thing as sin against God-he made sure of that.But sin is against God.
Obviously, we are divided on that point, but as to the other point, what you are saying is pretty much what I was saying. Christ died as a sacrifice for our sins. As long as we repent for our sins, God forgives those sins.

Proverbs 24:18
For a just man falleth seven times, and riseth up again; but the wicked shall fall into mischief.”

I don't see how accepting what has been taught, even after questioning it, is considered parroting and indoctrination.
Just because I questioned and still came away believing in my church does not make my arguments any less valid than someone who questioned and walked away from it.
Free will is free will.
It means we are free to believe as we wish, not rejecting all in favour of something else.
I wish to believe as I do. That does not make me a parrot.

Slytovhand

11-22-2009, 06:46 AM

Partly, it depends on what you mean by "affiliating with a group": I believe that Jesus is the son of God, died for our sins, and was resurrected. Therefore, I am a Christian.

'Christian' is a label to denote a person who believes as you have just said. This differs significantly with choosing to belong to a particular church - an organisation that lays down particular rles, tenets and charters. Different kettle of fish.

The "pick and choose" was in reference to what rules, tenets and charters an organisation has once you've joined - not the actual act of choosing which group (if any) to join. eg, if a church group says homosexuality is a sin, and you don't believe it is, you don't get to join that group but believe it's not a sin... not if you're being honest about it!

As has been pointed out, and ignored, many times before in this thread alone: "Christianity" is NOT an organization. Christianity is the sum total of all Christians. Therefore, "if 'Christianity' is being attacked," it BY DEFINITION is not merely "attacking an organisation," but is an attack on all of us. If the attack is meant to be against specific individuals, or against group(s) or organization(s) within Christianity, then it needs to be stated that way.

yeah, alright, you've got me there....

Although, as has been stated quite clearly elsewhere, if you're a member of an umbrella group (such as Christianity... or Muslim, or Hindu or Pagan) and one of the other groups of your umbrella does something generally considered reprehensible, if you don't do anything to denounce it, then you're tacitly condoning it. You will see, for example, when a terrorist bombing goes off, one lot will claim responsibility, and a whole host of others will condemn it. THat doesn't always happen when it's a Christian group that does something like that... so, in essence, it comes across as "it's not us, it's them"... where to the rest of the community - it is! (might not be 'right', but it happens)

And anyway, can you truthfully say that you never associate in any voluntary way with anyone who disagrees with you on *anything*, or who *ever* does anything you don't approve of? Really?

Hairs... there's a difference with 'disagreeing' or 'disapproving', and finding stuff repugnant or anathema.

Hmmm...seems to me we've also had a lot of people pointing out the speck in the eyes of the Christian church while ignoring the pretty large log in their own.

Ah, but you see Ree, that's a Christian quote.. so it doesn't really apply to non-Christians :D

They can claim a sin against the Church(which is a creation of man)-but they CANNOT speak for God, and through the blood of Christ the sins of man are wiped clean if you believe, so there is no such thing as sin against God-he made sure of that.
Depending on which church or book you choose to believe....

BlaqueKatt

11-22-2009, 03:56 PM

I don't see how accepting what has been taught, even after questioning it, is considered parroting and indoctrination.
Just because I questioned and still came away believing in my church does not make my arguments any less valid than someone who questioned and walked away from it.

it does not-but the difference is you have thought about it, you have questioned-which is why your faith is strong-sadly I have run into way too many people in my life that haven't-you ask them what they believe and it's vague(Jesus died for our sins-and that's it*), and ask they why they believe, and get the answer "well it's what my parents told me to believe" They never questioned-and that IMHO is wrong.

I think those are mainly the ones that cause problems because they've never thought about it, and are not motivated by faith-but rather a "false faith" if you will, which is merely going through the motions, due to fear of punishment, not because they feel in their heart it's the right thing.

They do not have a "personal relationship" with God because they never created one, yes they may go to church, but only because they feel they should.

It's kinda like going to visit a relative you don't know that well, you go because they're related, and you feel obligated to, but not because you want to get to know them, and make no effort to get to know them outside infrequent visits-if that makes sense at all.

*I have asked some people why Jesus died for us and have gotten some responses that clearly indicate no comprehension of the Bible what so ever-such as-"he was a good person", or "he was a martyr, and died because he believed in us"-and if you try to correct their misinformation-they get angry, because a Buddhist can't possibly know anything about Christianity.(I believe that falls under pride)

Ree

11-22-2009, 04:11 PM

*I have asked some people why Jesus died for us and have gotten some responses that clearly indicate no comprehension of the Bible what so ever-such as-"he was a good person", or "he was a martyr, and died because he believed in us"-and if you try to correct their misinformation-they get angry, because a Buddhist can't possibly know anything about Christianity.(I believe that falls under pride)
Yes, that is pride.

Not all Christians are so narrow minded, though, and that was my point when I originally responded to the title of this thread.

Kalli

11-23-2009, 01:59 AM

Depending on which church or book you choose to believe....

<FZ> Depending on which book you're using at the time, can't use theirs, it don't work, it's all lies, gotta use mine </FZ>

Crazedclerkthe2nd

11-23-2009, 05:44 AM

I will admit I probaby should have retitled this thread in retrospect, but that doesn't change the root of why I started it.

I was looking at it from the perspective of someone who does not attend church regularly and does not necessarily believe in God but still have enough spiritual curiousity to want to explore religion and churches. I believe this person would be largely put off by a lot of the stories we see and hear through the mass media about Christians. I wholeheartedly agree that it is the sin related things that get more publibicty and that is a problem.

I could have used this thread to focus on a different religion as each has its pros and cons, but I chose Christianity because I am a Christian and have struggled with my own beliefs after reading articles like the one I posted earlier and because Christianity is one of the largest religions in the world and therefore one of the most prevalent.

One of the difficult things for me is to separate God and the bible from the Church. You don't need to be in a church to experience God and you need to realize that things a Pastor or Priest or Bishop might say are not always necessarily in line with the Word (since the Word represents God's feelings). Just because you hear it at a church doesn't mean it's coming direct from God.

And about the posted comic, I too have had issues with the "holier than thou" attitude of some Christians. Let me set the record straight. I don't conisider myself above anyone and I'm not cocky or arrogant, nor do I gloat because "I'm a Christian and you're not!" That totally flies in the face of the teachings of Jesus but sadly does happen far too often.

I became a Christian primarily because I wanted a deeper relationship with God, not because I wanted to spend two hours of every Sunday listening to a preacher. I do enjoy my church services, but I get more of out personal intimate experiences with the Lord than I do from hearing a Sermon.

tropicsgoddess

11-24-2009, 02:34 AM

So, it's OK to hate an entire group and assume everyone in that group holds exactly the same warped and twisted views, based on one warped and twisted person?

What he was preaching was not Christianity.
He set himself up as a false prophet.
That is a cult. It is not Christianity.

Just because he said it was, does not mean it's right.

Assholes like him and Fred Phelps give Christianity a horrible name. Unfortunately it's those kinds of people that contort what the bible says into their own twisted ways of life and preach it to their sheeple. Don't get me wrong, there's good Christians out there but sadly it's the wackos like them that get so much press.

Fryk

11-24-2009, 06:19 AM

Slytovhand

11-24-2009, 07:18 AM

Yes, but everytime I see their name on T.V., should I be calling a press conference publicly denouncing their actions? Or maybe I should just wear a sandwich board when I go out in public that says "I'm not with the WBC."

Is that rhetorical?

I ask, simply because if you did - and everyone else who thinks that way - then WBC would very quickly disappear.

RecoveringKinkoid

11-24-2009, 03:05 PM

You think every Christian walking around with a sign on their shirt with the name of Fred Phelps church on it would cause him to go away?

Really.

Negative attention is still attention. Especially in his case. He doesn't think for one minute anyone is going to like what he's doing. He's actively seeking negative attention.

He would LOVE IT if everyone, Christian or no, had his name on their lips. Doesn't matter in what capacity.

Let me put it another way...why is it my responsibility to decry someone who has nothing to do with me? I don't even consider that the guy is a Christian. As far as I'm concerned, he's a bully, he's crazy, he's evil incarnate. He's got nothing to do with my religion. And yet, I'm responsible for making sure you all don't think I agree with him?

How about this...his crimes are against decency. I would argue that all the rest of you have no less responsibility than I to stand up and make sure nobody thinks you agree with him or any other of his ilk. It's not just on me, contrary to what all the self righteous here may think. Cowboy up and start making your sandwitch boards.