Extreme christianity

rockbeer

I'm expecting a good bit of flak for this post, but I think it needs to be said. Please try to bear in mind that it is not intended to be inflammatory. The questions it poses are not intended as an attack on anybody in particular but are asked in all seriousness and in a spirit of genuine puzzlement and concern. So here goes...

After reading some of the stuff that's been posted up here over the last few days, I'm finding it hard to deal with the fact that certain so-called 'christian' attitudes are still considered acceptable in a modern pluralistic society. If I went around saying that people who didn't think the same as me were evil I would rightly expect to be on the receiving end of some fairly severe consequences. Something along the lines of inciting hatred, fomenting intolerance and generally acting in a disrespectful and hostile manner towards my fellow humans. Or, at the very least, being banned from Boards.

So why do a few of the more extreme christians seem to think it's OK for them to hold and express these kinds of views towards people who don't think like them?

Serious question: for how long would I be tolerated on Boards if I regularly wrote posts that accused women, or black people, or jews, or people who didn't believe in, let's say, dowsing, of being evil, 'incapable of sustained happiness', and doomed to an eternity of suffering? Yet as long as people call themselves christians they seem to be able to say this sort of thing repeatedly and with impunity to anybody who disagrees with them.

Why are these abhorrent views tolerated?

I received a warning yesterday for saying I found it hard to accept that an intelligent, thinking person would subscribe to these kinds of beliefs. OK, perhaps I overstepped the line, but where's the consistency? Why is it that christians can call me evil, can question the value of my contribution to society and of my very existence, can presume to damn me to an eternity of suffering, based purely on my failure to share their beliefs, while I have to hesitate before challenging the twisted thinking that causes them to act that way and to regard it as acceptable?

Who is really being intolerant here?

Isn't extreme christianity of the kind I've described every bit as foul and bigoted as, say, anti-semitism? Most of us thankfully now agree - at least publicly, for the sake of social harmony - that overt expressions of such objectionable doctrines are unacceptable, so why should this more extreme form of christianity be exempt? I can't think of one reason why a belief system that explicitly condems people simply for not conforming with it shouldn't be treated exactly the same way. If it was a political rather than religious belief there would be laws against expressing it.

Thanks for listening and responding - all perspectives welcome.

--amadeus--

In before the lock! :pac:

Actually being serious I think that there are a couple of elements to this.

First is that the tone of this board has changed signifigantly in the last couple of weeks. There has been a bit of an upswing in visitors and there are more extreme views being presented in more extreme manners, and that is from both sides of the divide. What I can say is that past debates have been conducted with good humour and intelligence but recent "conversations" have decended into childish bickering and name calling. As long as you have people feeling that thier beliefs (athiest or christian) are being mocked you will get extreme responses.

Secondly this is the christian board. No matter how distateful you or I may find those opinions they are being expressed in context. Now FWIW having a white supremacist forum wouldn't make racist speech any more acceptable just because it is in context and I disagree with a lot of what is said. However I am a strong beiever in "freedom of speech" (whatever that means on a private website) and so (to quote) "I may disagree strongly with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it". In other words I think that exposing extreme views (on damnation or creationism) to public scuitiny helps rather than hinders the athiets "cause" as it allows people to form thier own judgements. I believe that most rational adults given a choice between a fundamentalist christian and a modern, scientific, inclusive secular viewpoint will choose the latter, so I am delighted whne the more extreme elements make thier case.

I just try to remember to discuss posts not posters and remain civil, so holding the moral high ground

rockbeer

Perhaps I should clarify - I'm not saying such views should be artificially supressed. I'm just confused about why they aren't socially unacceptable - beyond the pale - as racist and misogynistic views are now where they weren't not so long ago.

It's not illegal to be racist, but it is socially frowned on. Prejudice based on religious belief is still fine, apparently.

kelly1

rockbeer wrote: »

Serious question: for how long would I be tolerated on Boards if I regularly wrote posts that accused women, or black people, or jews, or people who didn't believe in, let's say, dowsing, of being evil, 'incapable of sustained happiness', and doomed to an eternity of suffering? Yet as long as people call themselves christians they seem to be able to say this sort of thing repeatedly and with impunity to anybody who disagrees with them.
.............
Why are these abhorrent views tolerated?

........Why is it that christians can call me evil, can question the value of my contribution to society and of my very existence, can presume to damn me to an eternity of suffering, based purely on my failure to share their beliefs, while I have to hesitate before challenging the twisted thinking that causes them to act that way and to regard it as acceptable?

My view is that nobody has the right to judge you as evil. Nobody knows what goes on in your heart and mind or can appreciate the struggles you face in life.

On the other hand, I think it's a good thing for someone to tell you that a certain action or comment or whatever is wrong. Christians have every right to express opinions. Christians believe what they do for very good reasons. We believe that our love of God and neighbour or lack thereof determine where we spend eternity. It's only charitable to remind people of these serious matters.

But nobody has the right to judge or condemn you. That's God's job.

rockbeer

kelly1 wrote: »

Christians have every right to express opinions.

Kelly1, do people have every right to express racist and misogynistic opinions? At what point should social forces kick in to inhibit people from expressing views that destabilize social harmony by presuming to judge or devalue somebody not for their actions but for their very nature?

Just interested in a christian perspective on this.

kelly1

rockbeer wrote: »

Kelly1, do people have every right to express racist and misogynistic opinions? At what point should social forces kick in to inhibit people from expressing views that destabilize social harmony by presuming to judge or devalue somebody not for their actions but for their very nature?

Just interested in a christian perspective on this.

I know it's wrong to have racist or mysogynistic opinions and right-minded people should tell people who hold these opinions that their views are wrong. But I don't think we have any right to force people to keep their views quiet. Best just to shun them I'd say.

kmick

What I want to know is - who would Jesus shun?

rockbeer

kelly1 wrote: »

I know it's wrong to have racist or mysogynistic opinions and right-minded people should tell people who hold these opinions that their views are wrong. But I don't think we have any right to force people to keep their views quiet. Best just to shun them I'd say.

Fair enough. This is interesting. Would you apply the same standard to a christian who tells a non-christian that he or she is evil or that his/her actions/life are worthless based solely on the non-christian's lack of belief or because his/her behaviour offends some tenet of the christian's religion but does not contravene wider socially acceptable standards?

i.e. they should be told their views are wrong and shunned?

ChocolateSauce

rockbeer wrote: »

So why do a few of the more extreme christians seem to think it's OK for them to hold and express these kinds of views towards people who don't think like them?

Serious question: for how long would I be tolerated on Boards if I regularly wrote posts that accused women, or black people, or jews, or people who didn't believe in, let's say, dowsing, of being evil, 'incapable of sustained happiness', and doomed to an eternity of suffering? Yet as long as people call themselves christians they seem to be able to say this sort of thing repeatedly and with impunity to anybody who disagrees with them.

Why are these abhorrent views tolerated?

I received a warning yesterday for saying I found it hard to accept that an intelligent, thinking person would subscribe to these kinds of beliefs. OK, perhaps I overstepped the line, but where's the consistency? Why is it that christians can call me evil, can question the value of my contribution to society and of my very existence, can presume to damn me to an eternity of suffering, based purely on my failure to share their beliefs, while I have to hesitate before challenging the twisted thinking that causes them to act that way and to regard it as acceptable?

Who is really being intolerant here?

Isn't extreme christianity of the kind I've described every bit as foul and bigoted as, say, anti-semitism? Most of us thankfully now agree - at least publicly, for the sake of social harmony - that overt expressions of such objectionable doctrines are unacceptable, so why should this more extreme form of christianity be exempt? I can't think of one reason why a belief system that explicitly condems people simply for not conforming with it shouldn't be treated exactly the same way. If it was a political rather than religious belief there would be laws against expressing it.

Thanks for listening and responding - all perspectives welcome.

Long story short, they are tolerated because society has an ingrained conception that religion, by mere virtue of being religion, is above criticism and is deserving of respect regardless of its content.

ChocolateSauce

kelly1 wrote: »

I know it's wrong to have racist or mysogynistic opinions and right-minded people should tell people who hold these opinions that their views are wrong. But I don't think we have any right to force people to keep their views quiet. Best just to shun them I'd say.

I'm with kelly1 on this issue. Making people be silent by law or by other forms of coercion is suppressing freedom of speech. The best way to stop bad views is to challenge and refute them.

Bduffman

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Long story short, they are tolerated because society has an ingrained conception that religion, by mere virtue of being religion, is above criticism and is deserving of respect regardless of its content.

+1
I believe that just about any view will be tolerated just because its a religious belief.

Fanny Cradock

rockbeer wrote: »

I'm expecting a good bit of flak for this post, but I think it needs to be said. Please try to bear in mind that it is not intended to be inflammatory. The questions it poses are not intended as an attack on anybody in particular but are asked in all seriousness and in a spirit of genuine puzzlement and concern. So here goes...

After reading some of the stuff that's been posted up here over the last few days, I'm finding it hard to deal with the fact that certain so-called 'christian' attitudes are still considered acceptable in a modern pluralistic society. If I went around saying that people who didn't think the same as me were evil I would rightly expect to be on the receiving end of some fairly severe consequences. Something along the lines of inciting hatred, fomenting intolerance and generally acting in a disrespectful and hostile manner towards my fellow humans. Or, at the very least, being banned from Boards.

So why do a few of the more extreme christians seem to think it's OK for them to hold and express these kinds of views towards people who don't think like them?

Serious question: for how long would I be tolerated on Boards if I regularly wrote posts that accused women, or black people, or jews, or people who didn't believe in, let's say, dowsing, of being evil, 'incapable of sustained happiness', and doomed to an eternity of suffering? Yet as long as people call themselves christians they seem to be able to say this sort of thing repeatedly and with impunity to anybody who disagrees with them.

Why are these abhorrent views tolerated?

I received a warning yesterday for saying I found it hard to accept that an intelligent, thinking person would subscribe to these kinds of beliefs. OK, perhaps I overstepped the line, but where's the consistency? Why is it that christians can call me evil, can question the value of my contribution to society and of my very existence, can presume to damn me to an eternity of suffering, based purely on my failure to share their beliefs, while I have to hesitate before challenging the twisted thinking that causes them to act that way and to regard it as acceptable?

Who is really being intolerant here?

Isn't extreme christianity of the kind I've described every bit as foul and bigoted as, say, anti-semitism? Most of us thankfully now agree - at least publicly, for the sake of social harmony - that overt expressions of such objectionable doctrines are unacceptable, so why should this more extreme form of christianity be exempt? I can't think of one reason why a belief system that explicitly condems people simply for not conforming with it shouldn't be treated exactly the same way. If it was a political rather than religious belief there would be laws against expressing it.

Thanks for listening and responding - all perspectives welcome.

OK, rockbeer, the warning you received was richly deserved and at the time you accepted it. Now I find this thread! It's quite simple. If you see a post that causes offence REPORT IT.

Biro

rockbeer wrote: »

Fair enough. This is interesting. Would you apply the same standard to a christian who tells a non-christian that he or she is evil or that his/her actions/life are worthless based solely on the non-christian's lack of belief or because his/her behaviour offends some tenet of the christian's religion but does not contravene wider socially acceptable standards?

i.e. they should be told their views are wrong and shunned?

It's not Christian behaviour to judge, therefore they who judge you or call you evil aren't acting in a Christian manner. Same with telling you that your life is worthless. No life is worthless. Only actions can be worthless and only actions can be evil. Personally I find the term evil a very strong word, and I only use it in context of what I view as an extreme action. Like beating a little child to death or something is an act of extreme evil.

rockbeer

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

OK, rockbeer, the warning you received was richly deserved and at the time you accepted it. Now I find this thread! It's quite simple. If you see a post that causes offence REPORT IT.

I have accepted it. This is not an attack on christianity modding as I went out of my way to make clear at the start. Nonetheless, events have got me thinking and I'm looking for perspectives.

Look, you can lock it and ban me if you like; I'll consider such a decision an overreaction and a suppression of useful debate, but it won't bother me, I've lots of other things to do. But I don't see how suppressing this discussion will help anyone understand what's going on.

Your call.

Fanny Cradock

I haven't a problem with the discussion per se. However, I clearly object to how you have approached this topic - even to the point of pre-empting decisions that I have given no indication of taking. This makes me wonder if you are feeling more than just a little persecuted and that this thread is just an elaborate protest. Like I said before, if there is a post that you feel is offensive then report it.

rockbeer

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

if there is a post that you feel is offensive then report it.

OK, but that misses the point of the discussion by a wide margin.

Fanny Cradock

--amadeus-- wrote: »

First is that the tone of this board has changed signifigantly in the last couple of weeks. There has been a bit of an upswing in visitors and there are more extreme views being presented in more extreme manners, and that is from both sides of the divide. What I can say is that past debates have been conducted with good humour and intelligence but recent "conversations" have decended into childish bickering and name calling. As long as you have people feeling that thier beliefs (athiest or christian) are being mocked you will get extreme responses.

Yes, PDN and myself have noticed this regrettable trend of late. Relations between the core of the posters to this forum are generally cordial and stay within the limits of the charter and also common decency. Because of this the mods run a fairly loose ship and allow a fair amount of leeway. For example, in my time as mod I believe that all of my official warnings and infractions have been issued in the last few weeks.

There is a new element (and these are usually seagull posters who fly in, leave a mess and fly off never to be seen again) who don't operate under a perfectly good system.

Fanny Cradock

rockbeer wrote: »

OK, but that misses the point of the discussion by a wide margin.

Then your discussion is about how this forum is moderated (specifically my warning to you) an it should be taken to the feedback forum.

rockbeer

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Then your discussion is about how this forum is moderated an it should be take to the feedback forum.

No, my discussion is about why it is generally regarded as socially acceptable for christians to express views that would be socially unacceptable in any other context.

Goduznt Xzst

rockbeer wrote: »

No, my discussion is about why it is generally regarded as socially acceptable for christians to express views that would be socially unacceptable in any other context.

because they have the bible in their hand and, sadly, the bible is still revered.

ergo, it would be less offensive for someone to hold up a bible and say that "Gays are going to hell" then it would be for me to put a copy of the bible on the ground and urinate on it.

Plus making minority groups angry is a lot less dangerous than making religious groups angry.

JimiTime

No Heli Skiing preachers....No Bungee jumping nuns.....

Thread is total let down!

--amadeus--

JimiTime wrote: »

No Bungee jumping nuns.....

Seek and ye shall find

robindch

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Like I said before, if there is a post that you feel is offensive then report it.

As rockbeer has said, you have missed the point.

Take an simple, uncontroversial example -- on the creationism thread, very few christians have stepped in to criticize either creationists or more pointedly, the guys who run the creationist movement. The dishonesty of the tactics of the latter is easy enough for most people to see, but the degree of criticism by fellow-christians is almost zero.

Most christians seem to believe that christianity help you be a better person. Here's a straightforward case of the opposite. Why not criticize it?

Fanny Cradock

And I have said that I have no problem with this aspect of his post, robin. However, Boards.ie was specifically mentioned in his post. Therefore my suggestion to use the report option is a valid suggestion.

As for your example, it's possible that after 13,000 most people don't bother to read the B,P & C thread. It also possible that many people - Christian or otherwise - don't see the debate as having any relevance on their life. From a personal perspective, I believe that my only official involvement as a mod in that thread has been to warn creationists.

Finally, I think that it is easy to pinpoint the minority extremist view and completely ignore the majority view. Im of the opinion that most Christians in the thread did not state that non-believers were evil. I, for one, stated quite the opposite.

rockbeer

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Finally, I think that it is easy to pinpoint the minority extremist view and completely ignore the majority view. Im of the opinion that most Christians in the thread did not state that non-believers were evil. I, for one, stated quite the opposite.

Indeed, and I have again gone out of my way in the post to make it absolutely clear that I'm deliberately trying to start a discussion about the extreme minority, not because I want to tar you all with the same brush or ignore the majority view, but because I want to know what more moderate christians think of the extremists and the way the represent your shared religion.

I find this an intriguiing line of enquiry, and I also note, as Robin says, that moderate christians rarely step in to object when a more extreme christian says something downright objectionable and offensive.

I really would like to try and understand why that is, but nobody seems to want to bite. Any more takers?

robindch

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

It also possible that many people - Christian or otherwise - don't see the debate as having any relevance on their life.

Hmmmm..., you're still missing the point.

I'm not referring to whether the creationism debate has any relevance to any individual.

I'm referring instead to the way in which a certain small group of people -- the guys who sell creationism -- act in a clearly dishonest way. I have seen almost no criticism of these guys by most christians.

If christianity had any value as an ethical guide, then I would expect that christians would get very upset that Ken Ham and his mates were using the bible as a basis for making millions through lying. There are plenty of other examples, the one involving that frightful Alive publication is as good as any.

I suspect like rockbeer, I wouldn't only expect decent christians to point out (even get excited) that what Ham and Alive say is dishonestly misusing their holy book, but I would expect at least some to point out that Ham and Alive are dishonest themselves, and perhaps even somebody to criticize the poster for believing whatever daftness Ham and Alive were selling at the time. Heavens, christians as a rule are no slouches at telling atheists that we're believing nonsense!

But almost no christians rail against this dishonesty -- why not?

Asiaprod

rockbeer wrote: »

No, my discussion is about why it is generally regarded as socially acceptable for christians to express views that would be socially unacceptable in any other context.

I was going to close this thread as it as it is going nowhere. However, Robin, you do have a very valid point in asking "Why not criticize."

Therefore, in the spirit of fair play, I will let this thread run on for now. It is an interesting question and I look forward to hearing constructive opinions. Rants will earn many red cards. Any personal attacts will earn bans from this point on. All are welcome to debate here in the Christianity forum to their heart's content as long as they observe the charter and keep things civil.

Disclaimer: What God decrees is, however, beyond my simple Mod powers to amend:)

philologos

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

because they have the bible in their hand and, sadly, the bible is still revered.

ergo, it would be less offensive for someone to hold up a bible and say that "Gays are going to hell" then it would be for me to put a copy of the bible on the ground and urinate on it.

Plus making minority groups angry is a lot less dangerous than making religious groups angry.

Now do you think the Bible justifies saying that people are going to hell? I don't think it does. I don't have the authority to say that to you or to anyone else. Only God alone has that decision to make, He will make a far better decision on such a subject than I ever could. Infact speculating over whether people are in heaven or hell is actually forbidden in Pauline theology.

Romans 10:6-8 wrote:

But the righteousness that comes from faith says, ‘Do not say in your heart, “Who will ascend into heaven?” ’ (that is, to bring Christ down) ‘or “Who will descend into the abyss?” ’ (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). But what does it say?
‘The word is near you,
on your lips and in your heart’
(that is, the word of faith that we proclaim);

If anyone has told you that before. I can only but apologise. I think more people should be out correcting such views. I am a theist, and as such disagree with atheism, but freedom of conscience is guaranteed. I would love if you came to Christ, but I cannot force you to.

MrPudding

Jakkass wrote: »

Now do you think the Bible justifies saying that people are going to hell? I don't think it does.

Atheists don’t. Why would an atheist think the bible justifies anything. There are plenty of people on this board that think the bible justifies many things that…… struggling for a word here….. other people think are abhorrent.

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't have the authority to say that to you or to anyone else.

Quite right. But some of your brothers in christ seem to think they do.

Jakkass wrote: »

If anyone has told you that before.

Do you read this board at all?

MrP

Galvasean

JimiTime wrote: »

No Heli Skiing preachers....No Bungee jumping nuns.....

Thread is total let down!

I was also hoping for something like this.

BrianCalgary

A couple of comments.

The OP talks about remarks that are offensive and Ithink maybe he/she could give examples.

As for calling non-Christians evil, I'd say that any Christian worth their salt would realise that we are all evil and have sinned and have fallen short of theglory of God.

So yes OP, you are evil and if you have not accepted Christ you will go to Hell, or eternal torment however you wish to phrase it.

And I am also evil, I however have accepted the gift of God's grace and desire to spend an eternity with Him. God will grant me this as He promised.

Running Bing

BrianCalgary wrote: »

A couple of comments.

The OP talks about remarks that are offensive and Ithink maybe he/she could give examples.

As for calling non-Christians evil, I'd say that any Christian worth their salt would realise that we are all evil and have sinned and have fallen short of theglory of God.

So yes OP, you are evil and if you have not accepted Christ you will go to Hell, or eternal torment however you wish to phrase it.

And I am also evil, I however have accepted the gift of God's grace and desire to spend an eternity with Him. God will grant me this as He promised.

Thank you, just about to ask the same thing.


Until I am quite sure what type of thing the op is talking about I feel its impossible for me to reply and up to this point surely the debate has been somewhat pointless as everybody is just interpreting what the op means?

philologos

MrPudding wrote: »

Atheists don’t. Why would an atheist think the bible justifies anything. There are plenty of people on this board that think the bible justifies many things that…… struggling for a word here….. other people think are abhorrent.

Quite right. But some of your brothers in christ seem to think they do.

Do you read this board at all?

MrP

You're merely twisting what I meant with the first case. If you read it from a Christian perspective, do you think that Romans 10 permits discussing who will or who has gone to heaven?

I can't speak for anyone but myself. But I'm sorry if others have made you feel that way.

And yes, I do read this forum.

kelly1

BrianCalgary wrote: »

As for calling non-Christians evil, I'd say that any Christian worth their salt would realise that we are all evil and have sinned and have fallen short of theglory of God.

Evil is a bit strong, don't you think? Sinners yes but few of us are evil surely?

BrianCalgary wrote: »

So yes OP, you are evil and if you have not accepted Christ you will go to Hell, or eternal torment however you wish to phrase it.

Not sure that's for you to judge Brian.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

And I am also evil, I however have accepted the gift of God's grace and desire to spend an eternity with Him. God will grant me this as He promised.

That's presumption. "Persevere to the end...."

rockbeer

BrianCalgary wrote: »

The OP talks about remarks that are offensive and Ithink maybe he/she could give examples.

I thought I did give a few, but if you want specific examples I'll have to trawl through some threads which will take me some time. However...

BrianCalgary wrote: »

So yes OP, you are evil and if you have not accepted Christ you will go to Hell.

This will do nicely for starters. How would you feel if I rephrased this slightly to say

"So yes, you are evil and if you are Canadian you will go to Hell".

Would that be an acceptable thing to say? I presume you might think it was unacceptable. So, why is it OK to say I'm evil because I happen to have different beliefs, but not OK if I happen to be of a different nationality? Are you following me? I sense a double standard here.

(I don't know whether you are Canadian - I notice that you live there so I'm just using this as a convenient example.)

BrianCalgary wrote: »

As for calling non-Christians evil, I'd say that any Christian worth their salt would realise that we are all evil and have sinned and have fallen short of theglory of God.

And I am also evil, I however have accepted the gift of God's grace and desire to spend an eternity with Him. God will grant me this as He promised.

I think the fact that you call yourself evil too is neither here nor there. You can call yourself whatever you like, but why do you consider that gives you the right to say these things to me?

One more clarification: I don't like the word offensive. I don't think any of us have the right to go through life unoffended, and believe that offence is in the eye of the offended. I prefer to go with socially acceptable and unacceptable because we seem to have some reasonably clearly defined notions of what is and isn't acceptable. i.e. it's very definitely socially unacceptable to say "Jews are evil." On the other hand it seems to be perfectly OK to say "atheists are evil".

BrianCalgary

kelly1 wrote: »

Evil is a bit strong, don't you think? Sinners yes but few of us are evil surely?

Not sure that's for you to judge Brian.

That's presumption. "Persevere to the end...."

I think it's semantics. Only God is righteous. Sin = evil.

I'm not passing judgement. The Biblical message is very clear: All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

And unless one is redeemed by accepting the gift of God's grace, one is headed for Hell. That's not judgement but Biblical truth.

Don't worry I am persevering in serving my Lord.

BrianCalgary

rockbeer wrote: »

I thought I did give a few, but if you want specific examples I'll have to trawl through some threads which will take me some time. However...".

Good stuff.

rockbeer wrote: »

This will do nicely for starters. How would you feel if I rephrased this slightly to say

"So yes, you are evil and if you are Canadian you will go to Hell".

Would that be an acceptable thing to say? I presume you might think it was unacceptable. So, why is it OK to say I'm evil because I happen to have different beliefs, but not OK if I happen to be of a different nationality? Are you following me? I sense a double standard here.

(I don't know whether you are Canadian - I notice that you live there so I'm just using this as a convenient example.)".

Yep I'm Canadian, born and raised here (with an Irish Passport as well. )

I really dont have the choice of where I was born, so It would be socially unacceptable to call us all evil in that context.

Humans have the opportunity to decide whether or not to follow Christ.

Do you get the theology that all are sinners and th eneed for a saviour?

rockbeer wrote: »

I think the fact that you call yourself evil too is neither here nor there. You can call yourself whatever you like, but why do you consider that gives you the right to say these things to me?

One more clarification: I don't like the word offensive. I don't think any of us have the right to go through life unoffended, and believe that offence is in the eye of the offended. I prefer to go with socially acceptable and unacceptable because we seem to have some reasonably clearly defined notions of what is and isn't acceptable. i.e. it's very definitely socially unacceptable to say "Jews are evil." On the other hand it seems to be perfectly OK to say "atheists are evil".

I think it isn't right to call any group evil.

I think that as a Christian though it is my responsibility to let people know that they need to be redeemed, such a statemnet or conversation should be and has to be done in a loving manner.

I agree that the word evil is strong I would prefer sinner, and to lump it solely to atheists doesn't convey the message of Christ as I belive it should.

Hivemind187

You know what always annoys me?

I consider this "You will go to hell if you dont believe in my god" stuff to be offensive and in fact I consider it threatening language similar to "We will hijack your planes and fly them into your churches if you dont convert to our religion".

It suprises me that this kind of stuff is not covered by the whole "love thy neighbour" caveat of the christian religions. Surely threatenning your neighbour is not entirely in keeping with this teaching?

Worse still is the hint of pleasure no small number of christians seem to get from the idea that their beardy over lord will barbecue those they consider to be heathens for eternity. This to me suggests a certain sadistic glee in wishing bad things upon others.

Now, if I were to come along and say "I hope a [insert someone I've had a barney with in the past] loses both arms in a freak glazing accident and his/her/its offspring go hungry!" I would be ostracised or at the very least frowned upon (boards equivalent = infracted or banned) for wishing bad thing or actively intending bad things to happen to another.

It's just something that bothers me when it comes to most religions. It's all "love and forgiveness" then the nails and planks of wood come out...

Hivemind187

... is that it is acceptable (not just on this forum but in western society in general) to hold the most horrendous values and to attempt to inflict them on others in the name of "belief".

I'll give you a few examples;

-Dismissive and exclusionary attitudes to single mothers
-Persecutory and disenfranchisement of non-heterosexuals
-Blood libel against the Jews (even after the Vatican has lifted this) or general anti-semitism
-Male genital mutilation (circumcision to give it its sanitsed name)
-Terrorising vulnerable young people with lies and half truths about sex
-Religiously based and/or motivated laws of secular nations (Good Friday booze, abortion, divorce etc)

Those are just the legal ones, there are others where the crime itself is punished but the underlying motive is never questioned because it is sacred such as the murder of abortion doctors or threats to high-school biology teachers.

Now it might seem like I am just tearing strips here but I have got a genuine question. How is this kind of thing not considered to be hate speach or extremism in the same way as the BNP ranting about asylum seekers or StormFront moaning about migrant workers or the euro. How is it not treated in the same fashion as Islamic fundamentalism would be treated in our society i.e. sought out root and branch and eliminated?

Granted many of the hand wringing christians out there might be agonising over this dilemma of how to reconcile their rules of engagement (dont kill, dont steal, dont doink the neighbours missus etc) with the fervor many of their contemporaries have for hate but I doubt it. If you are taught to "love thy neighbour" how can you be justified in hating them so much?

Does dismissing it as hating the sin and not the sinner work that well? How does one explain away the physical revulsion many christian fundamentalists exhibit when confronted with a real life homosexual if it does? Surely that is being disgusted by the individual person?

Gareth37

Hivemind187 wrote: »

... is that it is acceptable (not just on this forum but in western society in general) to hold the most horrendous values and to attempt to inflict them on others in the name of "belief".

I'll give you a few examples;

-Dismissive and exclusionary attitudes to single mothers
-Persecutory and disenfranchisement of non-heterosexuals
-Blood libel against the Jews (even after the Vatican has lifted this) or general anti-semitism
-Male genital mutilation (circumcision to give it its sanitsed name)
-Terrorising vulnerable young people with lies and half truths about sex
-Religiously based and/or motivated laws of secular nations (Good Friday booze, abortion, divorce etc)

Those are just the legal ones, there are others where the crime itself is punished but the underlying motive is never questioned because it is sacred such as the murder of abortion doctors or threats to high-school biology teachers.

Now it might seem like I am just tearing strips here but I have got a genuine question. How is this kind of thing not considered to be hate speach or extremism in the same way as the BNP ranting about asylum seekers or StormFront moaning about migrant workers or the euro. How is it not treated in the same fashion as Islamic fundamentalism would be treated in our society i.e. sought out root and branch and eliminated?

Granted many of the hand wringing christians out there might be agonising over this dilemma of how to reconcile their rules of engagement (dont kill, dont steal, dont doink the neighbours missus etc) with the fervor many of their contemporaries have for hate but I doubt it. If you are taught to "love thy neighbour" how can you be justified in hating them so much?

Does dismissing it as hating the sin and not the sinner work that well? How does one explain away the physical revulsion many christian fundamentalists exhibit when confronted with a real life homosexual if it does? Surely that is being disgusted by the individual person?

You are just a carrier for the antichrist. The Bible holds the truth, whereas your manufactured society full of sheep running for fodder into a mine 1 million miles deep. Your mind, body and soul is controlled by the evil antichrist where you chase the imaginary for those without the fodder of the Lord can never be fed.

Hivemind187

Gareth37 wrote: »

You are just a carrier for the antichrist. The Bible holds the truth, whereas your manufactured society full of sheep running for fodder into a mine 1 million miles deep. Your mind, body and soul is controlled by the evil antichrist where you chase the imaginary for those without the fodder of the Lord can never be fed.

Wow ... I mean ... wow ... I ... I think you were trying to insult me but there is no way to be sure without the Rosetta Stones and a slide rule to decrypt your post.

Once again minus the metaphors?

Gareth37

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Wow ... I mean ... wow ... I ... I think you were trying to insult me but there is no way to be sure without the Rosetta Stones and a slide rule to decrypt your post.

Once again minus the metaphors?

If you were truly happy you would have no need to mock or insult.

rockbeer

Gareth37 wrote: »

If you were truly happy you would have no need to mock or insult.

Oh the irony.

Don't you think it's maybe a little insulting to consistently call people who don't agree with you 'conditioned' and 'antichrists'?

Hivemind187

Gareth37 wrote: »

If you were truly happy you would have no need to mock or insult.

Dude, you called me a "carrier of the anti-christ" (and the actual anti-christ elsewhere). I'm just finding fault in everything you say, your world view and the overall constuction of your personal reality. Dont take it so personal.

Now please, answer my question.

philologos

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Does dismissing it as hating the sin and not the sinner work that well? How does one explain away the physical revulsion many christian fundamentalists exhibit when confronted with a real life homosexual if it does? Surely that is being disgusted by the individual person?

Yes it does work. I have friends who are gay and bisexual, I treat them the exact same way I would treat anyone else.

Bottle_of_Smoke

rockbeer wrote: »

This will do nicely for starters. How would you feel if I rephrased this slightly to say

"So yes, you are evil and if you are Canadian you will go to Hell".

Would that be an acceptable thing to say? I presume you might think it was unacceptable. So, why is it OK to say I'm evil because I happen to have different beliefs, but not OK if I happen to be of a different nationality? Are you following me? I sense a double standard here.

(I don't know whether you are Canadian - I notice that you live there so I'm just using this as a convenient example.)



I think the fact that you call yourself evil too is neither here nor there. You can call yourself whatever you like, but why do you consider that gives you the right to say these things to me?

One more clarification: I don't like the word offensive. I don't think any of us have the right to go through life unoffended, and believe that offence is in the eye of the offended. I prefer to go with socially acceptable and unacceptable because we seem to have some reasonably clearly defined notions of what is and isn't acceptable. i.e. it's very definitely socially unacceptable to say "Jews are evil." On the other hand it seems to be perfectly OK to say "atheists are evil".

If you're not a Christian why is being told you're going to hell an issue?

I think it's okay for Christians/religious folk to call others evil once it's in context with their religion. As that isn't evil in the raping and murdering a schoolgirl or torturing someone sense, it's just *insert religion here*'s version of evil.

Hivemind187

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

If you're not a Christian why is being told you're going to hell an issue?

I think it's okay for Christians/religious folk to call others evil once it's in context with their religion. As that isn't evil in the raping and murdering a schoolgirl or torturing someone sense, it's just *insert religion here*'s version of evil.

I see what you are saying but I think there is more than religion to it. I think its about social identity and ostracising and persecuting those whom are different to you.

What I mean is, look at the root of it. They are saying you are evil. That you have a specific quality that makrs you out as being different from others. It's slightly childish really a bit like the whole of Class 3b picking on the one fat kid for lack of anything better to amuse themselves.

Many groups mark out individuals or other groups as "different". Racists pick on the blacks and asians because their skin colour is different and tend to put cinder blocks through their shop windows or block their applications to the golf club. Anti-Semites pick on the Jews and draw crude cartoons of well-poisonners or become chancellor of Germany with genocidal intent.

Behind all of this there is a combination of fear and aggression that bubbles to the surface in different ways. Theists mark certain individuals as "evil" (though their are many disguises for this kind of thing and I feel that "hate the sin not the sinner" is one of them) and I have noticed distinct similarities in the behavior and sentiments of those saying "you'll go to hell" etc as those claiming that "The Jews are responsible for all the world wars". Fear and aggression.

How it manifests itself though - and to what degree - varies from individual to individual.

Gareth37

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Dude, you called me a "carrier of the anti-christ" (and the actual anti-christ elsewhere). I'm just finding fault in everything you say, your world view and the overall constuction of your personal reality. Dont take it so personal.

Now please, answer my question.

Thats ok. Manufactured society does that to most people. Lets not converse anymore but if you want to investigate Christianity further read the New Testament of the Holy Bible and try to understand it. Also, try to have faith in God and pray. Im not sure why you entered the Christianity forum but I wish you peace.

Hivemind187

Gareth37 wrote: »

Thats ok. Manufactured society does that to most people. Lets not converse anymore but if you want to investigate Christianity further read the New Testament of the Holy Bible and try to understand it. Also, try to have faith in God and pray. Im not sure why you entered the Christianity forum but I wish you peace.

So you arent going to answer me with anything other the written equivalent of bland hand waving and smug-self-satisfied smiling?

C'mon, I'm dying to know about the million mile deep mine ... seriously, where is it? It sounds awesome.

Gareth37

Hivemind187 wrote: »

So you arent going to answer me with anything other the written equivalent of bland hand waving and smug-self-satisfied smiling?

C'mon, I'm dying to know about the million mile deep mine ... seriously, where is it? It sounds awesome.

Don't worry, one day you will die. The average age for mortal death is around 75 so none of us have long left even if we have that long left.

Hivemind187

Gareth37 wrote: »

Don't worry, one day you will die. The average age for mortal death is around 75 so none of us have long left even if we have that long left.

You sound almost ... happy about it.