"Nationalists" attack and kill 3 Bible publishers

[Widescreen]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,266681,00.html

I like how the article repeatedly calls them "nationalists". :rolleyes:

Queue the defenders of the killers in

3
.
.
.
2
.
.
.
1
.
.
.

[Hatfield]

why would people defend the killers?

why do you take umbrage with the labeling as "nationalists"?

[mdklatt]

why would people defend the killers?

why do you take umbrage with the labeling as "nationalists"?

Why is this story such a big deal?

[Sooner in Tampa]

:confused:

[Frozen Sooner]

Pretty indefensible.

[Blue]

Why is this story such a big deal?

Yeah, it's only three people, not 33. And it happened somewhere else...snore...

[mdklatt]

Yeah, it's only three people, not 33. And it happened somewhere else...snore...

160 people were killed in bombings in Bahgdad, and I don't seen any threads about that. So I'll ask again: What is the signficance of this story?

[Blue]

160 people were killed in bombings in Bahgdad, and I don't seen any threads about that. So I'll ask again: What is the signficance of this story?

Widescreen thought it was significant...?

Don't click on it. Unless you're just trying to get in an argument.

[mdklatt]

Widescreen thought it was significant...?


Apparently, unless he's in the habit of starting threads about random news stories.

[Frozen Sooner]

160 people were killed in bombings in Bahgdad, and I don't seen any threads about that. So I'll ask again: What is the signficance of this story?

That people operating in one of the few Muslim democracies killed publishers simply for distributing copies of the Bible?

To me, that's kind of a big deal. Turkey is actually a friendly nation-one of the few truly friendly ones in the region. If their populace is starting to slide into fundamentalism, it's a problem for the US.

[yermom]

and you wussies think you are persecuted here...

[mdklatt]

That people operating in one of the few Muslim democracies killed publishers simply for distributing copies of the Bible?

To me, that's kind of a big deal. Turkey is actually a friendly nation-one of the few truly friendly ones in the region. If their populace is starting to slide into fundamentalism, it's a problem for the US.

See? That's what I was asking.

Is Turkey really sliding into fundamentalism, or is this just as isolated bunch of kooks? There could be a thread on a Turkish message board about Westboro, with a bunch of responses like "Americans are crazy". In fact, after Monday, there's a lot of consensus in the international media that we're all gun-crazy bloodthirsty killers.

[Widescreen]

What is the signficance of this story?
What Mike said plus the AP using the word "nationalists" irritates me. I doubt nationalism was what inspired them to kill these people.

I'm beginning to wish we hadn't pushed so hard for Turkey to be admitted to the EU. Their drive toward fundamentalism puts them way out of step with the rest of Europe (at least so far).

[mdklatt]

I'm beginning to wish we hadn't pushed so hard for Turkey to be admitted to the EU. Their drive toward fundamentalism puts them way out of step with the rest of Europe (at least so far).

Turkey hasn't been admitted to the EU yet, have they? I thought they were still on Double Secret Probation contingent on them cleaning up their act some more.

Is fundamentalism a signficiant problem in Turkey? The government itself seems to be paranoidly secular, almost repressively so. They ban a lot of overt religious displays.

[royalfan5]

Turkey hasn't been admitted to the EU yet, have they? I thought they were still on Double Secret Probation contingent on them cleaning up their act some more.

Is fundamentalism a signficiant problem in Turkey? The government itself seems to be paranoidly secular, almost repressively so. They ban a lot of overt religious displays.
The have been stuck at associate member status since 1962. There is 0% chance of them being full members anytime soon, for a lot of reasons.

[Frozen Sooner]

What Mike said plus the AP using the word "nationalists" irritates me. I doubt nationalism was what inspired them to kill these people.

I'm beginning to wish we hadn't pushed so hard for Turkey to be admitted to the EU. Their drive toward fundamentalism puts them way out of step with the rest of Europe (at least so far).

I guess my question would be why do you have a problem with describing them as nationalists? I'm pretty sure that's what they actually are.

I think your problem may be with them not being described as Islamic-but in this case there's a significant number of religiously tolerant and internationalist Muslims in Turkey, so using nationalist as a descriptor seems to be appropriate.

[Widescreen]

I guess my question would be why do you have a problem with describing them as nationalists? I'm pretty sure that's what they actually are.

I think your problem may be with them not being described as Islamic-but in this case there's a significant number of religiously tolerant and internationalist Muslims in Turkey, so using nationalist as a descriptor seems to be appropriate.
The fact that they singled out Bible publishers sounds a lot more like radical Islamists, not nationalists. It's certainly possible that they are nationalists but I doubt it (unless Turkish nationalists are so hell-bent on turning their country into an Islamic state that they will resort to murder. In that case the nationalists = the Islamists). JMO. I guess I'm irritated by the AP's - and especially Reuters - intentional avoidance of certain terms that could be considered non-PC. Is this another example of this? We'll never know for sure, but I believe that it is.

[skycat]

The have been stuck at associate member status since 1962. There is 0% chance of them being full members anytime soon, for a lot of reasons.

Do you mean NATO and not the EU?

[mdklatt]

Do you mean NATO and not the EU?

Turkey is a full-fledged NATO member.

[royalfan5]

Do you mean NATO and not the EU?
No I mean the EU. I was off on the date though it was 1964 instead of 1962.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accession_of_Turkey_to_the_European_Union

[skycat]

No I mean the EU. I was off on the date though it was 1964 instead of 1962.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accession_of_Turkey_to_the_European_Union

Cool. Didn't know about the predecessor to the EU.

[skycat]

Turkey is a full-fledged NATO member.

I thought so, but didn't know that there was anything like the EU in the 60's.

[royalfan5]

Cool. Didn't know about the predecessor to the EU.
I took a class from Cambridge last summer about European Economic Integration. I learned a ton, and got the enjoyment of a 1 hour lecture dedicated to John Major's idiocy. That alone made the class worthwhile.

[yermom]

The fact that they singled out Bible publishers sounds a lot more like radical Islamists, not nationalists. It's certainly possible that they are nationalists but I doubt it (unless Turkish nationalists are so hell-bent on turning their country into an Islamic state that they will resort to murder. In that case the nationalists = the Islamists). JMO. I guess I'm irritated by the AP's - and especially Reuters - intentional avoidance of certain terms that could be considered non-PC. Is this another example of this? We'll never know for sure, but I believe that it is.

where does it say they were Islamic?

i could have gone and shot 3 bible pushers because i didn't like how they were proselytizing, that doesn't mean i'm Islamic ;)

and that hardly condemns a whole country...

now if they are celebrated instead of prosecuted, then that is something else... but this doesn't sound like it was exactly sanctioned by the government

[Vaevictis]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/18/AR2007041801259.html


The killings come as political tensions rise between the powerful secular elite, including army generals and judges, and the religious-minded AK Party government over next month's presidential elections.
(...)
For many Turkish nationalists, Christian missionaries are seen as enemies of Turkey working to undermine its political and religious institutions.
(...)
"We would like a government campaign to get rid of the myths, such as that missionaries are trying to divide the country, these are the things which feed such acts," said Carlos Madrigal, an evangelical pastor who knew the victims and said they were also evangelical protestants.
(...)
"It's too early to say but the attack appears to be the work of Islamists," said Gareth Jenkins, an Istanbul-based expert on Turkish security matters.

It seems like these people were probably nationalists, who just happen to believe Islam is a major component of the national identity. That's not the same thing as an Islamist.

[Widescreen]

"It's too early to say but the attack appears to be the work of Islamists," said Gareth Jenkins, an Istanbul-based expert on Turkish security matters.

It seems like these people were probably nationalists, who just happen to believe Islam is a major component of the national identity. That's not the same thing as an Islamist.
The "expert" in your quote seems to disagree with you.

[Vaevictis]

Heh, you see that as him saying he thinks it's Islamists.

I see that as him saying he doesn't know, but he'll be happy to throw out one of the usual suspects to get print.

[Widescreen]

Well he IS an "expert". :D

[Jerk]

Religion of Peace strikes again.

[Widescreen]

Religion of Peace strikes again.
No, it's nationalists.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

No, it's nationalists.You gotta understand that it's reasonable to assume they are "nationalists", since everyone knows that Christians and Jews are hell-bent on establishing a new country...in Turkey.

[Kels]

Turkey is 99% Muslim. What else would they be?

How ironic for Galatians, Ephesians, and Revelation.

[Vaevictis]

Well, Muslim doesn't necessarily mean Islamist, just as Jew doesn't necessarily mean Zionist.

[Ike]

At least this crime wasn't committed by a radical clerk.

I mention it because I really knew I was back in Norman when I saw a copy of a recent transcript at my folks house that read:
"Radical Clerk blah blah blah Iraq"

Apparently, people are being killed by pencil pushers these days.

[Blue]

being stupid...nm

[Kels]

Well, Muslim doesn't necessarily mean Islamist, just as Jew doesn't necessarily mean Zionist.

I've never met an Islamist who wasn't a Muslim. In this case they killed three people at a Bible publishing house.

Adversus solem ne loquitor

[Fraggle145]

This is why I think religion sucks. JMHO.

[Skysooner]

Just ask the Muslims who were the "nationalists" during the Crusades. More people have died due to religion than any other reason.

[Blue]

nm

[Skysooner]

I guess. Methinks that it is one God that all people worship.

[Widescreen]

I guess. Methinks that it is one God that all people worship.
That's one of the great lies of our age. :(

[Chuck Bao]

That's one of the great lies of our age. :(

I couldn't agree more.

We are all gods, of course!

[Skysooner]

That's one of the great lies of our age. :(
So you are arguing that there are multile gods? I hope you aren't seriously saying that the Christian god is the only one to worship. The Christian god came out of Jew ish writings originally and there are roots of this god in the Muslim faith.

[Widescreen]

I'm arguing that:

1. I believe the Christian God is the ONLY God. All other gods are false.
2. I believe Jews worship the same God as Christians except the Jews don't view Christ as a part of God. So there is a significant difference.
3. I believe Allah <> God

[yermom]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam


Muslims do not regard Muhammad as the founder of a new religion, but as the restorer of the original monotheistic faith of Adam, Abraham, Jesus, Moses, and other prophets. They hold that part of the messages of these prophets became distorted over time either in interpretation, in text, or both. Like Judaism, and Christianity, Islam is an Abrahamic religion.

sounds like the same god to me...

[SCOUT]

More people have died due to religion than any other reason.

This is an absurd overstatement. I bet cancer or heart disease would disagree.

[yermom]

ok, so it's #3 or #4 on the list ;)

[Widescreen]

Hey, some of you people (you know who you are!)

http://img181.imageshack.us/img181/6712/malachiin5.gif

OUTLANDERS!!!!!

[Skysooner]

This is an absurd overstatement. I bet cancer or heart disease would disagree.

Hmm, the Crusades, Hitler and the Jews (and yes there was more going on here), religious persecution in the Soviet Union and countless other countries, the Arab and Jewish wars, the Inquisition, etc. Hardly an overstatement. If you want to qualify it, try religion has been at the root of more deaths than anything natural. People do strange and evil things for religious reasons. Learn a little history, and you won't think it is such an overstatement.

[Blue]

Hmm, the Crusades, Hitler and the Jews (and yes there was more going on here), religious persecution in the Soviet Union and countless other countries, the Arab and Jewish wars, the Inquisition, etc. Hardly an overstatement. If you want to qualify it, try religion has been at the root of more deaths than anything natural. People do strange and evil things for religious reasons. Learn a little history, and you won't think it is such an overstatement.

So if we were all atheists, everything would be hunky-dory huh?

[royalfan5]

So if we were all Lutherans, everything would be hunky-dory huh?
Fixed

[SCOUT]

Hmm, the Crusades, Hitler and the Jews (and yes there was more going on here), religious persecution in the Soviet Union and countless other countries, the Arab and Jewish wars, the Inquisition, etc. Hardly an overstatement. If you want to qualify it, try religion has been at the root of more deaths than anything natural. People do strange and evil things for religious reasons. Learn a little history, and you won't think it is such an overstatement.

Your assumption is still absurd. You can try to castigate religion as much as you like but your initial statement will still be absurd. Your bias is showing.

[usmc-sooner]

for some reason liberals are very threatened by Christianity and will make any stupid arguement to down play it.

Not all but a good portion.

[yermom]

Christianity isn't threatening... it's Christians that think it's the way the world should be that are threatening

[yermom]

So if we were all atheists, everything would be hunky-dory huh?

i don't think that is necessarily true, but using religion to wield power does not have a good track record

[SCOUT]

i don't think that is necessarily true, but using religion to wield power does not have a good track record

Stalin's atheism is a black spot on the atheist record. Mao Tse-Tung and Pol Pot were not exactly beacons of peace either.

[yermom]

i'm not really against calling atheism a religion...

i just don't think faith or lack thereof should have anything to do with government

it's personal thing, IMO

[picasso]

Just ask the Muslims who were the "nationalists" during the Crusades. More people have died due to religion than any other reason.
that gets played a lot but there was also the quest of owning land and expanding kingdoms. I guess if there were no religion we'd be killing each other for different reasons.

[picasso]

Christianity isn't threatening... it's Christians that think it's the way the world should be that are threatening
how so? unless they're running the government you should be ok.

There's a ton if nutty Christians in this part of the country and I feel fairly safe when I leave the house.

[yermom]

that gets played a lot but there was also the quest of owning land and expanding kingdoms. I guess if there were no religion we'd be killing each other for different reasons.

i think we were all killing each other for other reasons, that was just used to motivate the populace

[OSUAggie]

how so? unless they're running the government you should be ok.

There's a ton if nutty Christians in this part of the country and I feel fairly safe when I leave the house.

I don't. They endanger the minds of children and create strife among adolescents with their hypocritical bull****.

They're not gonna pull an AK out, or anything, but the former can be more painful in my mind.

[yermom]

how so? unless they're running the government you should be ok.

There's a ton if nutty Christians in this part of the country and I feel fairly safe when I leave the house.

they are trying to run the government ;)

when people start talking about our soldiers "doing God's work" in Iraq i get queasy

maybe the average Christian in this country isn't a danger to you, but it isn't like Christianity is some shining beacon throughout history of being tolerant and peaceful

[picasso]

I'll agree there's a big lack of tolerance on a few levels in the church but indoctrinating the minds of children and strife for adolescents is almost laughable.

[OSUAggie]

You must've been on the other side, then, or had people that were a bit less crazy.

[yermom]

word.

[Widescreen]

They're not gonna pull an AK out, or anything, but the former can be more painful in my mind.
Yeah. Christians upsetting your delicate sensibilities with their talk of salvation are definitely going to be more painful than your body being riddled with AK47 bullets. :rolleyes:

[Fraggle145]

I'll agree there's a big lack of tolerance on a few levels in the church but indoctrinating the minds of children and strife for adolescents is almost laughable.

This is a big problem in a lot of communities. At least it was in mine growing up. I was harassed by fellow students, their youth ministers, teachers, coaches, etc... to get saved and was constantly being force fed their ideals. Everywhere it was pray for this or god did this, on and on and on. And I was a christian! (at least at the time I was catholic). Without buying it or pretending to buy it you were either an outcast or a heathen. It is indoctrinating and it does cause strife.

[OSUAggie]

This is a big problem in a lot of communities. At least it was in mine growing up. I was harassed by fellow students, their youth ministers, teachers, coaches, etc... to get saved and was constantly being force fed their ideals. Everywhere it was pray for this or god did this, on and on and on. And I was a christian! (at least at the time I was catholic). Without buying it or pretending to buy it you were either an outcast or a heathen. It is indoctrinating and it does cause strife.

Exact same situation for me. Except I'm still a Catholic.

[Skysooner]

I hardly have bias in this, Scout. What I have is a very realistic worldview ground in knowledge of history, psychology, and human nature. I happen to be a Christian but a Christian before the time The Fundamentals were published. I have been a deacon, elder, and church board President for a large church in OKC. I have worked with youth groups and coached church league basketball for years.

Yermom had it right when he said it was the application of religion by certain zealots that has caused the problems. This is the same across all religions.

I also agree the Crusades was more about economics, but the whip used was religion. The Islamic expansion years ago was due to religion. To put your head in the sand and not acknowledge the potential evil that religion can cause is blindness.

[mdklatt]

maybe the average Christian in this country isn't a danger to you, but it isn't like Christianity is some shining beacon throughout history of being tolerant and peaceful

Exactly. Islam is now in the same angry adolescent stage that Christianity was in 1000 years ago.

[mdklatt]

I'll agree there's a big lack of tolerance on a few levels in the church but indoctrinating the minds of children and strife for adolescents is almost laughable.

This depends on which church you're talking about.

[yermom]

Exactly. Islam is now in the same angry adolescent stage that Christianity was in 1000 years ago.

i'm not so sure it has to do with youth as much as it does geography and competition

[Tear Down This Wall]

We had a city council candidates forum this week at a mosque. Of course, we're in America. Here, religion of all types is protected. In majority muslim countries, they kill people for printing Bibles.

It's a microcosm of why America, despite all of its problems, is better than any other country. We can disagree with one another about religion without killing each other. You are free to read the Bible or the Koran...or neither.

[usmc-sooner]

This is a big problem in a lot of communities. At least it was in mine growing up. I was harassed by fellow students, their youth ministers, teachers, coaches, etc... to get saved and was constantly being force fed their ideals. Everywhere it was pray for this or god did this, on and on and on. And I was a christian! (at least at the time I was catholic). Without buying it or pretending to buy it you were either an outcast or a heathen. It is indoctrinating and it does cause strife.


The problem where I grew up wasn't that people wanted to pray for me. Most the people I knew growing up were being harrassed about sex, drinking, drugs and rock and roll.

If someone wanted to pray for me, I was thankful. I was just like all the other teens obsessed about getting laid, drinking beer at the lake.

I'd say over 95% of communites suffer from lack of church influence rather than too much.

[usmc-sooner]

Exactly. Islam is now in the same angry adolescent stage that Christianity was in 1000 years ago.


with all due respect mdklatt, is there anything on earth that you're not overboard alarmed about. I mean you overly alamer about Christians, global warming, cops, Republicans etc., etc.,

[yermom]

The problem where I grew up wasn't that people wanted to pray for me. Most the people I knew growing up were being harrassed about sex, drinking, drugs and rock and roll.

If someone wanted to pray for me, I was thankful. I was just like all the other teens obsessed about getting laid, drinking beer at the lake.

I'd say over 95% of communites suffer from lack of church influence rather than too much.

you didn't grow up where me and Fraggle did :P

[usmc-sooner]

you didn't grow up where me and Fraggle did :P

if your biggest concerns as a youngster were people wanting to pray, and youth ministers then I guess not.

My concerns were getting laid and partying, school, sports and so on. If those were good I could care less if the entire state thought I was the demon seed of hell. :D

Now I wish I would have listened a little closer to those people who cared enough to want to pray.

[yermom]

my comment was more about the 95% thing

Owasso was outwardly pretty Puritanical, but there were basically just a bunch of two-faced people

[OSUAggie]

The people that "want to pray" for someone often times could give a **** about that person's well being, but want to feel better about themselves b/c they had a chance to herd someone to their walk of life. Some people actually care about the well-being of the youngster, but it seems the majority are simply seeking self-satisfaction. But that's not the point.

The point is, a lot of evangelists are so "concerned" with the young people that they position themselves into an influential role within the community that is supposed to help shape the child (i.e. counselor, teacher, coach, administrator, youth director, etc). Then they abuse that role. Perhaps they double as an assistant principal and FCA director. Or maybe they force their baseball team to eat breakfast at their church, and then strongly encourage them to attend the service afterwards. Maybe they schedule a "motivational speaker" for an assembly with a mother ****ing cross shaved in the back of his head speaking of the pitfalls of a non-Protestant… err… Christian, life, inviting the children to come eat free pizza and play ping pong while they force the word of Jesus down your throat.

Anyway, their acts are innocent enough, and very easy to defend b/c of their perceived righteousness, but they shove their **** down your throat for your entire childhood and are completely relentless in their efforts to grow their church community. If you make it clear that you won't succumb to their wishes, they treat you in a different manner than their faithful flock. To me, that’s immoral.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Exactly. Islam is now in the same angry adolescent stage that Christianity was in 1000 years ago.Difference being that some say Islam preaches to kill infidels, whereas Christianity and Judaism don't.

[yermom]

that didn't stop them a few hundred years ago...

[Frozen Sooner]

Difference being that some say Islam preaches to kill infidels, whereas Christianity and Judaism don't.
Actually, Christianity does. It's just not a part of mainstream Christian orthodoxy anymore.

[Fraggle145]

my comment was more about the 95% thing

Owasso was outwardly pretty Puritanical, but there were basically just a bunch of two-faced people

yup.

[Fraggle145]

The people that "want to pray" for someone often times could give a **** about that person's well being, but want to feel better about themselves b/c they had a chance to herd someone to their walk of life. Some people actually care about the well-being of the youngster, but it seems the majority are simply seeking self-satisfaction. But that's not the point.

The point is, a lot of evangelists are so "concerned" with the young people that they position themselves into an influential role within the community that is supposed to help shape the child (i.e. counselor, teacher, coach, administrator, youth director, etc). Then they abuse that role. Perhaps they double as an assistant principal and FCA director. Or maybe they force their baseball team to eat breakfast at their church, and then strongly encourage them to attend the service afterwards. Maybe they schedule a "motivational speaker" for an assembly with a mother ****ing cross shaved in the back of his head speaking of the pitfalls of a non-Protestant… err… Christian, life, inviting the children to come eat free pizza and play ping pong while they force the word of Jesus down your throat.

Anyway, their acts are innocent enough, and very easy to defend b/c of their perceived righteousness, but they shove their **** down your throat for your entire childhood and are completely relentless in their efforts to grow their church community. If you make it clear that you won't succumb to their wishes, they treat you in a different manner than their faithful flock. To me, that’s immoral.

This is it exactly.

[Widescreen]

Actually, Christianity does. It's just not a part of mainstream Christian orthodoxy anymore.
Where does Christianity say to kill infidels (aka non-believers)? Maybe I don't understand what you mean but it sounds like you're saying "Christianity preaches killing non-believers". If that's the case, I've gotta say you're way off base.

[yermom]

did the Isrealites not just slaughter people and take their "promised land"?

i know, i know. that's the Old Testament :rolleyes:

what exactly is the point of contention here? i mean are you denying that things like The Spanish Inquisition happened? Salem witch trials?

mdk just said that Islam is still where Christianity was a thousand years ago, i'm not sure what is so controversial about that

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Actually, Christianity does. It's just not a part of mainstream Christian orthodoxy anymore.I would ask you to please show us why you said that.

[mdklatt]

i'm not so sure it has to do with youth as much as it does geography and competition

Islam cannot maintain it's current sectarian and radicalized state indefinitely. The crazies will either all kill each other after they turn on the infidel moderates, or force us to take care of the problem. If Christianity had continued to be the pain in the *** that it was in the beginning, it couldn't have survived. The time table for Islam to get its act together is a lot shorter than Christianity had, because Christianity wasn't a pain in the *** on a global scale.

[mdklatt]

Difference being that some say Islam preaches to kill infidels, whereas Christianity and Judaism don't....

...anymore.

[Widescreen]

did the Isrealites not just slaughter people and take their "promised land"?

i know, i know. that's the Old Testament :rolleyes:

what exactly is the point of contention here? i mean are you denying that things like The Spanish Inquisition happened? Salem witch trials?

mdk just said that Islam is still where Christianity was a thousand years ago, i'm not sure what is so controversial about that
Who was this directed at? I hadn't responded to mdk but since your post immediately follows mine it seems to be directed at me.

[yermom]

yes, i was trying to put the progression into context

maybe i'm speaking for Mike Rich, but that seemed to be where the discussion was coming from

[Frozen Sooner]

I would ask you to please show us why you said that.

Exodus 22:18 seems pretty clear that God wants you to kill someone who believes something that you don't.

Deuteronomy 13:6-11 seem pretty clear as well.

[Widescreen]

yes, i was trying to put the progression into context

maybe i'm speaking for Mike Rich, but that seemed to be where the discussion was coming from
OK, just making sure. I didn't want to pull a Mack Brown and speak for someone else. ;)


did the Isrealites not just slaughter people and take their "promised land"?

i know, i know. that's the Old Testament :rolleyes:

what exactly is the point of contention here? i mean are you denying that things like The Spanish Inquisition happened? Salem witch trials?

mdk just said that Islam is still where Christianity was a thousand years ago, i'm not sure what is so controversial about that
I never argued that it was controversial. I do get tired of people trying equating Islam and Christianity by dredging up things that happened hundreds of years ago (horrible though they may be). I'm far more concerned with what's going on now. And Christianity does NOT preach slaughtering non-believers. That probably did happen centuries ago but a couple of the statements made in this thread seem to imply they think it's going on now. It isn't.

[Frozen Sooner]

I very clearly stated that it's not part of mainstream Christian orthodoxy now. I apologize if it seemed that it meant that I thought that even a significant portion of Christians think that killing infidels is the thing to do.

[Widescreen]

I very clearly stated that it's not part of mainstream Christian orthodoxy now. I apologize if it seemed that it meant that I thought that even a significant portion of Christians think that killing infidels is the thing to do.
OK, When I saw this statement


Actually, Christianity does. It's just not a part of mainstream Christian orthodoxy anymore.
I took that to mean that "even though it's not a part of mainstream Christian orthodoxy anymore, Christianity DOES preach it". I understand what you meant now.

[Frozen Sooner]

Poor writing on my part. I should have said "The Holy Book of Christianity at least very strongly suggests you should kill infidels. However, it's not part of any mainstream Christian sect's orthodoxy that I can think of."

Again, apologies.

[Scott D]

Poor writing on my part. I should have said "The Holy Book of Christianity at least very strongly suggests you should kill infidels. However, it's not part of any mainstream Christian sect's orthodoxy that I can think of."

Again, apologies.

Cardinal Richaleaux is very disappointed in you.

[usmc-sooner]

Actually, Christianity does. It's just not a part of mainstream Christian orthodoxy anymore.


you're wrong

Christianity comes from Christ as in Jesus and there is nothing that teaches you to kill all infidels.

Muslim aint exactly a new religion as part of it comes from the old testament, thus it is not where Christianity was a 1000 years ago and to imply that it is, is wrong and foolish. If you remember the Muslims started the holy wars against the Christians so the two religions have been feuding for a while.

[usmc-sooner]

my comment was more about the 95% thing

Owasso was outwardly pretty Puritanical, but there were basically just a bunch of two-faced people

aint no different than any other small town USA. But if your biggest problems were religious persecution and two faced hypocrites then you guys have certainly led a sheltered life. :D

[Frozen Sooner]

you're wrong

Christianity comes from Christ as in Jesus and there is nothing that teaches you to kill all infidels.

Muslim aint exactly a new religion as part of it comes from the old testament, thus it is not where Christianity was a 1000 years ago and to imply that it is, is wrong and foolish. If you remember the Muslims started the holy wars against the Christians so the two religions have been feuding for a while.

Actually, you're wrong. But that's OK.

Christianity purports to be a fulfillment of OT prophecy. Included in the OT are several exhortations to kill others because of their beliefs. I've given you two already.

Like I said, it's not part of mainstream Christianity any longer.

[usmc-sooner]

no you're wrong, because Christianity does not fulfill the prophecy of the old testament, hence this is why Jews do not accept Jesus as the Son of God, and nowhere does it say that Christians should kill all infidels.

[usmc-sooner]

Actually, you're wrong. But that's OK.



Like I said, it's not part of mainstream Christianity any longer.

It was never a part of Christianity to begin with. Find me a quote that says Christians should kill non believers. I'm not talking old Hebrew. That was before Christ and before Christianity.

[JohnnyMack]

Me?

I worship the devil.

\m/ \m/

[Frozen Sooner]

no you're wrong, because Christianity does not fulfill the prophecy of the old testament, hence this is why Jews do not accept Jesus as the Son of God, and nowhere does it say that Christians should kill all infidels.

Wow. Do you even know what religion you're a part of?

[usmc-sooner]

Wow. Do you even know what religion you're a part of?

Yes I do, but you don't

the prophecy of the Old Testament says that someone from the line of David (Jesse Tree)will free Isreal and make them a powerful nation.

There is no evidence that Jesus was from the line of David. Many theorize this why certain books were added to the Bible to try to establish a connection between them. During Jesus time, Isreal was a nation under control of Rome. This is why the Jews (Hebrews) who the entire Old Testament is about, do not recognize Jesus as the Son of God.

Another reason is that Jesus declared that the laws of the Old Testament or (Hebrew laws) no longer apply. Which pretty much made the Old Testament a history lesson and pretty much moot as far as religious practices of what is Christianity, many of the same values but different methods of atonement among other things.

They probably don't teach you that in banker school.

[Vaevictis]

So, what does Luke 16:17 mean then?

[Blue]

So, what does Luke 16:17 mean then?

gotta agree w/ that. Jesus was the fulfillment of prophesy.

[usmc-sooner]

So, what does Luke 16:17 mean then?

you guys have to quote it? I don't have the entire Bible memorized. Without knowing what it says I'd say it probably means different things to different people.

Jesus Christ said when asked what was the most important part of his teachings (which became Christianity) is " I give you a new commandment above all others Love one another.

I guess I missed the holy Jihad scripture.

I don't see why you liberals are so anti-Christian, Jesus gave women and minorities roles they didn't have under other religions and preaches peace and love. Jesus even told his disciple to put the sword down when he cut the Roman guard's ear off. I think you're going to have a hard time comparing Christians to Muslims.

[Blue]

you guys have to quote it? I don't have the entire Bible memorized. Without knowing what it says I'd say it probably means different things to different people.

Jesus Christ said when asked what was the most important part of his teachings (which became Christianity) is " I give you a new commandment above all others Love one another.

I guess I missed the holy Jihad scripture.

I don't see why you liberals are so anti-Christian, Jesus gave women and minorities roles they didn't have under other religions and preaches peace and love. Jesus even told his disciple to put the sword down when he cut the Roman guard's ear off. I think you're going to have a hard time comparing Christians to Muslims.

The new covenant was that even us "Gentiles" could come to the father through him. No more slaughtering lambs...he was the last sacrifice.

[usmc-sooner]

The new covenant was that even us "Gentiles" could come to the father through him. No more slaughtering lambs...he was the last sacrifice.

the silence of the lambs :D

[Vaevictis]

you guys have to quote it? I don't have the entire Bible memorized. Without knowing what it says I'd say it probably means different things to different people.

16:17. And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass than one tittle of the law to fall.

or, alternatively

16:17 It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law.

According to Luke, Jesus said this. "the Law" being the Torah.

Mostly, my understanding is that the interpretation of this is that the Torah is in full force and effect, contrary to your statement.

(my understanding of this having been learned as a kiddo in a Presbyterian school...)

The whole thing where the Gentiles don't follow the law was something added by the disciples later to try to win converts. Again, according to my understanding.

[JohnnyMack]

the silence of the lambs :D

:les:PUT THE ****ING LOTION IN THE BASKET!!!!!!!!

[Widescreen]

There is no evidence that Jesus was from the line of David. Many theorize this why certain books were added to the Bible to try to establish a connection between them.
You lost me here. Are you suggesting that Matthew and Luke were both added to create some kind of connection? Matthew chapter 1 outlines the descent of Jesus from David (via Joseph) and Luke chapter 3 outlines the descent of Jesus from David (via Mary). He's actually descended from David in both lines - even though the one through Joseph isn't a biological one.

[Blue]

Also refer to Numbers, and Chronicles.

[Frozen Sooner]

usmc, I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with you about mainstream Christianity. Based on everything I've read, Christian orthodoxy holds that Jesus is the Messiah prophesied to come from the line of David. He comes not to set aside the law and the prophets, but to fulfill them. As such, unless he contradicts something in the OT, it is my assumption that the OT law would still hold for Christianity as doctrine.

NOW, that being said, Christianity as it stands today doesn't seem to go much for the wholesale slaughter of non-believers, and nations that are majority Christian tend to go for much higher levels of religious tolerance than nations that are, for example, Muslim. Christianity, and more to the point Protestant Christianity with it's widespread promotion of literacy and removal of church heirarchy, has been a democratizing force for centuries and promoted the intellectual atmosphere from which the western concepts of the rights of man have arisen.

Christians have and continue to do many good works on the face of the earth, and I don't dispute that whatsoever. Most of the Christians I meet are good people-and I imagine the ones that I meet that are bat-crap insane would probably bat-crap insane Muslims or bat-crap insane Buddhists.

[usmc-sooner]

You lost me here. Are you suggesting that Matthew and Luke were both added to create some kind of connection? Matthew chapter 1 outlines the descent of Jesus from David (via Joseph) and Luke chapter 3 outlines the descent of Jesus from David (via Mary). He's actually descended from David in both lines - even though the one through Joseph isn't a biological one.

No the books were in the Old Testament. I believe Ruth is one of them. I took a college class on the Bible and the teacher was atheist but he was a good teacher. He said that many Bible scholars (who many is I don't know) thought that some books like Ruth were added to make the connection to David. He also points out that it was very important for them to try to establish that connection in Matthew and Luke, but somehow there were missing links.

It's been over 10 years since I had that class, so I can't remember everything but I still have the Oxford study Bible and it's pretty interesting because at the bottom of each page it tells the significance of why this and that are in the Bible.

[Widescreen]

There were no books added to the old testament after Christ was born (although they didn't refer to it as the 'old testament'. Just the holy scripture. ;)). Christ gave sermons on the same texts that we have today.

[Blue]

No the books were in the Old Testament. I believe Ruth is one of them. I took a college class on the Bible and the teacher was atheist but he was a good teacher. He said that many Bible scholars (who many is I don't know) thought that some books like Ruth were added to make the connection to David. He also points out that it was very important for them to try to establish that connection in Matthew and Luke, but somehow there were missing links.

It's been over 10 years since I had that class, so I can't remember everything but I still have the Oxford study Bible and it's pretty interesting because at the bottom of each page it tells the significance of why this and that are in the Bible.

Rule #1 - Don't take Bible study courses from an atheist. :D

[Scott D]

for the record, Christ preached that Widescreen was an irresponsible bastard as well ;)

[usmc-sooner]

There were no books added to the old testament after Christ was born (although they didn't refer to it as the 'old testament'. Just the holy scripture. ;)). Christ gave sermons on the same texts that we have today.

actually the Bible was put together long after Christ died. Also Christ did not preach solely from the texts of the Old Testament, he changed a lot of it.

This being one of the reasons the Jews did not view Jesus as the Son of God. Jesus did not fit their interpretation of the Old Testament.

[Widescreen]

actually the Bible was put together long after Christ died. Also Christ did not preach solely from the texts of the Old Testament, he changed a lot of it.

This being one of the reasons the Jews did not view Jesus as the Son of God. Jesus did not fit their interpretation of the Old Testament.
I'm not sure where you're getting your information. If by "Bible" you mean the bound version of a single book containing all books we now know as the Bible, then yes. They used scrolls but they had all the texts we now call the old testament and they used them daily. What did Christ change? Every time he preached, he was preaching either new stuff or referencing earlier scripture. The reason the Jews didn't view Jesus as the Son of God is because either:

1) they were wanting a military leader to liberate them from Rome (most of the rabble), or
2) they were so addicted to power that they were desperate to NOT have a Messiah (the religious leaders)

[usmc-sooner]

I'm not sure where you're getting your information. If by "Bible" you mean the bound version of a single book containing all books we now know as the Bible, then yes. They used scrolls but they had all the texts we now call the old testament and they used them daily. What did Christ change? Every time he preached, he was preaching either new stuff or referencing earlier scripture. The reason the Jews didn't view Jesus as the Son of God is because either:

1) they were wanting a military leader to liberate them from Rome (most of the rabble), or
2) they were so addicted to power that they were desperate to NOT have a Messiah (the religious leaders)

You honestly don't know what Christ changed? He changed a lot of the traditions of the Old Testament. He did away with a lot the old Hebrew stuff. You do know there are also other books and texts that were used that were not put in the Bible. Some of the letters and books of the New Testament were written well after the death of Jesus.

Look I believe in the Bible wholeheartedly. But you can pick up a copy of the Oxford International Study Bible and it points out all this. I get my information from this and the class I took. Now the class wasn't being taught from a faith perspective but more of a history, and literature. The book talks about the numerous attempts to link Jesus to David, it says that the book of Ruth may have been an attempt to link them. It also talks about how they try to link it in other books, but I guess they have nothing definite that connects the link.

I don't see how the Jews were addicted to power being they were captured and ruled by others for a great majority of their time. The old Hebrew prophecy did call for a ruler or a miltary type King.

Like I said I'm a believer and a Christian but this study Bible is the book most preachers use while studying to become a pastor. You can pick it up at a book store. I'm not the be all and end all on this topic but I've asked 2 different preachers and they seem to agree with me.

God sent his Son so we wouldn't have to follow the old traditions (sacrifices, forgiveness etc.etc.

Jesus changed it all by: whosoever believeth in him shall not perish but have everlasting life.

In the old Testament to be a preacher or priest you had to be from a certain line of family. I believe it was Levi or Aaron, I could be wrong. That's another thing that changed.

Everything I'm saying I got from the Bible. I'm not an expert but it seems pretty simple to me.

I'm not going to continue to argue this, we can agree to disagree.

On a side note did you know that the devil is not mentioned very much in Bible. It's one of the things that surprised me when I took this class. Also the first word translated into "Hell" was from the Hebrew word that meant the pit where the Jews would fill up with their deceased then burn their bodies so as not to spread diseases.

[Skysooner]

You honestly don't know what Christ changed? Some of the letters and books of the New Testament were written well after the death of Jesus.

Actually every single one of the letters and books of the New Testament were written after his death. The nearest was at about 10 years, and the furthest were 100-200 years after his death.

Christ also discounted the 10 Commandments and yet there are still people that want to put them up in courtrooms. Why don't you ask them which 10 Commandments they want to put up since there were three different versions in the OT?

Much of the four gospels talking about his life do so in a manner attempting to prove the Old Testament prophecies of the coming of the savior. There are many discrepancies in these gospels about what happened when, where he was from, etc. I do not believe in the infallability of the Bible for this reason. I also do not choose to spit on the religion of my forefathers. Yet, I want the freedom to choose my own path to the God that makes sense to me and to my understanding of the world and universe.

Believe what you want, but also understand there are many Americans (a majority) that do not believe exactly what you believe and do not like having "Jesus is the only path to God" shoved down our throats. The majority of Americans believe in a God and most believe there was a Jesus, but the fanciful stories told to us while we were growing up do not make sense to us in the light of what we know about the world now.

Good luck in your religion, but please do not discount what others believe.

[usmc-sooner]

Actually every single one of the letters and books of the New Testament were written after his death. The nearest was at about 10 years, and the furthest were 100-200 years after his death.

Christ also discounted the 10 Commandments and yet there are still people that want to put them up in courtrooms. Why don't you ask them which 10 Commandments they want to put up since there were three different versions in the OT?

Much of the four gospels talking about his life do so in a manner attempting to prove the Old Testament prophecies of the coming of the savior. There are many discrepancies in these gospels about what happened when, where he was from, etc. I do not believe in the infallability of the Bible for this reason. I also do not choose to spit on the religion of my forefathers. Yet, I want the freedom to choose my own path to the God that makes sense to me and to my understanding of the world and universe.

Believe what you want, but also understand there are many Americans (a majority) that do not believe exactly what you believe and do not like having "Jesus is the only path to God" shoved down our throats. The majority of Americans believe in a God and most believe there was a Jesus, but the fanciful stories told to us while we were growing up do not make sense to us in the light of what we know about the world now.

BTW those "fanciful" stories were what made Jesus special as the Son of God.
Good luck in your religion, but please do not discount what others believe.

where have I tried to shove religion down your throat or discount what you believe?

I believe in the Bible I believe the only way to the Father is through the Son, but I haven't nor does society force feed Christianity. If you watch American societies TV, listen to our music, watch our kids behave there is absolutely no logical way that you could assume Christianity is forced on anyone in this country. If anything it would be the exact opposite.

[Skysooner]

I wasn't talking so much as you as hardcore conservative Christians in general. One "friend" of my wife told her that our son was inhabited by demons since he has autism. What I find to be a problem in the media is that it is either/or. Either the Christians they are showing are total whack jobs or they are showing people who totally turn down religion. I just want acknowledgement from Christians that there are other ways to think and not to give me this condescending look that says "well you are going to hell". I have had 30 plus years of prime learning time to figure out what I am about, and for some people to come in and tell me I don't know what I am talking about because the Bible says "X" are the ones who aren't looking beyond their own noses.

There was talk earlier in this thread about how women and minorities were given more of a place in the NT and in Christianity since they weren't included in other religions. Some religions of that day were pagan religions, and women were central to those religions. I find the way that women and minorities have been put down through the years at the behest of people (even clergy) to be reprehensible. Both slavery and denying women the right to vote were both upheld by people quoting the Bible. Women were central to Christianity and yet their place has always been denied.

[usmc-sooner]

I wasn't talking so much as you as hardcore conservative Christians in general. One "friend" of my wife told her that our son was inhabited by demons since he has autism. What I find to be a problem in the media is that it is either/or. Either the Christians they are showing are total whack jobs or they are showing people who totally turn down religion. I just want acknowledgement from Christians that there are other ways to think and not to give me this condescending look that says "well you are going to hell". I have had 30 plus years of prime learning time to figure out what I am about, and for some people to come in and tell me I don't know what I am talking about because the Bible says "X" are the ones who aren't looking beyond their own noses.

There was talk earlier in this thread about how women and minorities were given more of a place in the NT and in Christianity since they weren't included in other religions. Some religions of that day were pagan religions, and women were central to those religions. I find the way that women and minorities have been put down through the years at the behest of people (even clergy) to be reprehensible. Both slavery and denying women the right to vote were both upheld by people quoting the Bible. Women were central to Christianity and yet their place has always been denied.

I'd punch someone if they told me my autistic kid was infested by demons. Hearing that ticks me off. I have a lot of respect for you for the patience and love it takes in caring for your child. I believe God takes care of his children and had a reason when he blessed you and your wife with a special child. I knew a kid with Down Syndrome and I could never walk away from him and feel bad, it was a blessing every minute I got to spend with him.

Why do people always talk about slavery it's not unique to this country or any religion? Women have always been considered the weaker sex (physically) and have always been treated unfairly that too is not unique to this country or any religion.

Why should Christians acknowledge that there are other ways? That would be close to blasphemy.

Christianity does treat other believers and women better than most of the larger religions like say Buddhism or Islam. I don't understand what some people have against the Bible it basically says believe in Jesus, be good, love one another and treat each other right. I can't find one objectionable teaching in the Bible.

[JohnnyMack]

I am infested by demons.

Beer demons at the tmoement.

[Blue]

Yet,I want the freedom to choose my own path to the God that makes sense to me and to my understanding of the world and universe.



This kinda jumped out. Seems like you want God to fit you and your chosen way of life, not the other way around.

By no means am I a saint, but I know I cannot mold God to justify the things I do.

[Skysooner]

I was not exactly talking about other religions and cultures throughout the world. I was just saying that the Bible was used as a way or keeping slavery going in this country when a good part of the country was against it (early to mid-1800s). Women were at least as important as the male disciples, and yet in the Baptist church they aren't allowed to serve as religious leaders (although this is changing in parts of the Baptist church). The denial of the right to vote for women was justified through selective use of the Bible again also in this country and also in parts of the world currently (through Islam, etc.).

I don't have an objection to the Christian religion per se, but I do have an objection to the way it is practiced at times by some really strange people in this country and elsewhere.

USMC, thank you for your words about my son. It is a daily challenge, but we get through it. At least it opened our eyes to the many special-needs children out there.


This kinda jumped out. Seems like you want God to fit you and your chosen way of life, not the other way around.

By no means am I a saint, but I know I cannot mold God to justify the things I do.

I am not trying to mold God but to understand him/her in a way that makes sense to me. I don't buy into original sin since I believe the Adam/Eve story is just a tale that tries to explain to the early tribes where they came from. Therefore I do not believe in a sacrifice needed to forgive me. To be blunt that is a tribalistic god we are talking about. If you buy into the need to be forgiven for everything you do, questions come up like whose moral code are you following or who defines the rules. It also comes up as the punishment that you see get thrown around by these preachers on crack that say Katrina was due to the "sin" in the city of New Orleans. It offers up extremely difficult questions to ask such as why did one person "deserve" punishment when another does not. I fully believe God is a universal god who is the same for all living things in the universe. I believe in evolution and the expanding universe. If I believe God is as great as all that, I don't think he is worried about little nitpicky things like whether I eat pork on Friday, or say his name in vain (Jesus threw that one out in the NT btw). I also do not believe in hell.

I fully believe that we reap what we sow, so behavior is important. If you get filthy rich climbing over the bodies of others, you may be rich in possessions but very poor as a person. I believe in the right way to treat people. Basically I adhere to the treat others as you want to be treated rule of life. It has served me well in life. If this is a justification of the way I do things then I have no objection to that way of living.

Most of us are in completely different places in our "faith" in God. I think most of us believe there is a higher power, but the way to reach God is very much open to interpretation. We have been trying churches in Tulsa since we moved here a year ago. I sat in one about a month back, and the preacher said that the Christian church was only able to reach 65% of the world's population through missionaries and that the others were inaccessible due to geographic/political constraints. One girl asked if that meant the rest were going to hell, and he said yes. That's the kind of religion I can do without. A God that can't reach people due to those constraints is one I choose not to worship.

However, I respect the rights of others to believe what they will believe. I realize that what works for me doesn't work for all and that others see God differently. It just so happens I'm in a large minority of people that still go to church (and there are several left-leaning but still mainstream churches that believe more like me than the conservative churches) and yet believes in God. Many more people have quit the church in disgust and sleep in on Sunday mornings.

[picasso]

Religious wars have killed many but I heard it mentioned on the radio today that the baddest men/dictators in history were and are atheists.

belch.


:pop:

[Frozen Sooner]

That depends on who you consider an atheist, I guess.

[Scott D]

doubt I'd say they were atheists but more like they had a high opinion of themselves.

I'd hardly call Richard I an atheist.

[Fraggle145]

aint no different than any other small town USA. But if your biggest problems were religious persecution and two faced hypocrites then you guys have certainly led a sheltered life. :D

Heh. It was pretty sheltered there, but I think a lot of not having too many other problems came from coming from a good home with good parents and good values so I wasnt worried about a lot of other stuff, well at least after they set me straight :D

Edit: one other thing I wanted to say and then I will get off of my soapbox. Just because it happens in every other small town USA doesnt make it right, and I dont think it should be tolerated.


I don't see why you liberals are so anti-Christian, Jesus gave women and minorities roles they didn't have under other religions and preaches peace and love. Jesus even told his disciple to put the sword down when he cut the Roman guard's ear off. I think you're going to have a hard time comparing Christians to Muslims.

I dont see why this is a political thing. I think those of us who are not christians and have said so on here were rather controlled about it. I dont think I am "anti-" anything except anti-getting someone else's ideas of who I should be and how I should act shoved down my throat.

Basically, it comes down to the fact that people dont practice what they preach and this happens everyday. For example: Dont judge lest ye be judged, and let he who is without sin cast the 1st stone. Yet in christian sermons every sunday across the nation preachers will stand up and say that such and such people are going to hell, for this, that and the other thing. They dont know that and neither does anyone else and it says in their own book of beliefs that it isnt up to them. There are many that preach, dont drink, dont curse, dont have sex till married and then many of them do it anyway.

I think it is hard for christians to understand why someone doesnt think like them, because they have found their answers, just because I have come to different answers doesnt give them the right to chastise, berate, or force their ideals upon me. I think given that christians have such a large mouthpiece in the US and that this happened to me throughout much of my life it is hard to not be a little disenchanted when those of us that dont believe what christians do ask for a little respect and instead get the door slammed in our face by the same group that preaches acceptance.

[usmc-sooner]

Heh. It was pretty sheltered there, but I think a lot of not having too many other problems came from coming from a good home with good parents and good values so I wasnt worried about a lot of other stuff, well at least after they set me straight :D

Edit: one other thing I wanted to say and then I will get off of my soapbox. Just because it happens in every other small town USA doesnt make it right, and I dont think it should be tolerated.



I dont see why this is a political thing. I think those of us who are not christians and have said so on here were rather controlled about it. I dont think I am "anti-" anything except anti-getting someone else's ideas of who I should be and how I should act shoved down my throat.


Basically, it comes down to the fact that people dont practice what they preach and this happens everyday. For example: Dont judge lest ye be judged, and let he who is without sin cast the 1st stone. Yet in christian sermons every sunday across the nation preachers will stand up and say that such and such people are going to hell, for this, that and the other thing. They dont know that and neither does anyone else and it says in their own book of beliefs that it isnt up to them. There are many that preach, dont drink, dont curse, dont have sex till married and then many of them do it anyway.

I think it is hard for christians to understand why someone doesnt think like them, because they have found their answers, just because I have come to different answers doesnt give them the right to chastise, berate, or force their ideals upon me. I think given that christians have such a large mouthpiece in the US and that this happened to me throughout much of my life it is hard to not be a little disenchanted when those of us that dont believe what christians do ask for a little respect and instead get the door slammed in our face by the same group that preaches acceptance.


what is it about Christianity that you disagree with, there's always going to be hypocrits who don't practice what they preach. Most liberals rail on Christianity and I'm just trying to understand what part they hate. No matter what religion or for that matter any thing people will make mistakes. I'm a backsliding Christian, I drink, curse have unpure thoughts that doesn't make Christianity bad it makes me a sinner, but if I ask Jesus will forgive me.

I mean Al Gore preaches about Global Warming but flies all over the place and does that make the fight agaist Glowbal Warming BS or is it one guy who doesn't practice what he preaches? If I applied your logic then we can just discount global warming because there are a lot of people who don't practice what they preach.

I think a lot of people take don't judge to be that you shouldn't speak out against the sin. I've been to Catholic, Nazarene, Methodist and Baptist churches I've never heard any preacher say well so and so is going to hell. I've heard them say that sin that is unforgiven will lead to hell.

There's things I disagree with them on from time to time. I listen to them talk about the evils of excessive drinking, drugging but you never hear them talk about over eating.

[Fraggle145]

what is it about Christianity that you disagree with, there's always going to be hypocrits who don't practice what they preach. Most liberals rail on Christianity and I'm just trying to understand what part they hate. No matter what religion or for that matter any thing people will make mistakes. I'm a backsliding Christian, I drink, curse have unpure thoughts that doesn't make Christianity bad it makes me a sinner, but if I ask Jesus will forgive me.

I mean Al Gore preaches about Global Warming but flies all over the place and does that make the fight agaist Glowbal Warming BS or is it one guy who doesn't practice what he preaches? If I applied your logic then we can just discount global warming because there are a lot of people who don't practice what they preach.

I think a lot of people take don't judge to be that you shouldn't speak out against the sin. I've been to Catholic, Nazarene, Methodist and Baptist churches I've never heard any preacher say well so and so is going to hell. I've heard them say that sin that is unforgiven will lead to hell.

There's things I disagree with them on from time to time. I listen to them talk about the evils of excessive drinking, drugging but you never hear them talk about over eating.

I dont know if it is all liberals though. I wouldnt call myself a pure liberal either. I sit on the fence on a lot of issues, just not those that pertain to the environment. I think this part of my original diatribe may help clarify some of what you are asking.


I think it is hard for christians to understand why someone doesnt think like them, because they have found their answers, just because I have come to different answers doesnt give them the right to chastise, berate, or force their ideals upon me. I think given that christians have such a large mouthpiece in the US and that this happened to me throughout much of my life it is hard to not be a little disenchanted when those of us that dont believe what christians do ask for a little respect and instead get the door slammed in our face by the same group that preaches acceptance.

For example, the use of the words "under god" in the pledge of allegiance. Although it seems trivial to me (I really dont care), the fact is that there are many in this country that are atheists and that find it offensive to have to profess a belief in somthing that they dont believe. The fact that the words were added in 1951 and werent part of the original pledge is a moot point to some christians who basically will say "This is a christian nation, if you dont like it GET OUT!" I say bull**** this is a christian nation, this is a beautiful melting pot of ideas and culture and to try to define it that way misses what I believe to be the point of America. Where you can come, pick yourself up by your bootstraps without fear of any sort of persecution.

I mean the distrust can be seen in many other examples. In a recent Gallup (http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=26611) poll only 45% of those polled would vote for an atheist president the lowest amount of initial support among the groups surveyed. Gay marriage rights are another example and the persecution they face everyday for being gay and not following the christian doctrine. The ability to teach evolution in schools is another example that is hindered upon because it doesnt follow the doctrine set forth in the OT (which is still followed by many christians). The jist of my argument falls under not being able to stand this type of mentality: we are the majority (or have the loudest voice), if you dont believe what we do then you are wrong and we are going to make you believe it or make it impossible for you to profess what you believe (not saying that you are doing this, this is just the way I feel about the situation sometimes).

So I guess the twofacedness of it isnt what gets me as everyone in every cause has people that can be hypocritical. And I dont hate christians. I dont necessarily like the idea of religion in general (for more reasons than I care to explain in this argument) and christianity just happens to be the majority in this country. Its the in your face nature and even prejudice that I can face for not professing to be a christian that bothers me, especially when,as i said before, the religion itself professes love and acceptance to be one of its tenets.

[usmc-sooner]

I dont know if it is all liberals though. I wouldnt call myself a pure liberal either. I sit on the fence on a lot of issues, just not those that pertain to the environment. I think this part of my original diatribe may help clarify some of what you are asking.



For example, the use of the words "under god" in the pledge of allegiance. Although it seems trivial to me (I really dont care), the fact is that there are many in this country that are atheists and that find it offensive to have to profess a belief in somthing that they dont believe. The fact that the words were added in 1951 and werent part of the original pledge is a moot point to some christians who basically will say "This is a christian nation, if you dont like it GET OUT!" I say bull**** this is a christian nation, this is a beautiful melting pot of ideas and culture and to try to define it that way misses what I believe to be the point of America. Where you can come, pick yourself up by your bootstraps without fear of any sort of persecution.

I mean the distrust can be seen in many other examples. In a recent Gallup (http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=26611) poll only 45% of those polled would vote for an atheist president the lowest amount of initial support among the groups surveyed. Gay marriage rights are another example and the persecution they face everyday for being gay and not following the christian doctrine. The ability to teach evolution in schools is another example that is hindered upon because it doesnt follow the doctrine set forth in the OT (which is still followed by many christians). The jist of my argument falls under not being able to stand this type of mentality: we are the majority (or have the loudest voice), if you dont believe what we do then you are wrong and we are going to make you believe it or make it impossible for you to profess what you believe (not saying that you are doing this, this is just the way I feel about the situation sometimes).

So I guess the twofacedness of it isnt what gets me as everyone in every cause has people that can be hypocritical. And I dont hate christians. I dont necessarily like the idea of religion in general (for more reasons than I care to explain in this argument) and christianity just happens to be the majority in this country. Its the in your face nature and even prejudice that I can face for not professing to be a christian that bothers me, especially when,as i said before, the religion itself professes love and acceptance to be one of its tenets.

you heathen son of a bitch I hate you. :D

the only thing that I can find in your post that you disagree with Christians is the gay thing. God didn't say queers can't marry, he just said it is an abombination in his eyes. It's pretty disgusting in my eyes as well. Most of what you disagree with is how some people twist the word of God to what they believe. It's no different with any other belief or walk of life.

Another question how is the one nation under God offensive to an atheist. If they told me to stand up and pledge allegiance to Scooby Doo, I wouldn't care. Athiest are not so offended they don't accept money, I think it's BS. I've been to the Mid East and I wasn't offended by their religious culture.

BTW I wasn't calling you a liberal but a lot of people who make these arguments tend to be liberal.

[Fraggle145]

you heathen son of a bitch I hate you. :D

Heh. New Sig whenever I can change my profile again... it is doing weird things. :D


the only thing that I can find in your post that you disagree with Christians is the gay thing. God didn't say queers can't marry, he just said it is an abombination in his eyes. It's pretty disgusting in my eyes as well. Most of what you disagree with is how some people twist the word of God to what they believe. It's no different with any other belief or walk of life.

I'm not big on the gay thing either, but if thats what you are/choose to be (depending on viewpoint) so long as it doesnt impinge on my rights, have a party. Pretty much the second part is exactly it.


Another question how is the one nation under God offensive to an atheist. If they told me to stand up and pledge allegiance to Scooby Doo, I wouldn't care. Athiest are not so offended they don't accept money, I think it's BS. I've been to the Mid East and I wasn't offended by their religious culture.

I dont get it either, but a lot of them are offended, I think it is trying to find something small to fight about :confused:


BTW I wasn't calling you a liberal but a lot of people who make these arguments tend to be liberal.

Ya that is true, I just hate politics and dont think that religion and politcs belong even remotely close to one another. ;)

[Vaevictis]

Another question how is the one nation under God offensive to an atheist.

Just a question: Would it offend you to have your kids instructed to pledge allegiance to one nation under Allah?

[usmc-sooner]

Just a question: Would it offend you to have your kids instructed to pledge allegiance to one nation under Allah?

Like I said I've been to the Mid East, their culture did not offend me.

[Vaevictis]

Like I said I've been to the Mid East, their culture did not offend me.

Well, in my mind, that fact is independent of my question.

It wouldn't offend you if someone was making your kids acknowledge a God you didn't believe in?