Why People hate "Christians"
#51
Posted 24 April 2011 - 09:45 AM
#52
Posted 30 June 2011 - 10:32 AM
#53
Posted 01 July 2011 - 08:48 PM
People like to stereotype and make sweeping generalizations.
#54
Posted 02 July 2011 - 02:27 PM
#55
Posted 03 July 2011 - 06:41 AM
#56
Posted 03 July 2011 - 01:11 PM
Eww, some kids came to my door the other day and asked if I wanted to sponsor a Pentecostal Christian youth convention, of course not. I bet I am considered a 'Christian' hater for not supporting their glossolalia convention.
Yikes. If there's anything I hate more than Christians, it's kids.
#57
Posted 03 July 2011 - 02:52 PM
#58
Posted 03 July 2011 - 03:03 PM
#59
Posted 03 July 2011 - 03:11 PM
And this is why I'm an atheist.
Italic typography?
#60
Posted 03 July 2011 - 03:25 PM
Italic typography?
On the nail, dude, on the nail
#61
Posted 03 July 2011 - 07:18 PM
#62
Posted 03 July 2011 - 09:53 PM
I mean, I used to be one. I still have respect for Jesus Christ (he was awesome). I don't believe he was the son of God, but he did try to free his people from the Roman's yoke, and did a lot of good things.
Christians, I have to admit, have messed so much with their religion that it has become laughable, but their basic concepts do have some messages of love and forgiveness and stuff. I'm an agnostic and a deist, so I don't really care what the Christians do with their religion and institutions at the end.
Just a little quote by Mahatma Ghandi that I happen to like:
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."
Edited by IceSandwich, 03 July 2011 - 09:54 PM.
#63
Posted 16 July 2011 - 09:54 AM
I really wish their priests would stop raping little boys where I live though.
Fantastic quoteJust a little quote by Mahatma Ghandi that I happen to like:
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."
Edited by Altzer, 16 July 2011 - 09:55 AM.
#64
Posted 16 July 2011 - 10:25 AM
I really wish their priests would stop raping little boys where I live though.
I'm an atheist and I don't think we should let those priests represent Christians. Every group has a few bad apples. Just sayin'.
#65
Posted 16 July 2011 - 12:00 PM
Absolutely! I agree with you. Sadly it's not just those priests though. In the most recent scandal here even the Cardinals knew, and they did nothing other than threaten the victims. Watching Deliver Us From Evil I found that it's not a unique case. The trailer may be a bit over the top, but it's still a true story.I'm an atheist and I don't think we should let those priests represent Christians. Every group has a few bad apples. Just sayin'.
So yeah, christians are usually ok people, but it's not just a few priests that I dislike. The whole system is a corrupt monster, and they're unwittingly supporting that. It ticks me off.
I'm going on a tangent here x.x Sorry.
Edited by Altzer, 16 July 2011 - 12:04 PM.
#66
Posted 16 July 2011 - 01:42 PM
But, I'm perfectly fine with Religion as long as people use spirituality as a way to make themselves better rather than just going along with their peers. Hypocritical christians are a bit annoying.
#67
Posted 16 July 2011 - 06:26 PM
If Christians actually payed attention to what Jesus actually said (and not the here-say that's been added to it) then maybe they wouldn't be so hated. I think that Jesus was a real person and had a truly loving message for humanity but people have crafted this message to practically enslave the masses. In actuality there is easily more hate towards Islams than Christians.
Another thing I find really amusing about most modern religions is that the most likely situation is that they're based off very similar (if not the same) mystical experiences/realizations and their messages are very similar yet they all ignore the message of love they've been told and hold guns to every other religions heads saying they are 'wrong'. If they were to listen to each other they'd realize that really they all believe in the same thing just using different names. So really the question is why do people hate religion and the answer is simple - because religion so far has done naught but separate humanity and promote the 'were better than you' mentality. Humans may have evolved from primates but a lot of our ways are still very much like our primitive ancestors.
Peace.
#68
Posted 16 July 2011 - 07:33 PM
And this is why I'm an atheist.
This meaning the alleged facebook conversation in the initial post? Am I the only one that thinks there was some very significant editing of those messages (if they were real to begin with)?
Christian or not, I don't know anyone, much less a "minister", who would speak that way to a volunteer. I was brought up in a devout Southern Baptist church, and despite my reluctance to follow any of the rules, I was never spoken to that way. Nor was anyone else.
The "minister" in the original post amazingly sounds like he is the same age as the "friend" of the original poster. And neither of them appear to be concerned with grammar or punctuation.
Basically, I don't believe this "minister" exists, so I sure as hell don't think he should be held up as an example of all Christians. If anything, this is a perfect example of how angry non-Christians depict Christians. And I say that as someone who despises all forms of organized religion. There are lousy Christians just like there are lousy Hindus, lousy Muslims, lousy atheists, and lousy Pastafarians.
#69
Posted 16 July 2011 - 10:01 PM
You may be right in assuming that the original post was redacted, but we don't really have proof either way. Although there's a chance, what reason does someone have to make it up? There are plenty of other cases of hate-speech in the name of religion (e.g. Westboro Baptist Church), there's no need to fabricate yet another instance.This meaning the alleged facebook conversation in the initial post? Am I the only one that thinks there was some very significant editing of those messages (if they were real to begin with)?
Christian or not, I don't know anyone, much less a "minister", who would speak that way to a volunteer. I was brought up in a devout Southern Baptist church, and despite my reluctance to follow any of the rules, I was never spoken to that way. Nor was anyone else.
The "minister" in the original post amazingly sounds like he is the same age as the "friend" of the original poster. And neither of them appear to be concerned with grammar or punctuation.
Basically, I don't believe this "minister" exists, so I sure as hell don't think he should be held up as an example of all Christians. If anything, this is a perfect example of how angry non-Christians depict Christians. And I say that as someone who despises all forms of organized religion. There are lousy Christians just like there are lousy Hindus, lousy Muslims, lousy atheists, and lousy Pastafarians.
As to your upbringing... it probably occurred before Facebook, so the issues raised here were non-issues then. And you can't really speak to how other people were treated in your church. At least not credibly. In law it's called hearsay. While you were treated fairly, you were also probably a practicing Christian youth, which gives you a certain standing within the community. Don't compare your situation to the original poster's - they aren't similar enough to warrant it.
As to your ad-hominem attacks on the poster, well this is the debate forum. Find a fault with his argument, not his typing. the fact that you personally know of no one who would speak to someone that way does little to sway me: it's doubtless that they exist. See previous comments on Westboro Baptist Church.
Offtopic aside: I counted no less than three people in this thread who had between 500 and 550 posts. Do we need any more proof that advanced member requirements are in need of an update?
#70
Posted 17 July 2011 - 05:45 AM
You may be right in assuming that the original post was redacted, but we don't really have proof either way. Although there's a chance, what reason does someone have to make it up? There are plenty of other cases of hate-speech in the name of religion (e.g. Westboro Baptist Church), there's no need to fabricate yet another instance.
As to your upbringing... it probably occurred before Facebook, so the issues raised here were non-issues then. And you can't really speak to how other people were treated in your church. At least not credibly. In law it's called hearsay. While you were treated fairly, you were also probably a practicing Christian youth, which gives you a certain standing within the community. Don't compare your situation to the original poster's - they aren't similar enough to warrant it.
As to your ad-hominem attacks on the poster, well this is the debate forum. Find a fault with his argument, not his typing. the fact that you personally know of no one who would speak to someone that way does little to sway me: it's doubtless that they exist. See previous comments on Westboro Baptist Church.
Westboro Baptist "Church" (I use that term lightly because it is made up exclusively of members of one family) is a great example for people to hold up, but the truth is that is a gross exception to the rule. And even there the only people involved are related and brain-washed. In addition to that, it is doubtful that anyone would voluntarily offer assistance by way of community service to an organization like Westboro Baptist Church and then be offended at how they are treated.
My point was that the original post is written in a very peculiar way. Redactions or not, it depicts:
- An un-provoked attack on a former volunteer by a current minister due to his having several girls as friends on Facebook. This could reasonably occur if we assume there is more justification for the "minister" to accuse the volunteer of fornicating. We could be missing info here, and it's still realistic;
- A volunteer responding who doesn't seem outraged or offended at being accused of something. Instead, for some unknown reason, he states he doesn't fornicate but suffers with masturbation. To top it all off, he initiates further communication by asking the minister to respond with his general welfare. This isn't just about me and and how i would respond. This is getting unrealistic; and
- The minister responds with nothing short of a rant against "guys like you" for "jackingoff and having sex." This doesn't seem bizarre to anyone else? This kind of combatant, overly aggressive communication is very common on the internet, but not generally among anyone over the age of 18.
You're right, this is the debate forum. The original poster introduced a debate that included questionable information and asked what our opinions were on "this bull crap." What I wrote is my opinion which is no less reliable than the original post.
My goal is not to sway you that these people do not exist. My goal is to introduce the possibility that the original post may be a less than accurate depiction of what occurred. Shado said this is why people hate Christians. If people hate Christians because several bad seeds are exaggerated, taken out of context, and significantly edited...shouldn't we be talking about that?
Offtopic aside: I counted no less than three people in this thread who had between 500 and 550 posts. Do we need any more proof that advanced member requirements are in need of an update?
http://www.neocodex....ements-changed/
I'm pretty sure they have already been updated and the 500 post requirement is gone. =)
#71
Posted 17 July 2011 - 07:47 PM
Ah. So now begins the definition debate about what makes a Christian. Well, newsflash - the only thing that makes someone a Christian is faith, and boy have those Westboro boys got it. You can't exclude a 'few bad seeds' from the definition because they don't act the way you want them to. They're reading from the same book as other Christians. They profess 95% of the same beliefs as other Christians. Therefore, they ARE Christians, and their congregation is a church, complete with nonprofit status.Westboro Baptist "Church" (I use that term lightly because it is made up exclusively of members of one family) is a great example for people to hold up, but the truth is that is a gross exception to the rule. And even there the only people involved are related and brain-washed. In addition to that, it is doubtful that anyone would voluntarily offer assistance by way of community service to an organization like Westboro Baptist Church and then be offended at how they are treated.
Also, this dialogue occurred long after person 1 stopped working for the ministry where person 2 works. He was told to remove them as a reference. They could have had a fabulous working relationship for all we know. One abusive incident does not correlate with an entirely abusive working relationship. And we've been holding up WBC as an example of hate speech, but don't let that confuse you: person 2 is not a member of WBC. Obviously the ministry they're apart of has a decent public face or person 1 would never have listed them as a reference.
Unprovoked? As I believe I've just demonstrated, there are plenty of Christians who take a literal interpretation of the bible's commands to let sinners know they've sinned. No provocation necessary. While it's true, there may be more to the story that caused the minister to call him a fornicator, it could be as simple as some girl posting a flirty message on his Wall.My point was that the original post is written in a very peculiar way. Redactions or not, it depicts:
There is undoubtedly something else going on in that initial post. Perhaps not on the part of the original poster, he may have received the exchange in its current state. Crazy attracts crazy, but non-crazy people tend to steer clear of crazy. In no world would this volunteer donate his time to this ministry if he would be spoken to that way, and then initiate further communication with the minister after being accused of one thing and admitting to another.
- An un-provoked attack on a former volunteer by a current minister due to his having several girls as friends on Facebook. This could reasonably occur if we assume there is more justification for the "minister" to accuse the volunteer of fornicating. We could be missing info here, and it's still realistic;
- A volunteer responding who doesn't seem outraged or offended at being accused of something. Instead, for some unknown reason, he states he doesn't fornicate but suffers with masturbation. To top it all off, he initiates further communication by asking the minister to respond with his general welfare. This isn't just about me and and how i would respond. This is getting unrealistic; and
- The minister responds with nothing short of a rant against "guys like you" for "jackingoff and having sex." This doesn't seem bizarre to anyone else? This kind of combatant, overly aggressive communication is very common on the internet, but not generally among anyone over the age of 18.
Your second point about the volunteer's response being unrealistic is poppycock. While there are undoubtedly Christians like Fred Phelps, there are many times many more Christians who speak like this person 2, who feel very real guilt for their sins. Furthermore, I don't see it as unrealistic at all to correct his accuser on the nature of his sins, or to wish for the ministry to prosper (it obviously did good work, regardless of the idiot in charge). Unlike the minister in question, person 2 is maintaining a proper Christian attitude in regards to turning the other cheek.
The third message was, I'll admit, a little bizarre, but your generalization about the age of the poster is just that: a generalization. And after the first message, we know he can't type on his phone, so why should he bother with spell check on his computer? He throws the obligatory bible verses out there, it's like he's reading from a script of what to tell sinners. That kind of combatant, aggressive may be common on the internet, but it also has it's fans among evangelical christian denominations. How many abortion clinics have been bombed, or picketed by people they have no affect on? Sometimes (actually oftentimes) Christians take their fight to their perceived enemy.
You've just given the OP the credibility you give yourself, unless I'm very much mistaken. Match point?You're right, this is the debate forum. The original poster introduced a debate that included questionable information and asked what our opinions were on "this bull crap." What I wrote is my opinion which is no less reliable than the original post.
And I've already agreed that while it may be a less than accurate depiction, we have no reason to believe that the events are fabricated. Who would go to the trouble of putting in time stamps or 'Sent via Facebook Mobile' ? No, a certain amount of trust is implicit. Unless Shado gets his jollies by stirring up anti-christian sentiment (possible, but unlikely considering we're on a neopets cheating forum) we must accept his story at face value for the purposes of the debate.My goal is not to sway you that these people do not exist. My goal is to introduce the possibility that the original post may be a less than accurate depiction of what occurred. Shado said this is why people hate Christians. If people hate Christians because several bad seeds are exaggerated, taken out of context, and significantly edited...shouldn't we be talking about that?
Yeah, I read the announcements forum too. But contrary to that announcement, the rule hasn't been taken down quite yet. It's still in effect until it's replacement has been instituted.http://www.neocodex.us/forum/topic/107649-advanced-membership-requirements-changed/
I'm pretty sure they have already been updated and the 500 post requirement is gone. =)
Bitches love ninja edits.
#72
Posted 17 July 2011 - 11:03 PM
Damn straight they do.Bitches love ninja edits.
#73
Posted 18 July 2011 - 12:39 AM
#74
Posted 14 August 2011 - 09:21 PM
#75
Posted 19 August 2011 - 12:10 PM
And this is why I'm an atheist.
HAHAHA same here :L no point in religion. too much fuss and you dont really get anything out of it
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users