The Onesided Destruction of Christianity in America

originally posted by: wyrmboy12
Uhhh. Christians are behind the gay marriage push eh?

No. You misunderstand my post. They're behind the mission to make and keep it ILLEGAL. They want to legally discriminate against gay people. They want to deny the rights of equal protection under the law to gay people.

1. Every poll and metric places the percentage of self-identifying Christians in the US at around 80%.

2. There are 300,000 active Christian churches in the US. This means that there is approximately 1 church for every 10 people in the US.

3. All other religious persuasions consist of less than 3% of the American population.

4. Both the House and Senate are overwhelmingly Christian with only one describing themselves as non-religious, two Muslims, one Hindu and around 30 or so Jews.

5. The President of the United States is a professed Christian.

6. The Supreme Court just upheld the (unconstitutional) Religious Freedom Restoration Act and used it to bestow religious rights on corporations. Oh, and there are 6 Christians on the Court and 3 Jews.

7. There are 1600 Christian radio and tv broadcasting stations in the US.

8. The actual assets of the Christian churches in America is literally BEYOND CALCULATION. The Roman Catholic church ALONE spends about 170 BILLION each year for operations in the US, (compare this with the worldwide revenues of Apple and General Motors at 150 billion).

Etc. Etc. Etc.

Christianity being destroyed in the US? Ehn ... not so much, at least according to the facts.

a reply to: wyrmboy12

Ah the good ole No True Scotsman fallacy. Telling other people who are and who aren't Christians.

Here's a list of Christian denominations that accept homosexuality and gay marriage

Uhhh. Christians are behind the gay marriage push eh? Yeah if you are truly christian, being gay is not really something you strive for. It is a sin to lay with the same sex ( Leviticus ) but you can be forgiven for it.

As long as we are talking about passages from Leviticus and the OT, let's go the full monty. Here are some more gems that I hope you are abiding by as a "true" Christian since you seem compelled to follow the passage about homosexuality.

Leviticus 20:9 For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him. (KJV)

Leviticus 20:10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. (KJV)

Leviticus 24:16 And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the LORD, shall be put to death. (KJV)

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I've always wondered how many good Christian men tell their good Christian wives that they can't live in the house for seven days during and after their monthly menses ... oh, and they have to go to church to be ritually purified again, ...

Every month.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Those rules, seem to be so Christian, I dare say, it meant to target the Christians whom are not really christian.

The Anti-Christians. Using Gods holy...death sentences to purge souls clean. How medieval, also, Im pretty sure that count to rule of "Lord in Vain".

a reply to: Specimen

They are passages from the bible. I didn't write them or try to pass them off as official cannon, you can look them up yourself. The point of that is to show someone who is cherry-picking passages from the bible to justify their hate and intolerance that they are being hypocritical by cherry-picking when there are other passages like the ones I wrote. If you are going to use one passage, then use them all. If you are going to claim that they are reflection of the times the bible was written in, then the same applies to the homosexual passage. In either case, Christians are wrong and hypocritical.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yea, I kno, they just like to use the passages and pass it on as if it were still law, or if it mattered. Usually its a sign, they haven't read pass one or two books in their life. I do believe most passages are a reflection of those times, and history could always repeat itself.

The thing is about Abraham religions is that they seem to be twisted in many ways. Like the one tale, where he is gonna sacrifice his son, before the angel stopped him. Or even how Solomon was gonna split a baby in half, and give it to both woman who claim to be the mother. I don't think the stories have any ties to fact about history, other then the time they were presented. Most of them, do seem illustrated, but from various sources. Like how Moses was most likely illustrated, but the story itself could have a historical resemblance to an event from what I've read about a certain pharaoh in other post.

Thing is, most of these religions seem to target their own, just as quickly as they would target any non-believer. Like how if one was Jewish, they would be punished by Jewish traditions, and so on for the other religions. When in Rome, do as the Romans do I guess you could say.

Although, I can still see how the passage are over used, even though, not to the full extent. Which is a good thing.

a reply to: Specimen

I would just say that they are a collection of stories that maybe started with a grain of truth, but through embellishments with each retelling, got more and more extreme. Most of the OT was retold orally for generations. Think about whenever a story is retold, people have trouble keeping the facts straight, then new listeners don't hear the story correctly and add their own flair to it. Then eventually you get people living for several days in the stomach of a whale, that Sodom and Gomorrah were unredeemable, that the ark was able to carry 2 of every animal on the planet, that moses led millions of jews out of egypt. The new testament is even worse. Jesus, if he even existed, was probably just a wise teacher who pissed off the local government with his teachings. Kind of like Gandhi. Then his followers developed a cult of personality around him and he slowly morphed into the "son of god".

a reply to: Krazysh0t

hang on.... the NT is worse then the OT?

How did you come to that conclusion?

Pray tell...

a reply to: Akragon

Well it depends.

Which book had more of an influence on passing judgement and death sentences.

Cause Jesus, is pretty up there on the score board.

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: Krazysh0t

hang on.... the NT is worse then the OT?

How did you come to that conclusion?

Pray tell...

That was more of an offhand comment speaking about how embellished the stories in the NT are versus the OT. The OT has a bunch of stories that are short and quick. Most of the NT is several different retellings of the same story from several different people. All embellishments. So it is worse in that the embellishments for the stories are more embellished. I wasn't speaking towards content there.

Though, I must say that Specimen pointed out a good point. More damage is done in the name of Jesus than in the name of the entire OT. Some Christians don't even read the OT anymore. When I was in the Army, they gave out free copies of the NT (plus psalms). So there is that aspect as well.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

The cause of such destruction is not the fault of the words of Christ... Moreso... so called "Christians" trying to mix the garbage in the OT with his words...

The cause is misunderstanding or complete fabrication of certain messages...

They believe Jesus is God so it was him speaking in the OT causing all the destruction and harm... which is just wrong...

Then theres the whole Hell and damnation preaching thing... which technically came from Jesus but the word Hell has been misused for millennia... It basically means the grave, and Gehenna which is the word he used is an actual place outside the walls of Jerusalem... a place to dispose of garbage and bodies of people who could not afford proper burial...

In which they uses sulphur to destroy the bodies and garbage within said place, which is where the eternal fire thing came from...

Trust me... there is no comparison between the OT and the NT...

Just a side note here toward the OP...

If you'd like to know what is causing the destruction of Christianity... Look no further then the people that adhere to that religion...

Those that spout off hell fire and damnation for people who disagree with their beliefs...

Those that spread a message of Hate...

Christianity destroys itself because of what people turn it into... which is an elitist hate filled mess

Nothing even close to what Jesus preached

a reply to: Akragon

The cause of such destruction is not the fault of the words of Christ... Moreso... so called "Christians" trying to mix the garbage in the OT with his words...

Nope, just the followers who were trying to speak like or for him were causing the destruction. And gee, I bet they suffered in hell, when they had their time on Gods green Earth.

And no, I don't think Jesus was the God in OT. No where as cruel, or mad enough. I mean if he was, he would of destroyed the ones who defiled the temple, and defended himself from Crucifixion.

Didn't he claim to be the Son of that God? Or maybe he mean't it with a little more depth about he, the father, and the spirit are the same. Like when he said "I will resurrect this temple in 3 days", when the confronting Rabbi said, "it took us a few decades to make it?"

Western metaphor possibly.

originally posted by: grandmakdw
a reply to: Badgered1

There is no reason to believe that atheists will be less judgmental or hurtful if/when they are the majority.

Look at the issue of climate change. That has nothing to do with religion yet there are lots of people who want to kill everyone who doesn't believe in global warming/climate change. www.climatedepot.com... art-punishing-them-now/
People throughout history want to eliminate ideas they deem "wrong" by killing all the believers.

I think your assumption is incorrect. I see far more intolerance and projection of evil from non-believers onto believers than you can imagine.

It seems to me that those who profess the loudest to be tolerant are really the most intolerant of those who don't hold exactly the same ideas they do.

I strongly disagree. Historically, it has not been the scientists, and the logical, and the enlightened who wish to silence the ideologies. Rather the other way around. History is quite clear regarding the oppression, and suppression of actual critical thinking, and science - by religion, and other political ideologies. Better for them if nobody questions or has an opinion of their dearly held beliefs. Question god, and you are immediately branded as evil. Evil is a construct. Good people do good things, and bad people do bad things. To make a good person do a bad thing, that takes religion.
I don't sin. I may do some dumb things, but I never sin. "Sin" i's just something invented to suppress dissent.

The voices of disapproval you hear are of the truly enlightened voicing their complete horror that middle-eastern ancient mythology is finding its way into our courthouses, schools, government, doctors' offices, and even our bedrooms. Why should religion affect my life just because some people imagine that the deeds of some illiterate goatherds are magical?

Please show me historically where athiests - and only atheists; not ideologies such as Communism, Fascism etc. - have systematically tortured, abused, killed, and marginalised any religious group. Now tell me where the opposite is true.
Isn't it astounding how many incidents spring to mind when you think of the opposite?

Faith is a personal issue. Religion is a means to control.

I won't address the climate change thing as I don't have enough information about that which you cite.
Follow the money. Who stands to lose the most if Climate Change induced policies restrict the carbon industry? How do they affect the conversation? Are they actively lobbying? Why lobby against science?

a reply to: Akragon

Again, I was speaking on the level of embellishments people made with the retellings of the stories. The stories in the NT are more fleshed out therefore are more embellished. That's really what my whole point was about. I'm not trying to argue that the OT was far more reprehensible than the NT is.

originally posted by: Akragon
Just a side note here toward the OP...

If you'd like to know what is causing the destruction of Christianity... Look no further then the people that adhere to that religion...

Those that spout off hell fire and damnation for people who disagree with their beliefs...

Those that spread a message of Hate...

Christianity destroys itself because of what people turn it into... which is an elitist hate filled mess

Nothing even close to what Jesus preached

I do know personally that SOME Christians can be real jerks when they try to share their religion.

I know that some are hypocrites, and others are just wicked.

But that is no reason why any group should focus on one particular religious group over the others.

Islam for example will one day ask you to convert to their religion, pay a tax (generally to much for you to pay and live well at the same time), or be killed. They too believe that anyone not a Muslim will burn in hell and they say that clearly. But AHA did not protest the establishment of prayer rooms in Public schools for the sole use of Muslims. Truly that reeks of a violation of the "establishment" clause in the constitution.

Hinduism and Buddhism do not put anyone in hell except the extremely wicked.

So just because some Christians act hypocritically or get in our faces to aggressively does that mean we should limit their practices in public or eliminate them all together.

I have met Christians of all sects and I cannot pass judgement on all because of some. I do not agree that ALL are elitist and hate filled. I have met to many who are just great, loving and hardworking people.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I've always wondered how many good Christian men tell their good Christian wives that they can't live in the house for seven days during and after their monthly menses ... oh, and they have to go to church to be ritually purified again, ...

Every month.

I don't think those verses apply to the Christians. It was a law that was given to Israel. And the good men of Israel would have built a separate house for their wife if he went to that extreme. But if not mistaken it was just not to toucher for intimate purposes, or the clothing in which had the issue on them. I don't think they had to live out side but some may have practiced such nonsense.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

Have you, possibly, rethought the wording of your thread here???

It is NOT a one-sided thing.

(Also, I don't believe you are a teacher - especially of written communication. Your writing is sorely lacking, and people who are writers *raises hand* KNOW how important it is to be clear, grammatically correct - including punctuation - comprehensible, and straight-forward, leaving LITTLE room for interpretational errors. Fiction, of course (like the Bible?), is a separate thing altogether - metaphor and analogy is part of the craft.)

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: wyrmboy12
Uhhh. Christians are behind the gay marriage push eh?

No. You misunderstand my post. They're behind the mission to make and keep it ILLEGAL. They want to legally discriminate against gay people. They want to deny the rights of equal protection under the law to gay people.

I have read the Bible enough times to know it pretty well. And it would seem that the "Marriage" of one man and woman we established before Moses even came on the scene. Even Jesus said that in the beginning God had started it one man and one woman.

The government wanted in on the money making action, because the RC church starting way back in 315AD would charge for conducting marriages and giving of marriage licenses. Once the secular govt's started conducting the licensing then it was no longer so much a religious thing anymore.

So if the Secular Govt wants to issue marriage licenses to people of the same sex then that is their prerogative. Those who don't hold to same sex marriages should not be forced to marry them seeing the govt can do that without a church or a religion being involved.

So the whole issue should not hurt Christians at all, and they should not be apposing it. Its just that the govt needs to also up hold the rights of those who don't want to marry them in their churches. Or bake cakes, or do photographs or any other service for them. It is not an issue of hate but of religious freedom. There are plenty of secular places that will give gay couples all the services for their marriage without them having to trouble Christians.

Let them have their marriages. Live and Let live.