It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Anti-Christian conspiracy

page: 99
16
<< 96  97  98    100  101  102 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 3 2006 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by kenshiro2012
So, to make your point, you assumed that there was someone already living there that would have been detrimentaly affected by the building of this community? That is on par with the Christian fundamentalist claiming the universe was created in 6 days. Wait a sec.... they have a book that tells them ( note this word, THEM) that this was so. Yet I have seen you denouce such people nearly claiming that they are idiots for such. Yet you use your assumptions to support your statement.


I didn't assume anything. I was pointing out some factors that might play a roll in the dismissal of such a case. So maybe you'd to stop jumping to conclusions and assuming such rubbish. I'm saying that if a community, 50/50 with half being christian, wanted to make it a fully christian community, i'd understand the reason to reject that. I didn't say that was the case. So maybe if you stopped jumping to the wrong conclusion everytime, we might actually be able to get somewhere.



What do I want? If one group of any belief is allowed one right then all other groups should have the same right. If the ACLU will automatically defend a Muslim because they are denied something, then they should also defend a Christian under the same concept. If the ACLU will support a black man who they see as being wronged, then the ACLU should defend the white man just as strenuously. Instead, the ACLU will take up the banner and support nearly any cause as long as the cause is not the white man or Christian.


Well you only said 'muslims, and mormons'. That leaves hundreds and perhaps thousands of other groups who may or may not want their own communities. Should they all be given communities too? That'd strike me as ridiculous. You sound like a little child shouting at his parent 'mummy, mummy, I want that one, cause that other kid's got that toy, so I want it too'. It's pathetic. What's even more pathetic, is that you don't realise it.

Perhaps they feel that christians and white people already have communities...if you hadn't noticed, it's called 'England'. The majority religion and color race, don't really need their own communities, as they take up most of the country anyways. The idea behind letting muslims and mormons have their own communties, would therefore be because they are minority groups.

Personally, I don't see why muslims or mormons should have their own communities. Surely religion is supposed to be allowed in the public eye? Yet, at the same time they're hiding it away by giving groups their own little communities. How exactly are mormoms supposed to spread the word, when everyone on their street is mormon? Not good for the sales pitch. *knock knock* ...Hi, I'd like to ask if you know who Jesus is... wait let me stop you there, i'm mormon... oright, sorry to bother you, do you know any non-mormons around here... nope, i think we're all mormons... oh dear...

The problem is not that they give muslims and mormons their own communities and not christians. It's the fact that they give any minority group their own community.



For your information, before you try the attack again, I am not white, I am Cherokee. Although I try to follwo the teachings of the Bible in how I conduct my life, I am not a member of any organized religion so do not try to label me as being a Christian. I am not.


If you live your life by the bible, I'd call you christian. You don't have to have a membership card or go to church every sunday to be Christian. Plenty of people live like that in England, but still count themselves 'Christian'.



I highly suggest that you apologize for this. I did bring to your attention earlier that such remarks are not looked upon in a positive light by the Admins / Mods.


Apologize for what? For you wanting groups to have their own communities? That would strike me as racist. Seperating black and white people, muslims and atheists, muslims and christians etc. It'd be the same effect as going in to a school classroom and one half of the room for black people, one half for white people, and if you're any other color you sit on the floor and not a chair. That's why I made the remark about Hitler, because this is all what it sounds like, so no I won't appoligize for telling the truth.




posted on Mar, 3 2006 @ 02:07 PM
link   


Well you only said 'muslims, and mormons'. That leaves hundreds and perhaps thousands of other groups who may or may not want their own communities. Should they all be given communities too? That'd strike me as ridiculous. You sound like a little child shouting at his parent 'mummy, mummy, I want that one, cause that other kid's got that toy, so I want it too'. It's pathetic. What's even more pathetic, is that you don't realise it.

So, equal rights as well as equal representation is not something that you support? If you will look again at my posting there, you will note that I have stated and still stating, that if we support the rights of one group so as to avoid being labeled discrimatory, then all groups should be granted the same rights and privledges. That is not even close to "Mommy I want that one because the other kid got one"



Perhaps they feel that christians and white people already have communities...if you hadn't noticed, it's called 'England'. The majority religion and color race, don't really need their own communities, as they take up most of the country anyways. The idea behind letting muslims and mormons have their own communties, would therefore be because they are minority groups.

Ok, how does England factor into the equeation here? If you will note the article was about a community in Naples, Florida. Not England. We are also discussing the protection of rights in the US for certain groups over those of others.



Personally, I don't see why muslims or mormons should have their own communities. Surely religion is supposed to be allowed in the public eye? Yet, at the same time they're hiding it away by giving groups their own little communities. How exactly are mormoms supposed to spread the word, when everyone on their street is mormon? Not good for the sales pitch. *knock knock* ...Hi, I'd like to ask if you know who Jesus is... wait let me stop you there, i'm mormon... oright, sorry to bother you, do you know any non-mormons around here... nope, i think we're all mormons... oh dear... The problem is not that they give muslims and mormons their own communities and not christians. It's the fact that they give any minority group their own community.

On this point we agree. I beleive that segregation due to religion race etc is by of itself wrong, but that is not the topic of this thread. This thread is about an Anti-Christian Conspiracy. Also this spreading the word bit has absolutely nothing to do with setting up thier own communities. The ability to live in a community of like minded people should be allow if that is there wish. Do I like this no, but is supposed to be their right to do so in the US. Why would a Christian group be excluded from this?



If you live your life by the bible, I'd call you christian. You don't have to have a membership card or go to church every sunday to be Christian. Plenty of people live like that in England, but still count themselves 'Christian'.

Try that again. So, by reading the bible and living by the principals that is sets enables you to lable me as such. Hmm then I gues that you can also call me a Buddist, a Hebrew, Shinto(ist) as well as a polytheist. I have read the writtings of these various religions (Cherokee). Good logic there




Apologize for what? For you wanting groups to have their own communities? That would strike me as racist. Seperating black and white people, muslims and atheists, muslims and christians etc. It'd be the same effect as going in to a school classroom and one half of the room for black people, one half for white people, and if you're any other color you sit on the floor and not a chair. That's why I made the remark about Hitler, because this is all what it sounds like, so no I won't appoligize for telling the truth.

Wow, shaunybaby, what is up with you? You have called me ignorant, you have likened me and to Hitler and you do not see what you might have to apologize for. Is this just a bad day for you or are you just closing your eyes?
Where do you see me called for any segregation? Where are you reading this? Are you equating the idea that all should be treated equally, that if one group wants to live in it's own community, other groups who wish the same should be able to, you are calling this that I support segregation? Be real now man! Instead of reading your preconceptions into what I am writing, and actually read what I am saying. Try to think about it this way, You state that I am a christian. Then by christian idealism as put forth by the bible, I would be against segregation, not for it.
Equality is just that. One is good for one needs to be good for all. Without this, there is no equality and any group that purports itself as fighting for equality and the rights of the individual and groups, that does not follow equality for all is wrong. In the case of the news article that I supplied.. this rights group would be the ACLU the American Civil Liberties Union.



posted on Mar, 3 2006 @ 02:12 PM
link   
If you live your life by the bible

He didn't say read ... just pointing it out...



posted on Mar, 3 2006 @ 02:49 PM
link   
the principals of the bible in dealing with how you conduct yourself are the same as those of the other religions that I mentioned. To say I try to live my life as the bible tells me I should is the same as saying that I am trying to live me life as was set down by Buddah, the same as saying that I follow the ways of the Shinto religion as well as those of my forefathers in the religion of the Cherokee nation.
I used the example of following the teachings of the bible in how I conduct myself was to use an example that most people are familiar with.
To me, it makes no difference as all these religions boil down to one ideal when it comes to conducting yourself. Again I will lean on the precepts put forth by the bible, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you. In other words, treat everyone the same as you want them to treat you.



posted on Mar, 3 2006 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by kenshiro2012
So, equal rights as well as equal representation is not something that you support? If you will look again at my posting there, you will note that I have stated and still stating, that if we support the rights of one group so as to avoid being labeled discrimatory, then all groups should be granted the same rights and privledges. That is not even close to "Mommy I want that one because the other kid got one"


I do support equal rights. However, I don't support the segregation of religious groups or ethnic groups. That's exactly where racism stems from, the fact that we point out our differences. Instead of pointing out our differences of skin color and religious beliefs, how about focusing on the similarities; that we're all human beings. What's wrong with living next to a Muslim... or a black person... or a chinese person... or a Christian... Has it really come to the point where these groups need to be in communities all on their own?

How about I said that I want England to be a pure white community of atheists? Where's the logic behind that. None whatsoever. So, what is the logic behind 'muslim only' or 'christian only' communities? Forget about the difference in scale from a community to the whole of England, but other than that, what is the logic behind it, because I see none.

Whatever you say about equal rights, doesn't change the fact that you want those rights based on the pure fact that Muslims or Mormons have them. You somehow think it's a Christian's right to have a community for themselves. I forgot who said this, ''People aren't born equal''. Or something to that effect. It rings true. Starving children in Africa aren't born with the basic human rights/needs of food and water, yet those are things we take for granted. Yet, here you are complaining that Christians can't have their own community. Ever heard of the Vatican City? Last time I looked that was pretty Catholic/Christian.



Ok, how does England factor into the equeation here? If you will note the article was about a community in Naples, Florida. Not England. We are also discussing the protection of rights in the US for certain groups over those of others.


So just because Christians can't get their own community in Naples, Florida, this somehow equates to an anti-christian conspiracy?

Get George Bush on the case, i'm sure he could pull some strings. America anti-christian?...not likely, not when you've got Ned Flanders as your president.



The ability to live in a community of like minded people should be allow if that is there wish. Do I like this no, but is supposed to be their right to do so in the US. Why would a Christian group be excluded from this?


I don't think it's anyone's 'right' to be able to live in a pure white, pure black, pure christian, pure muslim community. Does this mean that in a white community, a black person moves in, that the white council can vote them out of the community, and some white police come and remove this 'problem'. Afterall, this is what having your own community is about...making your own rules and keeping out certain people.

I wouldn't mind knowing 'why' you think Christians should have their own communities, other than 'because Muslims do'.



Wow, shaunybaby, what is up with you? You have called me ignorant, you have likened me and to Hitler and you do not see what you might have to apologize for.


What's your point. You have been. Like Hitler because you want Christians to have the right to their own communities. While we're at it, shall we set up some black and white only shops, buses, classrooms etc... shall we go back to the 30s 40s and 50s? because I thought we made some progress in the last century. Yet, here you are demanding christians should have the right to have 'christian only' communities.



posted on Mar, 3 2006 @ 03:41 PM
link   
Produkt: The Definition of Faith. To believe in a thing irregardless of evidence. Irregardless meaning With or without evidence, to believe. That is faith. Faith is recognizing what you feel to be true whether you have evidence to the contrary or not. It is important to note that one must never mistake ones own beliefs for TRUTH, or else you have entered into the definition of insanity. To believe something, and to hold it close to your heart is the point. Perhaps the evidence lends credence to the contrary of your belief, which is when you should realize your belief may be false... but that does not mean you need to stop believing, as belief is a personal and private thing.

JungeJake: I took my definition from Dictionary.com. However, I do believe the definitioni from a rational standpoint is the same from every dictionary... I worship Christ, his teachings, and his life. That makes me Christian by definition.

As for the books, I hope you will forgive me for feeling that by the titles, they seem to be generalist pieces of work, and thus, are not specifically discussing gnosticism, it's rise, it's evolution, and the people responsible for the various different sects that sprung up throughout history (Such as the Cathars prior to the Inquisition).

Much like there is a difference between Living and Dead Languages, Gnosticism purports to be the Living worship of Christ, whereas most Catholic descended churches tend to be dead and unexploratory of faith. If a thing does not evolve and grow with humanity, it is considered to be dead, like Latin. Latin is a dead language, thusly, it does not evolve. It is not fluently spoken by any culture as a first language nowadays.

I have read some books specifically upon the subject of Gnosticism, yet I still need to purchase a copy of the Nag Hammadi Library in order that I can be as familiar with Gnosticism as you, friend, are familiar with your Bible.

I believe quite strongly in the examples for which Christ lived... and attempt to emulate him as best I can. I am uncertain how this might make me harmful though, or for that matter, how anyone might be harmed as Christ died for the sin's of the world, not just for the believers... for the atheists, for the satanists, for the wiccan's, for all. Wait... let me just quote, it illustrates better.

"Christ is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but for the sins of the whole world" (I John 2:2)

I believe unto Christ, and my soul belongs to him always and forever. I just wish to make my soul the best possible soul, to make him proud of me. I seek to honor my Lord and Savior by trying to emulate him and rise to his level of enlightenment, as well as trying to help others do the same. Like I said before, JungleJake... we are on the same side, and have the same goal, we just have different roads to follow to the top of the mountain. The same person awaits us at the top... it is just what we think we are getting that is different.

Perhaps I am mistaken, perhaps you are, but does that really matter? Neither of us shall know with all certainty until the day is upon us.



posted on Mar, 3 2006 @ 03:53 PM
link   


Produkt: The Definition of Faith. To believe in a thing irregardless of evidence. Irregardless meaning With or without evidence, to believe. That is faith. Faith is recognizing what you feel to be true whether you have evidence to the contrary or not. It is important to note that one must never mistake ones own beliefs for TRUTH, or else you have entered into the definition of insanity. To believe something, and to hold it close to your heart is the point. Perhaps the evidence lends credence to the contrary of your belief, which is when you should realize your belief may be false... but that does not mean you need to stop believing, as belief is a personal and private thing.


So ... you mean god?




never mistake ones own beliefs for TRUTH, or else you have entered into the definition of insanity.





To believe something, and to hold it close to your heart is the point.


Is that the truth ... or are you mistaking your own belief's as truth ...

[edit on 3-3-2006 by Produkt]



posted on Mar, 3 2006 @ 06:19 PM
link   
I've never claimed to be right, Produkt. I've only claimed what I believe to be right, two entirely seperate things which most people can't differentiate.

And no, I do not mean god. I am guessing you have a hard time understanding what spirituality is if it isn't associated with god or some sort of creator being.



posted on Mar, 3 2006 @ 07:01 PM
link   
Ok then shaunybaby,
I think that I understand your stance.
Equality and equal rights are only for everyone except for christians.
Any christian that calls for equal rights is to be equated to Hitler and is ignorant. Any christian that complains that they are not being treated equally should just be quiet and accept it then.

You also equate that is someone wants to live in a community of like-minded individuals is somehow prejudicial and is somehow supporting segregation.
To me, this is just like saying that someone who wants to live in a well to do neighborhood just because they can shouldn't because..............
You are definately mistaken in the beleif that I support segregation due to any variable, religion, race etc. I do not support segregation at all. You seem to miss the point that I have made a few times here which is that equality should be tendered to all people no matter what race, sex etc that they subscribe to. When a group (ACLU in this case) denies a person or group the support that they would give to another soley based on the fact that they are christian, is wrong. If the ACLU will play the bias card for a woman, for a muslim, for a hebrew, for an arab, when they deem that there is some form of bigotry, and yet if the person who is looking for equal treatment is labled a christian then the ACLU denies them the aid and actually threatens lawsuits against the christian. How is this not anti-christian? If the ACLU were to threaten a lawsuit against a black man when he demands equal treatment, you and the rest of the world would take up the man's fight. This is not so if the man also happens to be a christian.
Equality has to be equal. If there is a single person or group that is denied the rights and privledges that are granted another, then there is no equality.


I forgot who said this, ''People aren't born equal''. Or something to that effect. It rings true. Starving children in Africa aren't born with the basic human rights/needs of food and water, yet those are things we take for granted

Hmmm.... Your statement does indeed ring true, people are not born equal, and yes this is proven around the world every single day. Yes there are starving children in Africa (note we in the US have them to but not in such numbers), how does this support your argument though? Remember, the US Constitution states that "ALL Men Are Created Equally", so the US Constitution states that all are equal no matter race creed or religion.
The ACLU who's own mission statement:


The mission of the ACLU is to preserve all of these protections and guarantees:
Your First Amendment rights-freedom of speech, association and assembly. Freedom of the press, and freedom of religion supported by the strict separation of church and state.

Your right to equal protection under the law - equal treatment regardless of race, sex, religion or national origin.

Your right to due process - fair treatment by the government whenever the loss of your liberty or property is at stake.

Your right to privacy - freedom from unwarranted government intrusion into your personal and private affairs.
shows that they will defend any injunction that infringes upon anyones religion.
Yet, if a person is christian, the ACLU will instead fight against that person's rights. The case that I cited was just one that is most recently in the news and one that was blatantly anti-christian as the ACLU's sole stance was that the town was being created to foster christian beleifs. Is the ACLU anti-crhistian? lets take alook at a few things shall we?

Seee all those nice and pretty crosses? The city of LA, Los Angeles which means City of Angels, had them as part of it's seal to commemorate the influence christianity had on founding the area. The ACLU found that these crosses were making the non-christians feel unwelcome and threatened a lawsuit unless the crosses were removed. With a 3-2 vote the city of LA did just that. Is that the end of the story? I guess so, I mean the picture of the Roman Goddess Pomona was non threatening... Wait a sec, is it not a religious icon on a state seal?
Now let's take a quick look at the ACLU's founder's goal for the ACLU is


The ACLU's founder, Roger Baldwin, stated: "We are for SOCIALISM, disarmament, and ultimately for abolishing the state itself... We seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the SOLE CONTROL of those who produce wealth. COMMUNISM is the goal." (Source: Trial and Error, by Geo. Grant)

You may also want to take a look at some of the ACLU's policies and goals.
Policy 211, Policy 4, Policy 210, Policy 264, Policy 18, Policy262 and on and on. When you look them up, you will find that the main reason that the ACLU is against christians is becuse christian beleifs are against these policies. If you were a human being who can hold up the starving children in Africa as an example of the in equality in the world, you will be sickened by what these policies are out to defend. Here is a few to help you on your way:
Legalizing prostitution, porn (including child porn) Porn is of course freedom of speech,
legalizing polygamy, here is a prime example for you to feed on:
1988, in California, the education system was planning on including sex education into the high schools. The course material promoted monogamy which is a traditional calue and is also the Law of the US.
In April of that year the ACLUY sent the following to the senator that was sponsoring the bill:

"It is our position that monogamous, heterosexual intercourse within marriage
as a traditional American value is an unconstitutional establishment of religious
doctrine in public schools.... We believe [this bill] violates the First Amendment."

Why would the ACLU be anti-christian? Because the goals of the ACLU are in direct conflict with the values that christians hold to.


Ever heard of the Vatican City? Last time I looked that was pretty Catholic/Christian.

Vatican city, where is that? I am not familiar with a city of that name in the US. If you are refering to the one in Italy, how does that factor in to what I have posted? Italy the last time I checked was not only not part of the US but it is not even on the same contient! How does you use Vatican city, in Italy deny what I have stated?



So just because Christians can't get their own community in Naples, Florida, this somehow equates to an anti-christian conspiracy?

Again you seem to be missing the point that I have made which is if one group is granted a right then all groups should be granted the same right. to deny one group, in this case a christian group the same rights that other groups are given is anti-christian. It is predjudism at it's least form. If the goverment or a "Civil Liberties" group will defend one man or group rights yet deny another group the same rights is wrong. This was the same as it was back in the 50's and 60's which denied the black man his civil rights soly based on his skin color. In the case that I have presented, it is not skin color that dictates this but a person's religious preference.




What's your point. You have been. Like Hitler because you want Christians to have the right to their own communities. While we're at it, shall we set up some black and white only shops, buses, classrooms etc... shall we go back to the 30s 40s and 50s? because I thought we made some progress in the last century. Yet, here you are demanding christians should have the right to have 'christian only' communities.

shaunybaby, have you not read a single thing that I have posted here? I presented an example. which shows that there is an anti-christian theme (in the US) I have stated a number of times here that the issue is not segregation, but the denial of rights that are vigourously defended by the US goverment and the ACLU. I have stated a few times here that I am not for segregation ( seem to keep missing this point). I am for equal rights (again a point that you seem to be missing). If i was pro-segregation, I would be in a whole world of hurting since I am not white nor is my wife. I am Cherokee and my wife is from Korea. So if I was for segregation, I would not be with my wife and son. So your continued insults are missing the mark by a mile. I would highly suggest that you go back over whay I have posted here, as well as the rules on the Hitler bit




posted on Mar, 3 2006 @ 07:31 PM
link   
You say not faith in god ... You post spirituality as morals and value's. Yet, your implication's of what faith is sound's very much like faith in a spiritual world/god form.

If you mean moral's and value's in the way you posted, then not everyone is imbalanced as you suggested.

If you mean spirituality in your new definition, that of faith in being wrong? I don't understand what you mean by faith in being wrong? One can accept the possibility of being wrong, of not having the right answer to a problem, but how does one have faith in being wrong? Many people already do accept the possibility of being wrong. I accept the possibility of being wrong about there being a god, and as a result I occasionaly, openly and sincerly ask for a sign. I recieved none. But my belief's lie within the realm of evidence, and all evidence point's towards a more natural process for the universe even given that we don't have all the answer's at this moment in time. By not having the answer's does not indicate a more supernatural cause for the universe. Although we could be wrong, our belief lie's within what the evidence indicate's. So in no way, by your definition is science imbalanced. Scientist's have and do test the supernatural, all the while having their belief lay within the realm of verfiable evidence. And you already stated that it's perfectly acceptable for one to hold certain belief's so long as they accept the possiblity of those belief's being wrong. You should rework your theory there.



posted on Mar, 3 2006 @ 07:49 PM
link   


Equality and equal rights are only for everyone except for christians.
Any christian that calls for equal rights is to be equated to Hitler and is ignorant. Any christian that complains that they are not being treated equally should just be quiet and accept it then.


Hang on...I thought you said you weren't Christian?

I didn't say Christians couldn't have equal rights. The fact that you want a segregated community for yourselves to me screams racism. It'd be the same as a white community flushing black people out, so it was a white only community. Here we're not on about color racism, we're on about religious and beliefs racism. The fact that I may not be allowed to live in your Christian community. Perhaps, as I said before, we should have white only shops, or perhaps Christian only shops. It's the 21st century, so please stop thinking like a 1940s bigot.




Hmmm.... Your statement does indeed ring true, people are not born equal, and yes this is proven around the world every single day. Yes there are starving children in Africa (note we in the US have them to but not in such numbers), how does this support your argument though? Remember, the US Constitution states that "ALL Men Are Created Equally", so the US Constitution states that all are equal no matter race creed or religion.


It really states that? Then why are people in the US, to your own admittance not living 'equally'. Race or religion doesn't even come in to it. Standard of living does, and in the US and England, we have poverty, we have extreme poverty. We have people living on the streets... how is that 'equality'. Here you're worried that Christians, in one example can't get their little community all to them selves, when there's far worse exampls of inequality.



Vatican city, where is that? I am not familiar with a city of that name in the US. If you are refering to the one in Italy, how does that factor in to what I have posted? Italy the last time I checked was not only not part of the US but it is not even on the same contient! How does you use Vatican city, in Italy deny what I have stated?


So there's anti-christianity...yet it doesn't stem across the Atlantic. It doesn't deny what you've stated. Merely shows your ignorance towards the rest of the world. All you can think of is USA USA USA. Try looking around the world, it's not all like the USA. Some of us are even today, living in 'civilised' cultures. It's great. Maybe you should move to one of these places.

You still haven't answered one question. 'Why' should Christians have their own communities, other than the reason 'because Muslims do'. If you'd like to answer that, we may actually get somewhere. 'because Muslims do' also includes 'because we want equality'. Lets take the hypothetical situation that neither Muslims or Mormons have their own communities, and Christians want their own one. 'Why' should they have their own community? That's what I've been getting at for most of my posts on here.

I can't think of any logical reason why. Sure, you've said because otherwise it's inequality as Muslims and Mormons have their own communities. However, there's lots of things people have in the world, that other people don't have. Inequality is a fact of life. Some peolpe are born in to poverty, and will die in poverty. Some people are born with the riches of life, and will die with the very same riches. I want to know 'why' Christians should have their own communities.

I won't take back the Hitler statement, because it's what you stand for. You posting here, are posting 'for' segregation and 'for' groups to have their own communities. What's worse is that you don't even see it. I don't agree with the Muslims or Mormons having their own communities. I don't agree with this segregation and fad with groups having their own communities. However, you seem to think on the principle of equality that Christians should have their own segregated communities. You stand for and defend groups, in this case Christians, to have their own segregated communities. Whether or not it's about equality isn't the point. The point is that you want segregated communities.

So until you come to terms with the fact that you want segregated communities, perhaps you'd like to re-think your stance, especially if you're going to keep denying it.



posted on Mar, 4 2006 @ 08:02 AM
link   


Hang on...I thought you said you weren't Christian? I didn't say Christians couldn't have equal rights. The fact that you want a segregated community for yourselves to me screams racism. It'd be the same as a white community flushing black people out, so it was a white only community. Here we're not on about color racism, we're on about religious and beliefs racism. The fact that I may not be allowed to live in your Christian community. Perhaps, as I said before, we should have white only shops, or perhaps Christian only shops. It's the 21st century, so please stop thinking like a 1940s bigot.

I do not lable myself as a Christian, You have placed that name on me.



It really states that? Then why are people in the US, to your own admittance not living 'equally'. Race or religion doesn't even come in to it. Standard of living does, and in the US and England, we have poverty, we have extreme poverty. We have people living on the streets... how is that 'equality'. Here you're worried that Christians, in one example can't get their little community all to them selves, when there's far worse exampls of inequality.

Yes shaunybaby, the US Constitution actually states this and the laws of the US are in placed to enforce this concept. All men are supposed to be treated equally. In other words, to use your example, a street person will be given the same rights and privledges as the person that is a multimillionaire. The Constitution does not guaranty that everyone has money. It guaranties that everyone has the same opportunities so that one day if the street person wanted to, he could also gain himself the material possessions that the multimillionaire has.
The Constitution guaranties that all will be treated equally, so when any one person, race or group is denied these rights then that is called discrimination, no matter what the basis of that discrimination. Wether it be race creed, sex or anything else.

shaunybaby, since the example that I have posted as well as the laws that I have quoted have all been in the US, my argument has always been about the anti-christian conspiracy as it relates to the states. You are the one that so far has tried to throw the events in the rest of the world as examples to detract what I have said which is that the laws in the US that guaranty equal rights to all americans, are not applied to christian groups. US groups who's sole (advertised) purpose is to protect those rights and defend anyone whos rights are trampled actively deny those rights when there is a christian element to it.
Since the example that I presented as well as the arguments have dealt soley with events in the US, your arguments should have kept to that premise. Instead in your zealous ranting and attempts to dicredit what I ha ve stated, you have presented examples that are external to the US. Even when I ask you how these events support your argument or how do they relate to what I have stated, you have ducked and dodged and then state that I am only interested in the US. You know what, since my argument has been dealing with the US you are correct for this one debate. Your continued attempts to detract from my statements that there is an anti-christian conspiracy here in the US, by using examples outside of the US is like comparing apples to oranges. Your usage of non-US examples does not support your arguments. This I have pointed out to you before.


You still haven't answered one question. 'Why' should Christians have their own communities, other than the reason 'because Muslims do'. If you'd like to answer that, we may actually get somewhere. 'because Muslims do' also includes 'because we want equality'. Lets take the hypothetical situation that neither Muslims or Mormons have their own communities, and Christians want their own one. 'Why' should they have their own community? That's what I've been getting at for most of my posts on here.

shaunybaby, take another look at my posts here. You may find that I have repeatedly answered this question but since you seem to have a problem reading my posts, let me try again. All groups, people in the US are guaranteed equal rights. deny one person or group the rights given to another then you have discrimination and equality. Is that clear enough for you? By your continued labling I am sure that it is not.
Why should any group have it's own community? Well as I have stated a few times none but you have missed that everytime. Why should a christian group or a german group or a chinese group be given the ability to create their own community, well if the US as well as the ACLU will defend anyone of the above groups the right to set up such a community, then the US goverment as well as the ACLU should defend and support all the groups who wished to have the same right. By denying any one group this right or any other right is dicrimination. If the US were to deny all these groups this ability, then there would be nothing to debate. To grant one group a right but denying another group that right is discrimination. That right maybe setting up their own community or voting, or buying that loaf of bread. It does not matter what the issue is. If the US supports any one group above another then that is discrimination. Here is the definition of reverse discrimination for you.

reverse discrimination
n. Discrimination against members of a dominant or majority group, especially when resulting from policies established to correct discrimination against members of a minority or disadvantaged group.

Discrimination against members of a dominant or majority group, especially when resulting from policies established to correct discrimination against members of a minority or disadvantaged group
Maybe this will help you understand. When you deny any one group no matter what that group's makeup is, the rights that you grant any / all other groups, that is discrimination. Sorry if you do not see that but....




I won't take back the Hitler statement, because it's what you stand for. You posting here, are posting 'for' segregation and 'for' groups to have their own communities.
[/quo
Well shaunybaby, you obviously have not read a single word of any of my posts as you would not have stated this. If by my arguments I am considered to be ignorant and that I should be equated to Hitler, then by your definition, this should be considered a compliment as this grouping would conatin many of the world's most revered leaders. Here are a few people who by your arguments would be included:
Martin Luther King
MAHATMA GANDHI
Rosa Parks
and even Dennis Banks, for the American Indian Movement
shaunybaby, you shown that the only thing that you have read in my arguments is that I call for segregation. You have called me ignorant and you have equated me to Hitler. Unfortunately, all these lables that you have attempted to place on me have failed to stick. They are in fact being placed on you as per many of the u2u's that I have been sent during this debate. It seems everyone has gotten the idea that I am supporting equality. The sole exception to this has been you. Your arguments here are equivilent to a student relying on crib notes or just reading the introduction of a book before taking a final exam. Try and go back over what has been stated many times here and you will see how far off the mark you are.
If you can't, well I feel sorry for you.



posted on Mar, 4 2006 @ 08:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by kenshiro2012
I do not lable myself as a Christian, You have placed that name on me.


''Any christian that calls for equal rights is to be equated to Hitler and is ignorant. Any christian that complains that they are not being treated equally should just be quiet and accept it then.''

As I was calling 'you' Hitler, I would be right in assuming that you are talking about yourself here. I didn't call anyone else Hitler. Just you. As you're the 'Christian' calling for equal rights, you're words not mine, therefore you're saying you're Christian. I may have placed or labeled that name on you, but here you're calling yourself Christian.



shaunybaby, take another look at my posts here. You may find that I have repeatedly answered this question but since you seem to have a problem reading my posts, let me try again. All groups, people in the US are guaranteed equal rights. deny one person or group the rights given to another then you have discrimination and equality. Is that clear enough for you?


What's not clear is your mind. If you'd like to take a step back and read my post. I said other than the fact that other groups may have their own communities, why should Christians have their own. Other than 'I want a community for Christians, because other people have their own communities', what's the logic 'for' a Christian-only community. Maybe you'd like to take another shot without using the 'equality' arguement.

I understand the concept that if one group gets one thing, and another is denied then it's not 'equal'. However, that aside i'd like to know 'why' you think Christians should be able to have their own communities. To segregate themselves from the rest of society. Is it because they don't want to be in the company of non-christians? What's the logic behind having their own communities.

Like i've said before, it's on par with creating white or black only communities. That's why you got the Hitler statement thrown at you, because you seem to be supporting the right to be able to have your own communties with certain religions or skin colors. I didn't mean literally, you are 'Hitler'. It was a metaphor for your beliefs in segregation, that's all. The worse thing about this is that you can't see it. You're blind to this fact. All you care about is to make sure Christians have the right to segregate themselves from 'non-christians'.



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 12:46 PM
link   
Equal rights? sure, to a certain extent. Unless you're gay and on the recieving end of the Vatican:

calsun.canoe.ca...

Here a person is demanding Christians should have equal rights so they can have their own communities, yet here the Vatican is dishing out inequality.




posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 06:11 PM
link   
christianity isn't a religion of equal rights, it's a religion of exlusivity.

islam is a religion of exclusivity, though it's extended to all monotheists.

judaism is a religion of exclusivity.

my point is, the majority of religions claim to be right, exclusive. they don't really outline any equality for non-followers.



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
christianity isn't a religion of equal rights, it's a religion of exlusivity.


How is Christianity exclusive? Besides the fact that "he who believes has eternal life" which gives the opportunity for every person on earth to receive the same gift.


Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
my point is, the majority of religions claim to be right, exclusive. they don't really outline any equality for non-followers.


Followers and non-followers are both sinners. Sounds like you, me, and everyone else in the world are in the same boat. How are followers and non-followers unequal according to Christianity again?

[edit on 7-3-2006 by saint4God]



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 10:12 AM
link   


How is Christianity exclusive?


Ask the heathen's and witch's.



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Produkt
Ask the heathen's and witch's.


Heathens and witches, how is Christianity exclusive?



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by Produkt
Ask the heathen's and witch's.


Heathens and witches, how is Christianity exclusive?


Lol... Lemme rephrase that! Ask the heathen's and witch's that christianity has killed.



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Produkt
Lol... Lemme rephrase that! Ask the heathen's and witch's that christianity has killed.


I cannot, there were none.

[edit on 7-3-2006 by saint4God]



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 96  97  98    100  101  102 >>

log in

join