Cha'........ I know exactly what y'all talkin' bout. Persecution... blah... blah... paranoids. I live in a University town where the gays and lesbians are always squeelin' "haters...... homophobes..... bigots....... etc." I think it's all a scam to weasel jobs & power by makin' folks bend-over-backwards (no pun intended) just to make 'em feel more "at home". Then there are those pesky Jews always screamin' 'bout that holosomething deal... I mean get over it. That was way back when... antisemiwhackiness just doesn't cut it in the "real world". Then there are da' blacks...... Al "Tawany Brawley" Sharpton... slavery...... I mean gimme a break... how long does the world have to feel guilty over old history? Thank God... there's no more Soviet Union.... when I was a kid I had to check under the bed every night to make sure no commie pinkoes were hidin under there. Wow! The commies are comin'.... the commies are comin' to get the capitalists... what a crock of paranoia. Now we got those qwazy Arabs terrorists blowin' up buildings..... Sheeeeeesh........ talk bout persecution...... THEY HATE US FOR OUR FREEDOMS! Now.... I'm really feelin' persecuted....... or maybe not.

Originally posted by TALIN
Yeah,, umm that would help remove the evidence clearskies was right in addition to the apology you owe her.

Not really. I never insulted clearskies so no apology is necessary here. It's not like I told her that every where she goes she leaves the place in a worse condition than when she first went there like you said to me.
Hypocrisy indeed.

[edit on 8-10-2008 by mmariebored]

In an attempt to address what I THINK was meant in the OP (I'm emphasizing THINK as I don't want to be called a liar again), I believe that the discussion was intended to claim that Christians in the U.S. often claim to be persecuted when such persecution doesn't exist because they believe that their eschatological texts claim that they will be persecuted for following Christ (especially in the last days).

I don't think that we can find any studies that have been done on this (although I would love to see one if there has been a study conducted!), so what we are left with is a back and forth of anecdotal evidence.

'Members of Church X sued the government because they felt they were unjustly treated due to their religious affiliations.'

'I've been a Christian all my life and I've never heard another Christian claim to be persecuted.'

Such claims by either side really can't be quantified in any meaningful manner.

In my opinion, there are Christians (and those that claim to Christians but aren't) who will claim to be persecuted when in reality they aren't. That's because Christians are found in every demographic, including those that are unbalanced and not very bright.

I also believe that the occurences of this are so infrequent and so minor to be statistically irrelevant.

It seems to me that this is so close to being non-existent that being concerned with it is fruitless and a waste of time unless you have a predilection for being interested in activities by Christians that you can find fault with.

Eric

Originally posted by Jenna
Anyway, back on topic with me. Well, I would like to anyway but the last few pages aren't really on topic either. Mostly just debating on hypocrisy and a stubborn refusal to believe that the thread is about the U.S.

As I have said before, there are a lot of people in the U.S. who see persecution where it does not exist. I don't deny that it is real, or that it does in fact happen to some, but the majority of people who believe they are persecuted against are only seeing what they expect to see. If I believe that people are going to persecute me for my religious beliefs, skin color, age, sexual orientation, job, etc. I will see it where it doesn't exist. People in the U.S. are too sensitive if you ask me.

It reminds me of a line from a movie, which I can't for the life of me remember the title of right now, where a guy, who happens to be white, is on a plane and says something along the lines of "What is wrong with you people?!" A flight marshal, who happens to be black, takes that to mean "what is wrong with you black people" when what is really meant is "what is wrong with you airline people". A small misunderstanding, but a perfect example of someone seeing what they want to see and hearing what they want to hear. The flight marshal in this scene believes that he is persecuted for his race, and thus hears the remark as derogatory, even though it isn't.

Like I have said in several other threads about several other topics, the massive levels of sensitivity of those in the U.S. to the comments of others is all caused by parenting. You tell or show little Timmy that people will persecute him for something, and claim that you are being persecuted or treated badly due to your religion, and little Timmy will grow up seeing it where it doesn't exist. Little Timmy will grow up expecting to be treated badly over his religion, and will only hear things to confirm his expectations. He won't grow up knowing that just cause someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean they are treating you badly or that they are persecuting you. Several decades ago the comments that people get all in a rage about now wouldn't have seemed like personal attacks. They may have seemed like uninformed ignorant fools, but people didn't get their feelings hurt as much as they do now. Like I said, parenting.

Thank you, this goes along with the OP perfectly. I greatly appreciate people who can understand and follow the OP without excessive explaining.

It's not that complicated.

The president of the US claims to be a christian. You can say Jesus all you want, you can wear a cross all you want. But the moment you quit following the symbolism blindly(false idol), and you start to actually stand up for the things christ stood for, you will be persecuted.

You can wave a cross and talk about Jesus and be in favor of war, which goes directly against his teachings. But if you are against the war, then you are labeled unpatriotic, muslim lover and all sorts of names.

Stand up to the economic slavery and against the fed, as Jesus did with the money changers. Every president who has ever been assassinated or had it attempted was against central banks and such. But you can wear the cross around your neck and be a banker charging people interest and putting people in economic slavery all day long.

You can worship false idols all you want. You won't find persecution. But if you stand up for the things Jesus did and try to spread the message, people will step on you - even if you never mention the bible or Jesus - because that is just image.

oh having faith in an old book (or several old books) might actually be a better idea than you think. not that i can prove beyond a doubt that every last word and idea of these old texts are 100 percent accurate, i think modern perspective on the ancient past is rife with assumption. in addition, when the original theories upon which atheism was founded, arose, they did so without the benefit of archaeology and assumed their research was thorough enough to prove their theories, but it didn't work out that way. now they just ignore the implications of archaeology. it's yet another interesting human foible.

[edit on 9-10-2008 by undo]

Originally posted by badmedia
You can wave a cross and talk about Jesus and be in favor of war, which goes directly against his teachings. But if you are against the war, then you are labeled unpatriotic, muslim lover and all sorts of names.

I'm going to have to disagree with that second line there. I have stated repeatedly here and elsewhere, including out loud in the real world, that I am not now, nor have I ever been, a supporter of this war. There is a difference, to me anyway, between supporting the war and supporting the troops and I can do one without the other. Not once have I ever been called anything for that statement. I also personally know quite a few Christians who feel the same way I do about the war and the troops and none of them have been called or labeled anything for it either.

Originally posted by badmedia
I see people arguing over if Jesus was real, and people point out the dogmas, and people point out the bad stuff done in the name of Jesus. But you never see them do so against the teachings of Jesus. The belief is that if it gets people to do that stuff, it's brainwashing and control.

No better way to deceive people. BUT. As the image was never important, the truth will still make it to people. I have friends and they dislike Christians and all that. I tell them they are more christian then they realize, and they are for the most part. Not perfect, but who is?

I think that the arguments are more over whether he was real or not than his teachings for a few reasons. First, regardless if he was a real person, if he was the son of God, or if he even said anything attributed to him, the message is a good one. Most people, Christian or not, agree with what he said simply because it is a good message that tells us basically to be kind to others and to do to others what we want done to us. The teachings themselves are something that everyone should be doing anyway, regardless of what religion they identify with.

Second, I think his existence is argued more for the simple fact that there is only sketchy evidence outside of the Bible that a man named Jesus, from Nazareth, who was put on a cross, ever existed. To me this is no different than arguing for or against the existence of Siddhārtha Gautama. Who may or may not have been or done what he is said to have been or done, just like Jesus, but who had a very good message, just like Jesus.

And really, it should be the message that is important, not where it came from. If the message is a sound one, which I think few will argue over either of their teachings as a whole, then the source means nothing to me. Honestly, the teachings of Jesus could have been written in the last 100 years by some guy who was crazy as a loon and it wouldn't make one bit of difference to me. A person doesn't have to be Christian to recognize a message of kindness and tolerance as being a good thing. It is only when the message is twisted by the followers that I take issue, and it's the same for many others I think.

The brain washing and control, I think, comes from the rest of the junk involved in most religions not just Christianity. I believe, and I am sure I am not alone on this one, that it is entirely possible to live by the teachings and not be a follower of the religion. And really, the majority of people are offended and become angry when they are told by those who really don't follow the religion exactly anyway that they are living their lives wrong, are guilty of sins they have never committed, and are going to hell for not subscribing to a particular religion.

At the heart of it, most religions are fundamentally the same, so what does it matter what name you choose to call your God. If there is one, I'm sure he/she/they/it wouldn't give a rats behind what you thought their name was, or if you declared you believe in them, so long as you are a good person, and treat others well. If that isn't good enough to get me into a heaven that may or may not exist, then I'm pretty sure I don't want to be there anyway. The persons character should be the important thing, not which prophet they choose to believe.

It has been my experience that those who do not claim to be Christian, and often claim to be of a different religion, are more Christlike than those who fervently claim they are Christian. Which is part of my above point, doesn't take a Christian to be a good person, and a lot of Christians I personally know are a lot less Christlike than a lot of atheists and Pagans I know.

Originally posted by undo
in addition, when the original theories upon which atheism was founded, arose, they did so without the benefit of archaeology and assumed their research was thorough enough to prove their theories, but it didn't work out that way. now they just ignore the implications of archaeology. it's yet another interesting human foible.

I'm afraid you've lost me here.. Can you please explain what exactly you mean? What implications of archaeology are you speaking of? A bit of elaboration would be greatly appreciated!

Originally posted by Jenna
I'm going to have to disagree with that second line there. I have stated repeatedly here and elsewhere, including out loud in the real world, that I am not now, nor have I ever been, a supporter of this war. There is a difference, to me anyway, between supporting the war and supporting the troops and I can do one without the other. Not once have I ever been called anything for that statement. I also personally know quite a few Christians who feel the same way I do about the war and the troops and none of them have been called or labeled anything for it either.

I was against the Iraq war from the start. I was called every name you can think of for pointing out why it was wrong. People even told me they hoped I died. Of course, I wasn't hanging around like minded people, I was debating and arguing with people who were very much in favor of the war.

And I'm sorry, but supporting the troops means to support the war. The only way you are supporting the troops is if you are working to bring them home to their families. I have family fighting in those wars, so for someone to tell me to support the troops is a big fat lie. My little brother is heading back to Iraq in less than a month. Lets just go ahead and deny ignorance on that support the troops myth.

Feeling the same way, being against it and actually stepping up to those who agree and want it are 2 different things. If you were to get on O'Reily against the Iraq war, how would have been treated? Or any number of news outlets?

Originally posted by EricD
This is getting way off topic, but I'm intrigued by your belief that you can only support the troops by working to bring them home.

You wouldn't consider it 'supporting the troops' to organize Girl or Boy Scout troops in letter writing campaigns? Or sending holiday cards, or boxes with cookies or candy? Or organizing fundraisers that pay for body armor? Or working with groups who organize 'welcome home' parties for returning military men and women?

I don't mean to disrespect the op and derail the thread, so feel free to pm me if this is too far off the track of the discussion of Christians believing they are persecuted.

Thanks!

Eric

Nah, the stuff you mention is what I call paying tribute. The armor stuff would be the closest thing to supporting the troops. But that is not what people mean when they say support the troops. Even that is only needed because they have falsely been put in harms way.

When they say support the troops, what they mean and want you to do is shut up. That if you merely suggest the job they doing is wrong, then you are not supporting the troops. If you don't do that, then you aren't supporting the troops. So now every time someone wants to complain about the war, it's always - I support the troops, but etc. Which is done to cut off and keep the person from claiming they don't support the troops. And now of course peer pressure as well - so you don't get persecuted.

Tell me. What would your definition of not supporting the troops be? And what would happen to someone if they did not support the troops, or came out and said they did not support the troops?

As for taking it off topic, I personally don't believe it is. IMO, it's related because we are talking about things one might be persecuted for, which is relation to if it's real or imagination.

Just a little FYI for all those who keep saying things like "I don't hate Christianity, I just hate people who shove their beliefs down my throat". Perhaps you don't seem to understand that spreading the Christian message, or proselytizing as some of you like to call it, is a VITAL and irreplaceable part of the Christian faith. It was taught by Jesus Christ himself. Therefore, if you have a problem with that, then you do, in fact, have a problem with Christians. Perhaps you should try some intellectual honesty instead of trying to appear more tolerant than you really are.

And lets get real here. Nobody is shoving anything down your throats. When you hear the message, you are quite free to accept or reject it as you see fit. You are your own person and you are free to make your own decisions. If it really bothers you that much to simply hear the Christian message, then the intolerance is actually on YOUR part, not the Christians.

Actually, Christians are among the most tolerant people that I know. It takes A LOT of tolerance to be of a strict monotheistic belief system while living in a society that tends to openly mock people who favor absolutism over relativism and political correctness. Just a little something to consider.