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.

 

Why do liberals seem to HATE conservatives and Christianity?

page: 3
4
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by mamabeth
reply to post by CuriousSkeptic
 


This is a great post,I haven't had a good laugh all day,Thanks!


Again, I'd be more inclined to consider why one might feel that way than to laugh. Obviously, the failings are not totally in the domain of the skeptics.




posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 


I don't take members like this seriously.I really like the parts about the
mental prison,unintelligent,the best being,frothing at the mouth christians.
Like I said,this post gave me a good laugh.



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 03:08 PM
link   
Why do conservatives hate liberals so much that they won't even recognize that many liberals are Christians?


Jesus was/is a liberal.



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Deny Arrogance
 


I don't think a person can be pro Abortion or Pro Gay Marriage(like most Liberals are)and be a Christian.



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by BigDaveJr
reply to post by Deny Arrogance
 


I don't think a person can be pro Abortion or Pro Gay Marriage(like most Liberals are)and be a Christian.


Fortunately, the issues that constrain some do not prevent others from practicing their faith in a manner consistent with their values...and that there are places in which they can worship.

...and why do so many conservatives and so-called Christians concern themselves with what's going on in other people's pants? Is there not enough going on to keep them busy?



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 



Because some of the practices will corrode the fabric of society,just like ancient Greece and Rome.



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 05:28 PM
link   
I'm gonna take a quick stab at this.... I would not call it 'HATE' that's a word reserved for conservatives and Christianity.... but the reason I find them laughable...

It's the hypocrisy.

If you actually lived according to Jesus' teachings, it might be a different story.

With love, peace, and respect for all.... But your quickness to support War, hate thy neighbor, cling to your guns, covet all things money, judge those who are different, basic intolerance... yeah, it's the bullsh*t factor for sure.



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by spiritualzombie
 


Why is it a sin or wrong to defend the right to own guns?



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 05:33 PM
link   
It's not a sin to own guns, nor is it wrong.... but it's also not in line with the teachings of Jesus.



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by BigDaveJr
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 

Because some of the practices will corrode the fabric of society,just like ancient Greece and Rome.


Ancient Greece and Rome had a lot more problems than accepting homosexuality as ok...if you're looking for corollaries, I'd suggest you investigate the fate of Empires...and consider the actions of the United States in such a regard.

Life is simply not as simple as you seem to think...and like I said, what's going on in other peoples pants...or bedrooms...is less than important to most folks.



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by mamabeth
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 


I don't take members like this seriously.I really like the parts about the
mental prison,unintelligent,the best being,frothing at the mouth christians.
Like I said,this post gave me a good laugh.


So adopting a mind set that doesn't demand subservience to an ideology and the people above you isn't a mental prison? Hold on, I got a collection plate to pass around.

What's the difference between Christianity and a cult?



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by poedxsoldiervet

Originally posted by CuriousSkeptic
This is simple. Liberals are generally free thinking people that avoid the normal constrants of society to form their opinions. Religion and especially Christianity is nothing more than a mental prison and pyramid scheme. When you look at devout followers of Christianity usually you get unintelligent people who cannot think for themselves nor believe in themselves. I personally think religion and especially Christianity is one of the worst things to ever happen to mankind. Since the conservative ideological base is generally populated by frothing at the mouth Christians, you can see why most people despise both.


And this is why the liberal movement in America most change its thinking. You say your free thinking people, I say you’re the most hateful people in the world. You people believe in nothing, you attacked bush and the repukes for the wars in the middle east, yet your democraps have escalated and spent more on it. You fools think taking from the rich and giving to the poor is going to teach them something, when all it teaches them to do is become lazy.

Yes there are some Right wingers and Christians who are hateful but they are not the majority. I know more Christians who are colleague educated, and are free thinkers. There was a study and I will try to find it for you that said Conservatives are more likely to reach an agreement or negotiate with people they don’t agree with then Liberals.

Take the recent election for Kennedys seat example strong liberal state, A conservative with Conservative ideas won that state fairly... What’s that say to you?


Hate to tell you this Obama isn't a liberal. What Brown winning says to me is people hate Obama now. I personally hate him too.

Also fortunately your opinion means nothing which is a good thing since you're absolutely buried in a pointless imaginary construct of us against them which is based in your fear and invariably misleads and clouds your thoughts and opinions.



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 12:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by BigDaveJr
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 



Because some of the practices will corrode the fabric of society,just like ancient Greece and Rome.


lol Wut?

The Greeks were comfortable with bisexuality, especially in the military. All those manly testosterone oozing, blood drinking, vajay-jay wrecking Spartans you saw in that movie 300... yeah, they were "into" each other. Achilles? He had his Patroclus. Remember Iolaus from that show Hercules? Yeah, they were a lot closer than the show portrayed. The modern terminology "Lesbian" draws it's origin back to the poet Sappho of Lesbos. While marriage at the time was between a Man and Woman only, there homosexual relationships were encouraged as a normal part of social interaction.

And this is BEFORE the great Greek empire of Macedonia, established by Alexander the Great... who, according to Diogenes, was "ruled by Hephaestion's thighs". But what nearly tore the Macedonian empire to shreds was the political maneuvering and power-plays of the Diadochi Wars which ensued after Alexander's death. Eventually the empire was divided into four sections, with the most famous and longest lasting dynasty being the Ptolemaic dynasty ruling out of Alexandria, Egypt. The Ptolemys survived the other kingdoms by allying with Rome, but this alliance ended with the death of Cleopatra and full annexation by Rome. While this marked the official end of the Hellenistic Era.

Ok... so of all the factors which contributed to the fall of the great Greek Hellenistic Era, apparently homosexuality wasn't one of them. Though ironically, guess which event is generally regarded as the seminal moment in which the true end of the Hellenistic Era (which culturally persisted in Alexandria) and marking the point of no return for Classical Civilization?



It was Theodosius I's marriage of Church and State - promoting Christianity as Rome's official religion while systematically eradicating Pagan temples and exiling/killing those pagans who wouldn't convert. A campaign so bloody in it's execution, Theodosius had to call a time out because of the social strife. This cease of hostilities saved the pagans hiding in the Serapeum, but the structure was none-the-less demolished. Shortly after Theophilus's death, his nephew Cyril (St. Cyril) was promoted to fill his position as Patriarchate. About the same time, Orestes was assigned to the city as it's Prefect/Governor. With tensions between Christians and Pagans still fresh, Orestes sought to stress a secular rule where all parties were dealt with by the law. Cyril didn't agree and pushed hard for the establishment of his ecclesiastical influence over government proceedings.

Some of Cyril's followers, with all the love and grace of Christ's heart I'm sure, decided to mob and nearly kill Orestes for his stubbornness. Theodosius, again, had to remind the angry Christians that killing those who don't agree with you, especially government officials, might not be a wise course of action. The perpetrators of the assault were tortured to death. Which, considering modern Christian persecution complex, was like dropping an atom bomb of rage and paranoia on the city.

It wasn't long after that a fellow named Peter the Reader gathered up some of craziest self-flagellating anti-social side-hugging Jesus fanatics he could find - the Nitrian Monks, and decided to "remove the obstacle" they perceived as coming between Orestes and Cyril. Hypatia, the head librarian at what was left of the Library of Alexandria.



Yet even she fell a victim to the political jealousy which at that time prevailed. For as she had frequent interviews with Orestes, it was calumniously reported among the Christian populace, that it was she who prevented Orestes from being reconciled to the bishop. Some of them therefore, hurried away by a fierce and bigoted zeal, whose ringleader was a reader named Peter, waylaid her returning home, and dragging her from her carriage, they took her to the church called Caesareum, where they completely stripped her, and then murdered her by scraping her skin off with tiles and bits of shell. After tearing her body in pieces, they took her mangled limbs to a place called Cinaron, and there burnt them. ~ Socrates Scholasticus





And in those days there appeared in Alexandria a female philosopher, a pagan named Hypatia, and she was devoted at all times to magic, astrolabes and instruments of music, and she beguiled many people through Satanic wiles...A multitude of believers in God arose under the guidance of Peter the magistrate...and they proceeded to seek for the pagan woman who had beguiled the people of the city and the prefect through her enchantments. And when they learnt the place where she was, they proceeded to her and found her...they dragged her along till they brought her to the great church, named Caesareum. Now this was in the days of the fast. And they tore off her clothing and dragged her...through the streets of the city till she died. And they carried her to a place named Cinaron, and they burned her body with fire. ~ John of Nikiû


The Library of Alexandria was burnt as a pagan affront to Jesus in the ensuing uprisings, and what little was saved was mostly abandoned as the scholars all but abandoned the city. Orestes gave up, and left the city to the Christian mobs. What little remained of the Library that wasn't rotten or crumbling was snatched up by the Islamic Invaders who sacked the city in the 7th century, and were put to good use influencing the Islamic Golden Era.


Now... I dunno about anyone else here... but to me, I think that if fingers are going to be pointed, it's certainly shouldn't be towards "tha geys" who had little to do with the decay of Classical Civilization. Slavery was certainly a much bigger issue. Political betrayal, petty political squabbles turning into civil wars while infrastructure collapsed and barbarian mercenaries who Rome could no longer afford to pay, decided to take severance out of their backsides. Certainly the rise of fundamentalist religious bigots who attack Educational institutions - fanatics couldn't stand the thought of living in a society which didn't dedicate itself to kissing the backside of their lord's cross... that had a bit more to do with the fall of Civilization.

And doesn't that sound like the extreme elements of the Religious Right to you guys? The same people who are most opposed to homosexual marriage and lifestyles?


Now that I've punctuated my point, a clarification. There's really no evidence to suggest that Cyril was behind Hypatia's murder, or Orestes assault. There's good reason to argue motivation, but it's quite likely he was just reveling in the fanatical devotion he was ringmaster to, and he let his piety throttle his rhetoric... not realizing (or perhaps not caring) what the outcome would be.

Further, a strong distinction needs to be made between moderate and fanatical Christianity of the time. Despite John's attempt to demonize Hypatia and whitewash history in favor of Christianity, Hypatia was actually very well respected within the more moderate circles of the Catholic Church. The Library of Alexandria was, after all, where many of the rarer or early religious texts relating to various Christian & Hebrew sects were located, as well as secondary research material. Alexandria's papyrus industry and University made it a prime source of new biblical scrolls and materials to be produced. Alexandria is also where they were translated from their original languages to Greek and Latin. Hypatia herself was seen by many within the Church as a virtuous figure, as she maintained her virginity and purity to her dying breath. Further, several prominent figures within the church were formally educated at the Library.

Indeed, the only reason we even know Hypatia once existed is because we still have correspondence between her and her former pupil & good friend, Synesius of Cyrene. While the Catholic Church did actively denounce her as a pagan sorceress and tried to write her out of history, the Age of Reason saw the lightening of the Churches dominance and elements within Christianity who still revered her saw to it that her memory live on in some fashion... hence the merging of Hypatia's martyrdom into that of St. Cathrine of Alexandria. St. Cathrine, ironically, is a more revered saint that Cyril. She is considered among the "14 most helpful Saints".


Also... ah... depending on how you look at it, the Roman Empire didn't actually collapse until about 1453. The Western Empire did, collapse - certainly... but the Eastern Empire kind of... transitioned into the Byzantine empire. A few attempts to re-conquer and restore the unified classical Roman Empire were made, but I only recall one of them succeeding. Justinian I managed to restore the old Empire's boundaries, but it didn't last. When the Ottoman Empire sacked Constantinople, Mehmed II even declared himself Kayser-i Rum - the Caesar of Rome.

Sooo.... were the Turks gay?



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 01:30 AM
link   
Its simple it really is I feel it is good vs.evil I know it sounds corny and to tell you the truth I am not some bible thump-er but look at what they fight for and look at what we fight for. It is kind of like the the book the stand from Stephen king.

[edit on 22-1-2010 by Subjective Truth]

[edit on 22-1-2010 by Subjective Truth]



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by poedxsoldiervet
 


look in the mirror. . . ha, did not realize that this was second grade.


islam is peace loving, the people who kill others are people who hijacked the islamic belief and identity in order to start a war. they have also misinterpreted the Koran.

step outside thine closed mind, realize the true beauty of those even that are different.

and why is homosexuality a sin and slavery not? please answer.



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 06:06 PM
link   
Conservatives and Christianity....pretty much the same thing.
I do not hate anything however I am really not fond of archaic belief's and ignorance. That only includes Christianity but is not exclusive.

I was raised a Fundamentalist Christian and have read the entire Bible.



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 06:13 PM
link   
reply to post by coastalite
 


We dont. It was all a big mistake. Clearly we have been pitted against one another in order that corporations might first divide us as a people, and the conquer us. Well it has worked. The court ruling allowing corporations to donate as much money as they want to political campaigns jeopardizes our very country, our Constitution, and makes a mockery of our Democracy.

Lets kiss and make up, push through a Constitutional amendment disallowing the granting of rights to non humans, and then we can sort out our ideological differences later when our Constitution is safe.

Deal?



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by coastalite
 


OK, here is what I think:
45 years ago, I saw myself as a Republican and as a conservative. In those days, I thought that this meant "individualist" and free thinker: free also from being ruled by the narrow opinions of the "crowd." I saw myself as a loner with a personal vision of the meaning of right and wrong; how best to live and be happy and independent.

I saw my school divided into the "in" kids and "outsiders." With this dichotemy I prefered to be neither, but rather a loner: which was to be labeled one of the "outsiders" whether I thought so or not.

I thought this was what being a conservative was (Roy Rogers on the frontier, Davy Crocket at the Alamo, Sargeant York on the battlefield and Ronald Reagan in some heroic role).

I very much admired Ayn Rand and endorsed her opinion that capitalism and the individualism of the United States was a welcome alternative to the corrupt negative of socialism. She was a passionate advocate of her philosophy of principled policies based on rational assessment: rationality, productiveness, honesty, integrity, independence, justice, and pride. Such a philosophy with its emphasis on constitutional protection of individual rights to life, liberty, and property, and with limited government.

But as I graduated from high school and involved myself in life and politics, I came to believe that being your own person was not part of the socio-religious makeup of the conservative movement and the Republican party. I saw it to be a "corporate" "elite" "status-quo" "religiously traditional" set of adamantine principles. To this set of principles I saw Rush Limbaugh and now Beck as not engaged in a discourse of ideas, but of bombastic ridicule and name calling with an artifical and insincere individualism. What I hear is hate and ridicule coming from THEM.

And from the Left? Hey, I believe we may still find the "dawning of the Age of Aquarius" ... See how dated I am?



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 06:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Solomons
 


You're not referring to the "liberals" of the 18th century. Those folks were progressives and their philosophy was far more akin to to today's libertarian philosophy than the modern philosophy supported by liberals.

The progressives of old were enlightened folks. The liberals of today are communists and socialists. I read this board a lot, mostly on the political threads and most of the folks who consider themselves liberals are in reality progressives.


www.bookrags.com...

Below is a summary of the above paper. I think the title says it all.

"The Progressive Era: A Liberal Movement with Conservative Goals

Summary: The Progressive Era of the early twentieth century has been called a liberal movement and included a number of programs, such as trust-busting, railroad regulation, and consumer protection, that favored a larger role for the federal government. However, the Progressives intended through these programs to achieve conservative goals, such as greater competition in the marketplace, a stable economy, and the protection of American consumers.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The era between 1900 and 1914 has been called the progressive era and denoted as a liberal movement; however, the central end that the progressives were trying to obtain was social, economic and political stability and prosperity, a more conservative goal. It was only the means by which the progressives tried to accomplish their goals that were liberal. The progressive approach included a number of liberal programs that favored a larger role of the federal government. Among these were trust-busting, railroad regulation and consumer protection. These initiatives were considered liberal for their involvement of big government; however their goal was greater competition amongst capitalists and also the protection of America's consumer populous which are conservative ideals.
Trust busting was a major aspect of the progressive agenda. Gaining much attention for his efforts against trusts,....."



The point being that these were pragmatic folks who looked to incrementally reform society. Today the "liberals" want to tear it down and start over again. They abhor liberty. The "conservatives" of today are dogmatic by and large and do not recognize the issues in society that need to be corrected. Both are a problem.

The US is made up of center-right and center-left progressives. We want problems solved in a pragmatic, incremental way. Pragmatic because it can't be some utopian nonsense. Incremental because we, unlike politicians live in the real world and know that when you look to accomplish something, especially something big you are going to need to change course, hence the all or nothing (like the 2,700 page health care reform bill in the House) make no sense.

Gain common understanding in the center. Make progress. Create confidence in the fact that you can in fact produce results. Move on to the next issue in the stream of issues.

We don't do this because both sides play an all or nothing game. They look to fundamentally change society in the 4-8 years they will be in power. Until we get someone who can tell the poles of the spectrum to kiss their kiester and unite the left and right moderates, it will not get better. The way we nominate the leaders of our political partys is a major factor in the lack of progress, but that is entirely another thread.

I don't consider my self conservative or liberal or a libertarian. I consider myself a progressive libertarian. I want positive change to tackle the ills of society while maintaining the maximum level of liberty possible. If the two come into conflict, I pretty much always side with liberty because it seems to me that if we're smart enough and try hard enough, most problems can be solved in such a manner that liberty is not diminished.



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 09:22 PM
link   
I hate Conservative Christians for the same reason I hate Liberal Christians as well as any Christian in general, because they are blatant hypocrites. I would say 99% of "Christians" do not know that that means "Christ-like". Now when you meet some one who truly acts like that, please, I would LOVE to meet them




top topics



 
4
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join