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.

 

Typical Christians and Their Hypocrisy

page: 2
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Yea, they have loop holes.

You know there was a reason the Bible says only a few people find the narrow gate, and I don't think this only applies to Christians.




posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


You won't criticize a religion that poured lead down the ears of infants? Or started several bloody holy wars?

Or tells gay children that they will burn in hell, and by doing so destroys their self esteem and sometimes their life?

Its time for religion to turn away from theisim, and look to science for its substance.



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by SunTzu22
reply to post by adjensen
 


You won't criticize a religion that poured lead down the ears of infants? Or started several bloody holy wars?


Who says that I have not? I'm not a Catholic apologist.

That is not the subject here. Try to open your ears and hear what the issues are, and abhorrent acts of the Catholic church a thousand years ago they are not.
edit on 8-3-2011 by adjensen because: oopsies



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by SunTzu22
reply to post by adjensen
 


You won't criticize a religion that poured lead down the ears of infants? Or started several bloody holy wars?


Who says that I have not? I'm not a Catholic apologist.

That is not the subject here. Try to open your ears and hear what the issues are, and abhorrent acts of the Catholic church a thousand years ago they are not.
edit on 8-3-2011 by adjensen because: oopsies

But what caused this decline in Christian acts of terror? Which event in the late 1700's seems to correlate with religious and personal freedom and a general drop in religious terror and extremism?



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by hippomchippo
But what caused this decline in Christian acts of terror? Which event in the late 1700's seems to correlate with religious and personal freedom and a general drop in religious terror and extremism?


Probably the same thing that led to a general increase in secular terror and extremism that resulted in the hundreds of millions of deaths in the 20th Century, which make past acts of the church pale in comparison.

Some people in power do terrible things, that's an unfortunate fact of life. It doesn't matter if they're Pope, Prime Minister or Warlord.



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 06:42 PM
link   
Believing that there is a higher power with more knowledge than us humans would be anything but typical, right?. Christian here, and proud of it thanks.



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Why am I saying that typical Christians are hypocrites? Well, how many times have you heard this phrase: "Why don't Muslims go out of their way to condemn terrorists?"

For those of you not bothering to visit that link due to time constraints, it's simple: we don't have legal divorce,



Is this really your comparison? muslim terrorists vs. catholics and divorce.....ahem.....
I usually don't even bother with threads that don't hold some sort of enjoyment for me, but this one was to good to pass up.

Here is a suggestion, if you want a divorce......just go out and get a freaking divorce somewhere where its allowed! Marriage is not needed for eternal life, regardless of what the catholic sacraments say.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 12:17 AM
link   
First of all, catholicism is not really christian, it is merely an extension of Roman paganism and goddess worship. However the prohibition against divorce applies to all christians. Since you are not a christian you should not have such a burden. You should be able to marry your gay partner, your dog or chair if that's what rocks your world.

My suggestion, however, is not to marry at all. Whats the point if you don't want to follow any particular set of moral teachings? Just follow the doctrine of the satanists, "do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law". Does your country prohibit cohabitation or fornication? If not then you should be set.

Perhaps you are currently seeking a divorce?

You should be thankful that it's illegal. It's been a poverty generator here in the US for half a century. There are very dismal social statistics associated with divorce.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 03:09 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 



Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by adjensen
 


adjensen, a democracy (parliamentary in this case) isn't about majority rule. If it were about majority rule then such issues as enslaving minorities and squelching dissenting opinions would be welcome. Democracies are about majority decision, but not when those decisions infringe upon the rights of everyone.


I'm sorry, but that is not a defensible position for someone who doesn't believe in absolute morality.


There is a difference between believing in absolute morality as a system and believing in certain absolute moral positions. I believe that the undue infringement of the rights of others is a near-absolute wrong.



If there is no "right" and no "wrong" that doesn't change, then you're subject to the whims of society, including the rights that said society grants.


Excluded middle fallacy. There is a middle ground. There a "right" and a "wrong" that doesn't change, there just happen to be exceptions and modifiers.



You'd have a legitimate gripe if you lived in a non-democratic country, but that's not the case.


Well, I technically don't live in a democratic society...people in America complain about the similarity between political parties, but here in Malta it's a lot worse.

We're also a society without freedom of speech. If I were to openly condemn the RCC for its actions in a manner that 'vilifies' them I could face 1-6 months in prison.



I have had atheists (other than you, I think, I don't remember you saying this) tell me that morality comes from society, not a source like God, and they've a complete set of arguments to support that.


Certain moral propositions do come from society, but I'd say that certain ones can be derived from reason.



You live in a society that doesn't support divorce, so you can either change the societal views, move to a place that thinks like you do, or learn to live with it.


I wouldn't actually say that. The referendum hasn't started yet, and there is quite a lot of support for divorce. The problem is the number of voters who support divorce but will clearly not vote in favor of it for fear of upsetting the Church.



I don't agree with a lot that America and Americans do, but I've learned to live with it, because I like America, and I'm clearly never going to get the nation to see things the way that I do.


Maybe, but Malta is less than 1% of the size of America in terms of population...



Moreover, it is patently offensive for you to call Christians hypocrites for not criticizing the Catholic church for this, never mind comparing it with terrorism.


Honestly? It's worse than terrorism on one front: it's considered legal. Granted, it hasn't cost anyone to die, though it has cost people their lives and livelihoods in other respects.

How is it offensive for Christians to not be hypocrites when they don't condemn their fellows for this and other crimes while openly condemning non-Christians for lesser acts?



Regardless of whether I agree with them or not (and let me make it clear, I do not,) I am not going to criticize them, or anyone, including you, for standing up for what they believe in.


There is a patent difference between standing up for a belief and forcing that belief on a society. The fact that there is a rate of separation (which still allows for the spouses to have legal rights over estates, disallows remarriage, etc) equivalent to the divorce rate in America is just one of the many reasons why there should be legal divorce.

People want divorce. The only reason they can't have it is the forced imposition of religious belief upon a society that is drifting away from those beliefs if not already separate from them.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by sickofitall2012
 



Originally posted by sickofitall2012
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Pardon if this sounds rude, but we don't get catholic news from Malta where I live. I haven't heard of any such thing and I'm a Chrisitan,not Catholic though.


So your excuse is ignorance?



Now, if I haven't heard anything about it, how in the world can I denounce it?


Not sure. But I am giving you an introduction to the situation, a resource to learn more, and a chance to renounce it now, aren't I?



Well, since I've been made aware, I'd have to agree that not being able to divorce is very 18th century. we can divorce anyone at any moment here, so it has never been an issue.


Thank you.



I will ask that you not lump all of us that follow Christ into one big group, because to say that we all think the same is the same as saying all Muslisms are terrorists. Not correct. Would you disagree?


I never said that you all think the same...hell, I'm of the opinion that there's no single definition of what a "Christian" is. I'm lumping you into the group of not condemning these actions, because most of you are in that group..



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


Oh, this is just the icing on the cake in terms of what the Catholic church has done here. Instilling homophobia. Deliberating manipulating politics. Excessive expenditures. Insane child molestation stories coming from a nun-run orphanage.

Few days go by when the Catholic church doesn't do something bad to my nation.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by KingKeever1611
 


I'm just going to point out that I addressed this point, most Maltese people simply can't afford to live somewhere else for the 6 months needed to obtain a legal divorce in another nation.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 03:26 PM
link   
Reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


You christian buddy ?? unless you wanna make them look like real ?? .. you wont even care to make this thread !!


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
I've been meaning to make this thread for...well, ages now. Actually, I've been meaning to make it since I started posting regularly again.

Why am I saying that typical Christians are hypocrites? Well, how many times have you heard this phrase: "Why don't Muslims go out of their way to condemn terrorists?"

I'd have to ask in return, specifically to Catholics, Why aren't you condemning the acts of Christians in my society?

Not aware of where I live? Not aware of what Christians (specifically the Roman Catholic Church) are trying to do here? Read up.

For those of you not bothering to visit that link due to time constraints, it's simple: we don't have legal divorce, yet people have been campaigning to have access to this very basic legal procedure for ages. Now that it's coming to a head, Catholics in Malta are doing everything that they can to combat the right of other people to get a divorce.

So, why aren't you going around condemning these actions?


Even their own bible tells them a man has a right to divorce his wife....

Clearly they're just making up their own rules as they go...

just another means of control.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by SevenThunders
First of all, catholicism is not really christian, it is merely an extension of Roman paganism and goddess worship. However the prohibition against divorce applies to all christians. Since you are not a christian you should not have such a burden. You should be able to marry your gay partner, your dog or chair if that's what rocks your world.

My suggestion, however, is not to marry at all. Whats the point if you don't want to follow any particular set of moral teachings? Just follow the doctrine of the satanists, "do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law". Does your country prohibit cohabitation or fornication? If not then you should be set.

Perhaps you are currently seeking a divorce?

You should be thankful that it's illegal. It's been a poverty generator here in the US for half a century. There are very dismal social statistics associated with divorce.


Highlighting: ["You should be able to marry your gay partner, your dog or chair if that's what rocks your world."]


Maybe you (like me) are an elderly person, somewhat out of touch with contemporary society, its norms and procedures.

So you believe, that framing a situation into black/white polarities according to YOUR terms, will position the good and bad guys automatically. So you, "haha, gotcha" can lean back after a job well done.

But any aspirations you have in that direction will be for nothing. Most western contemporary kids could out-smart you in a few moments, being able to see through this transparent agenda.

That is, if this isn't an agenda, but that you're even older than me and belong to the generation of bombastic authority, where it was assumed, that tradition, self-appointed 'truths' and old age could get away with anything.

Your standard self-righteousness of: "Christian values or nihilistic chaotic hedonism" is an example. Though it's so simplistic and propagandistic put, that I suspect, that it will reflect back on your own elitist religious attitudes rather than on any shortcomings in your opponents. So please go on, adding to the 'reasons not to become an extremist christian'.

If you're younger than me, it's not to late for deconditioning.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Yeah, you're not making any points here. You cannot claim that a right may be viewed as inherent because you can reason it to be. It can be reasoned not to be, as well. You're attempting to wiggle an absolute within the context of a "no absolutes" philosophy, and that doesn't work.

There is a reason that the US Declaration of Independence phrases this very carefully:


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.


Where do these fundamental, inalienable rights come from? In order for them to be absolute, they must originate from an absolute source. They do not originate from government, society or reason, all of which are manipulative and fickle. This line is phrased the way that it is in order to make the declaration of independence from old King George, because, in the eyes of the colonies, his government was in violation of the rights given to them by God.

Jefferson wasn't a Christian, but he was very much a Deist. By intention, we have a Constitutional basis for claiming our rights, because they aren't granted by government, and, thus, cannot be taken away by government.

Your man of Malta, though, who does not believe in absolutes, does not have his rights violated when the majority disagrees with him, because he can only look to society for his basis. I'm sure that those who support the ban on divorce have reasons for doing so which are not simply "Jesus said no," and if the majority goes along with that, well, tough luck for those who disagree with those reasons.

You have a democratic system, you have (presumably) a secret ballot, so start your campaign in favour of lifting the divorce laws and measure your support. If what you say makes sense to the majority of voters in your country, you will prevail. If you fail, blame the weakness of your argument, not the imagined machinations of your opponents.


The problem is the number of voters who support divorce but will clearly not vote in favor of it for fear of upsetting the Church.


How does that even make sense? Either you have no idea of how many people truly support this and you're simply making the statement up in order to claim support where it doesn't exist, or the average Maltese voter is incurably vapid -- how does a church get "upset", what action are they going to take if they do, and how is it going to come back to someone who casts an anonymous vote?



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


i suppose divorce is the least they could ask for as apposed to the muslim alternative of being beaten in the face with a rock good call sod divorce just kill those who disrespect



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


For your information if you have ever read the Bible and looked up the meanings of the words,

Words do have meaning they are not subjective as neither is right and wrong.

But Jesus does not accept divorce, the only instance in the case of adultery.

But I do not believe in divorce, and I am a Believer in Christ.

Since we are here why do Atheist believe that right and wrong and subjective, and why do they believe that words only mean what they want at the time of the conversation?



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 03:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Why am I saying that typical Christians are hypocrites? Well, how many times have you heard this phrase: "Why don't Muslims go out of their way to condemn terrorists?"


Probably for the same reason that christians aren't falling all over themselves to condemn christian terrorists such as abortion clinic bombers and the murderers of physicians who perform abortions. One religious whackjob's terrorist is another religious whackjob's hero.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 06:59 AM
link   
reply to post by ACTS 2:38
 


Jesus also accepted the separation of religion from the state. Unfortunately, in this case the religion is attempting to force its will upon the state.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join