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.

 

Complaint box: Christians

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by masonite
America a breeding ground for zealots and nutters alike. Well this fat American preachers (er sorry nothing against fat as I am one to love the supersize) but you see this fat arse preachers on TV stating all this crap. What about that beautiful spirtual feeling a person can develop but all these sin zealots preach far from it. In this day of age I see why people are attracted to new age,kabblah and hindu.


I don't like people pointlessly bashing others. Point taken and noted.


Originally posted by Scramjet76
Catholic priests need to get laid as well. If you can't go without it don't be a dam preist idiot.


That's harshly put, but I think I get your meaning. Paul would agree:

"But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion. " - 1 Corinthians 7:9

"Don't we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord's brothers and Cephas ?" - 1 Corinthians 9:5


Originally posted by Scramjet76
Than you have all these creepy zealots I mean you meet them and you get that creepy vibe. Well thats not right. And yes when you get that vibe it is for reason.


I agree, should be aware of "creepy vibe" but also not to be judgemental.


Originally posted by Scramjet76
Next would be it has made so many people scared of religion its gross. I mean you bring up the topic or talk about god or thoughts on it you ave someone looking at you weird. This is why I like many other have avoided it or took some goofy path.


Well, it's hard to talk about concepts like eternity and death...as we don't like to think about those kinds of things. But, consider the consequences if we don't.


Originally posted by Scramjet76
So all through life you have no clue no idea until your death bed than you start to wonder. Its to bad there was not a comfortable aproachable area we all could of learned in earlier years.

Anyway that my complaint.


Thanks Scramjet for the candid feedback. Indeed there is a comfortable approachable way. Feel free to U2U if you're honestly interested in finding those answers.




posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 08:39 PM
link   
wow, great thread saint4god. I voted you way above for it.

Anyway, I have a few complaints about Christians and they are kind of similar to other people's complaints. For me, my spiritual beliefs consist of many different kinds of religons, the main ones being buddhism, christianity, paganism, and new age. I'm absoutly sick of Christians telling me that my new age beliefs are 'satanic deceptions.' I do not think that way at all. In fact, ever since I started accecpting new age beliefs, I have become more at inner peace and in my opinion, more closer to God than I ever was.

These people that call themselves Christians give me dirty looks and start the whole 'satanic deceptions' things whenever religion is brought up in our conversations. Christianity I know is a religion that teachs full love but its like when these people are preaching their religion, they forget all about it.

Its nice to see a person like you, Saint, who is not hypocritical and decides to look in to reasons why people are so angry instead of demonizing them before they get a chance to speak. I commend you for it.



posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 08:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
I'm not proposing hostilities and division, rather to address the sources of any hostilities and divisions to reach at least and understanding of where we're coming from. Then, we may be able to move forward. It helps to talk about things.


No doubt. That is called 'discussion.' You titled this thread with an altogether different concept: complaint:

Expression of grief, regret, pain, censure, or resentment; lamentation; murmuring; a finding fault.

Accusation; a charge against an offender, made by a private person or informer to a justice of the peace or other proper officer, alleging that the offender has violated the law, and claiming the penalty due to the prosecutor. It differs from an information, which is the prosecution of an offender by the Attorney or Solicitor General; and from a presentment and indictment, which are the accusation of a Grand Jury.

Say what you mean...mean what you say. No crawfishing.



I see you're still quoting the Word you deny as the one and only Truth.

What? You're babbling nonsense of which you have no legitimate comprehension.

That's my biggest 'complaint' in this regard...an open mouth is often better kept shut...all our words will follow us...once spoken they exist and have far more power than most realize. One can't take them back so it's best to think about them before they come into being.



posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
I don't like people pointlessly bashing others. Point taken and noted.


Yeah. Right.



posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 10:02 AM
link   
There are several things which I will address in a bit . First I would like to address
the following statements.




If a Pagan (say) is a government official serving in his or her official capacity, then openly sporting a pentagram would be inappropriate, because it would communicate that the government agency he/she represents endorses Neopaganism, which according to the Constitution government agencies are forbidden to do.


Why would it be any more or less inappropriate than the multitudes of people
that proudly sport their latin propellers?

Why must it indicate endorsement of Neo Paganism? with out asking the
person in question what it means to them you are ASSUMING it has the same meaning to them as it does to you and your preconcieved prejudices.
Of course asking them MIGHT be inappropriate and an unwarrented invasion of their privacy.

Those who wear the Latin propeller however have trumpeted the meaning of
their symbol "from the highest mountains and the lowest valleys" for so long
that there should be no need to ask its meaning.




It is important to validate sources. The New International Version was an 8 year project that was translated by over 100 Biblical scholars. They could read the original Hebrew and Greek texts so it's the one I trust the most. A believer should not be relying solely on the Book, rather should have a personal relationship with the living God, keeping in contact with Him and checking with Him constantly


What about The Jesus Seminar and the suggestions made by them? It was a study
conducted by over 250 (as I recall) scholars many of whom were retired clergy
over 15 years.




If God requires nothing from us, why would God have a need to experience things through us?


If the Creator had the need to experience our experiences why would they only
experience some and not all of our experiences? Why not experience some of the, if not the most climactic experiences of our existance? I of course refer to Marraige/ the joining of two lives and beings into one. And the birth of a child.

Perhaps if these experiences were passed over it was because they were experiences known to the creators? perhaps the Holy family is indeed Father/Mother/ Child/ren ?

My biggest complaints are these,

most christians ( or at least those that profess loudest to being) also profess in the
most strenous terms that their way is the only way, their path the only path.

I contend that there may be only one mountain but there are many paths to the top of that mountain.

The second is just a tad more philosophical,
it seems to me that christians are always looking " up there, over there, around there," always someplace else for their heaven and even their God.

I am reminded of the comments of R. Jeshua ( and I paraphrase here)
" If the kingdom is in the sky then the birds will get there before you, If it is under the water then the fish will get there before you." "Seek not the Kingdom out there,
over there , up there. Seek it first within yourself.

Lastly , Why must I come to your man made building to commune with my creator?

Do you ( a general you) honestly believe that your building is superior to those places that were directly created by the hand of the creator? I speak of the forests
lakes, rivers, and all the other places of silence and reverance. Have you ever just sat and contemplated the workings of a waterfall? the power and magnificence of
the tide on a quiet sandy beach (ok this is getting harder to find), or simply the flight
of an eagle above the mountains?

These are where I seek MY God and Goddess.



Or that to
have contact with their God you Must enter their building.



posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 10:42 AM
link   
Well, I said I wouldn't post here further but since I got asked a question . . .

Stalkingwolf, I can see that in general you and I are on the same page. But:


Originally posted by stalkingwolf
Why would it be any more or less inappropriate [for a government official to wear a pentagram] than the multitudes of people that proudly sport their latin propellers?


What is a "latin propeller"? Are you referring to a cross? If so, then it is neither more nor less appropriate; both are inappropriate. I simply chose to use the example of my religion's symbol rather than Saint4God's, because it is a universal principle spelled out in the First Amendment, and I didn't want it to turn into an accusation against Christianity specifically, which was not the point. If you're referring to something else, though, I don't understand.



Why must it indicate endorsement of Neo Paganism?


Because the pentagram has been adopted as a symbol of a Neopagan religion, Wicca to be specific. And because a person, acting in an official capacity as an agent of the government, is no longer a private person; he or she IS the government. And the government (in the U.S. anyway) may not act in such a way as to suggest an establishment of religion.

And because if WE can do that, so can THEY -- and there are more of them. The rule must be applied universally.



posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 11:29 AM
link   
The United States is a government of the people, for the people, and by the people. People are elected into positions of government to represent those who elect them. Those who elect them choose them because the people believe that person is the best fit to represent what they believe. People have faith, people believe in God. Why does that element of a person have no place in a government of the people, for the people and by the people? Why is it that as soon as you become part of the government, you have to change your religion to secular humanism?

By not allowing any display of faith in any public official, we are, in effect, endorsing secular humanism, a faith.

The first amendment was designed to keep government out of religion. Today, we see exactly the opposite, with the government stepping into every element of religion, trying to control it, tell it what it can and cannot say, where it can and cannot say it, how it can and cannot say it, what doctrines it must abandon, what it is allowed to express when believed in by a governmental employee. It is, in effect, everything Jefferson feared would happen if the government took on a national religion.



posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
The United States is a government of the people, for the people, and by the people. People are elected into positions of government to represent those who elect them. Those who elect them choose them because the people believe that person is the best fit to represent what they believe. People have faith, people believe in God. Why does that element of a person have no place in a government of the people, for the people and by the people? Why is it that as soon as you become part of the government, you have to change your religion to secular humanism?

By not allowing any display of faith in any public official, we are, in effect, endorsing secular humanism, a faith.


First of all, not displaying religious symbols does not endorse secular humanism. It merely fails to endorse religion. Secular humanism is not merely the absence of or denial of religion. Actually, there is no such thing as "secular humanism." There is such a thing as humanism, and there is such a thing as secularism (though I think "atheism" comes closer to what you're trying to get at here). But the two are not properly connected, although certainly a person may believe in both. But nobody who believes in both speaks of them together like that. They are only conjoined into "secular humanism" by those who try to turn the words of the First Amendment on its head, to say that in refusing to establish religion, the government is establishing religion. Which would of course mean that the First Amendment becomes self-contradictory nonsense, and that in itself implies that this is the wrong interpretation.

Anyway -- the reason why religious displays are not allowed on public property, despite your "will of the people" argument, is because the First Amendment represents a limitation placed on democracy. The people are not allowed to vote in an established religion, or banning of a religion, or restraints on free speech or a free press, or the right of the people peacefully to assemble, or to petition the government for a redress of grievances. It doesn't matter a fig how big a majority wants any of these things. Under the Constitution, they're not allowed.



The first amendment was designed to keep government out of religion. Today, we see exactly the opposite, with the government stepping into every element of religion, trying to control it, tell it what it can and cannot say, where it can and cannot say it, how it can and cannot say it, what doctrines it must abandon


That's simply and completely untrue. Here again, we go back to the one complaint I voiced above about Christians: the belief that they are being persecuted merely because they are denied special privileges.

Incidentally, the first amendment was designed to keep religion out of government as well as vice-versa. Refer to Thomas Jefferson on the point.

The government does not attempt to control religion, tell it what it can and cannot say, or what doctrines it must abandon. Set up a church or synagogue or temple or mosque or grove or coven or whatever, and you can learn, teach, preach, and practice most anything. But when you ask to be able to do these things in government buildings in an official capacity, or that government officials be allowed to do so, you are asking that the state endorse your religion. You have no right to that. And denying you that privilege is not persecution of Christianity. It is protecting non-Christians, and Christians of a different flavor from yours, FROM persecution BY Christianity. Of which, sad to say, history affords many examples.



posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dances With Angels
wow, great thread saint4god. I voted you way above for it.


Thanks! I appreciate it
. I was wanting to see if "constructive critism" was possible. I think it has been demonstrated here.


Originally posted by Dances With Angels
Anyway, I have a few complaints about Christians and they are kind of similar to other people's complaints. For me, my spiritual beliefs consist of many different kinds of religons, the main ones being buddhism, christianity, paganism, and new age. I'm absoutly sick of Christians telling me that my new age beliefs are 'satanic deceptions.'


When this accusation made, I'd recommend asking this question: "why?" It'll reveal whether the proclaimer has researched and proposed sound reasoning or whether they're moving quick to an unexplored answer. As a Christian, I think it's important to challenge and be challenged. From that comes growth...and is one of the points of this thread.


Originally posted by Dances With Angels
These people that call themselves Christians give me dirty looks and start the whole 'satanic deceptions' things whenever religion is brought up in our conversations. Christianity I know is a religion that teachs full love but its like when these people are preaching their religion, they forget all about it.


That's a beast...and have seen that myself. I agree we need to maintain a consistent approach to love as Christ has exampled here:

"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you," - Matthew 5:43-44

If I'm going to disagree with someone, it is because I honestly care that the right information comes across, not that I have any ill-will towards them.


Originally posted by Dances With Angels
Its nice to see a person like you, Saint, who is not hypocritical and decides to look in to reasons why people are so angry instead of demonizing them before they get a chance to speak. I commend you for it.


Thanks again! I'd be interested in hearing more about how you've come to believe as you do if ever you're interested in U2U'ing me.



posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by queenannie38
No doubt. That is called 'discussion.' You titled this thread with an altogether different concept: complaint:

That's my biggest 'complaint' in this regard...an open mouth is often better kept shut...all our words will follow us...once spoken they exist and have far more power than most realize. One can't take them back so it's best to think about them before they come into being.


For someone who disagrees with complaining, you seem quick to step up to the plate.


Originally posted by queenannie38
What? You're babbling nonsense of which you have no legitimate comprehension.


We've discussed this before on your thread, this is just review. The Bible speaks of Christians, but you would rather take an axe/sword to at least one of them. Me.

Don't like this thread? Well...you do you have one already that's all about you:

Behold! A White Horse

Some extended background for those wondering why queenie has hostilities against me.


[edit on 29-8-2006 by saint4God]



posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 01:30 PM
link   
It was Thomas Jefferson who wanted to regulate religion in such a way as to not allow it to influence government? The same Thomas Jefferson who said, "No power over the freedom of religion is delegated to the United States by the Constitution"? The same Thomas Jefferson who said, "I consider the government of the United States as interdicted (prohibited) by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises"? The same Thomas Jefferson who mandated in 1804 that the Bible be part of school curriculum? The same Thomas Jefferson who designed a curriculum for the University of Virginia that included "the proof of the being of a God, the Creator"? The same Thomas Jefferson who wrote (emphasis mine):


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. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men


The same Jefferson who said, "God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift of God? "

Because, you know, reading through Jefferson's writings, his actions, and his beliefs, I don't see where he wanted any kind of religion removed from government. If anything, he wanted and expected the opposite.



posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
It was Thomas Jefferson who wanted to regulate religion in such a way as to not allow it to influence government?


Please don't put words in my mouth. The government DOES NOT regulate religion. Prohibiting the government from showing favor for one sect over another is not regulation of religion, but rather regulation of government.

It was Thomas Jefferson who wanted to erect a wall between church and state, and first used that phrase.

If you want some quotes from Jefferson testifying to his distrust of mixing religion with government, I give you the following:



Three of our papers have presented us the copy of an act of the Legislature of New York, which if it has really passed, will carry us back to the times of the darkest bigotry and barbarism, to find a parallel. Its purport is, that all those who shall hereafter join in communion with the religious sect of Shaking Quakers, shall be deemed civilly dead, their marriages dissolved, and all their children and property taken out of their hands. This act being published nakedly in the papers, without the usual signatures, or any history of the circumstances of its passage, I am not without a hope it may have been a mere abortive attempt. It contrasts singularly with a cotemporary vote of the Pennsylvania Legislature, who, on a proposition to make the belief in God a necessary qualification for office, rejected it by a great majority, although assuredly there was not a single atheist in their body. And you May remember to have heard that when the act for Religious Freedom was before the Virginia Assembly, a motion to insert the name of Jesus Christ before the phrase, “the author of our holy religion”, which stood in the bill, was rejected, although that was the creed of a great majority of them.

***

The clergy, by getting themselves established by law, and ingrafted into the machine of government, have been a very formidable engine against the civil and religious rights of man. They are still so in many countries, and even in some of these United States. Even in 1783, we doubted the stability of our recent measures for reducing them to the footing of other useful callings. It now appears that our means were effectual.

***

Whenever... preachers, instead of a lesson in religion, put [their congregation] off with a discourse on the Copernican system, on chemical affinities, on the construction of government, or the characters or conduct of those administering it, it is a breach of contract, depriving their audience of the kind of service for which they are salaried, and giving them, instead of it, what they did not want, or, if wanted, would rather seek from better sources in that particular art of science.

***

Ministers of the Gospel are excluded [from serving as Visitors of the county Elementary Schools] to avoid jealousy from the other sects, were the public education committed to the ministers of a particular one; and with more reason than in the case of their exclusion from the legislative and executive functions.

***

I do not know that it is a duty to disturb by missionaries the religion and peace of other countries, who may think themselves bound to extinguish by fire and fagot the heresies to which we give the name of conversions, and quote our own example for it. Were the Pope, or his holy allies, to send in mission to us some thousands of Jesuit priests to convert us to their orthodoxy, I suspect that we should deem and treat it as a national aggression on our peace and faith.

***

But a short time elapsed after the death of the great reformer of the Jewish religion, before his principles were departed from by those who professed to be his special servants, and perverted into an engine for enslaving mankind, and aggrandizing their oppressors in Church and State.

***

"[If] the nature of... government [were] a subordination of the civil to the ecclesiastical power, I [would] consider it as desperate for long years to come. Their steady habits [will] exclude the advances of information, and they [will] seem exactly where they [have always been]. And there [the] clergy will always keep them if they can. [They] will follow the bark of liberty only by the help of a tow-rope.

***

This doctrine ['that the condition of man cannot be ameliorated, that what has been must ever be, and that to secure ourselves where we are we must tread with awful reverence in the footsteps of our fathers'] is the genuine fruit of the alliance between Church and State, the tenants of which finding themselves but too well in their present condition, oppose all advances which might unmask their usurpations and monopolies of honors, wealth and power, and fear every change as endangering the comforts they now hold.

***

The advocate of religious freedom is to expect neither peace nor forgiveness from [the clergy].

***

The clergy...believe that any portion of power confided to me [as President] will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly: for I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too, in their opinion.

***

Believing... that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their Legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.

***

History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.

***

In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.


Will that do for a beginning?

It's always amused me that our advocates of Christian government seem to think Jefferson their ally. Of all the founding fathers, he is the LEAST inclined to their point of view.



posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 08:54 AM
link   


Because the pentagram has been adopted as a symbol of a Neopagan religion, Wicca to be specific.

first, the Wiccan Pentagram. please describe this amulet for me. My Wife and I are
Wiccan/Pagan. We both wear Pents. Mine is very different from hers, The one I just retired is different than either of the others and the Pentacle on our alter is different from any of the others. At last count I had identified 520 different meanings of the Pent. not including the various Goddess designs. So you will need to be a tad more specific in what you are refering to.




And because a person, acting in an official capacity as an agent of the government, is no longer a private person; he or she IS the government


If you had had the occasion to ask one of the Marine Guards of The President
during the tenure of Blow job Bill they would have expressed most strenously
that they salute the office , not the ass that sits in it.

The person is not the Govt just the rep at the time. usuing your analogy the
priest shagging little boys behind the alter would then Be the church and the
church/s(all christian churches as they all come from the same root) would be collectivly guilty of the acts.

yes I was refering to the latin cross, sorry you missed the symbology

and to conclude this post I offer the following,




I have examined all the known superstitions of the world and I do not find in our
particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike
founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since
the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned.
What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half of the world fools and
the other half hypocrites to support roguery and error all over the world.

Thomas Jefferson


James Madison:

"What influence in fact have Christian ecclesiastical establishments had on
civil society? In many instances they have been upholding the thrones of
political tyrrany. In no instance have they been seen as the guardians of
the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty
have found in the clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government,
instituted to secure and perpetuate liberty, does not need the clergy."


John Adams:

"The doctrine of the divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for
absurdity."

Adams also signed the Treaty of Tripoli. Article 11 states:

"The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the
Christian religion."

If Christ were here now there is one thing he would not be--a christian.
Author: Mark Twain




posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by stalkingwolf
first, the Wiccan Pentagram. please describe this amulet for me.


Ahem.

I'm Pagan myself. As I tried to communicate to you.

We don't need to go into this. Any religious symbol displayed by a government official amounts to an endorsement of that religion by the office the official represents. That one pentacle varies in detail from another is both obvious and irrelevant. It also varies from a cross, Star of David, Om caligraphy, or crescent. The principle I'm suggesting covers them all.



If you had had the occasion to ask one of the Marine Guards of The President
during the tenure of Blow job Bill they would have expressed most strenously
that they salute the office , not the ass that sits in it.


Nevertheless, there are restrictions placed on the occupant of the office which would not apply were he out of it. For example, the president takes an oath to uphold and protect the Constitution, and may be held responsible for failure to do so. I have taken no such oath, and do not have the same obligations.



usuing your analogy the priest shagging little boys behind the alter would then Be the church and the church/s(all christian churches as they all come from the same root) would be collectivly guilty of the acts.


I wouldn't go so far as to blame "all Christian churches," but the specific organization that created the circumstances in which priests had the opportunity and motivation to rape little boys IS at fault, yes.

More to the point of the discussion, a priest is in a position of religious authority over said little boys, and this is, or should be, an aggravating factor in his crime.

In all cases, responsibility goes along with power, and restrictions are placed on those we trust with power -- or should be.



and to conclude this post I offer the following . . .

Adams also signed the Treaty of Tripoli. Article 11 states:

"The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the
Christian religion."


Absolutely correct, of course, but more generally: the United States is not in any sense founded on ANY religion.

As I said before, the rules have to be applied universally. The reason we forbid the government from establishing a Christian religion is not because Christianity is especially bad, but because any religion, given political authority, is guaranteed to become especially bad, and if Christianity is, then it is because it once did have political authority and the corruption remains entrenched.

Do you for one moment believe that Pagan/Wiccan religion would be immune to this corruption of power? I do not. We're all human.



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 06:28 AM
link   


I'm Pagan myself. As I tried to communicate to you.


Yep I gleamed that right off.. Point I was trying to make is that the Pent is not
as universal an indicator of belief as most believe. It was for many years a xian
symbol. It was also one of the last 2 symbols considered for the flag of the Modern Olympics loosing out to the interlocked circles we all know.




Nevertheless, there are restrictions placed on the occupant of the office which would not apply were he out of it. For example, the president takes an oath to uphold and protect the Constitution, and may be held responsible for failure to do so. I have taken no such oath, and do not have the same obligations.


You may not have but every member of the Armed forces past and present has
taken a similar oath to uphold and defend the constitution. So does that mean
all vetrans and active duty personell are precluded from wearing items of their faith in public? Also remember every member of the armed forces of this country
active duty, reservist, and NG, wears on their person "dog tags" which clearly
state their religious preference or lack there of.



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by stalkingwolf
It was for many years a xian symbol.


What is an xian?

And why are they using your symbol?



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 11:28 AM
link   
My complaints:

When Christians try and legislate their morality and influence government policy making to favor their religous laws and convictions. When Christians try and force their morality on everyone else. Or when they attack and harrass people of other religons.

Otherwise, I have no problem with their existance, as they have a right to worship and practice their religon however they see fit. They should not have government involvement in the affairs of their churches, and should not be regulated by the government. And vice versa. As long a Christianity remains a faith and not a bsis for policy or secular law, then there are no problems.



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 12:06 PM
link   
Thanks for the contructive feedback Skadi. I agree Christianity should not be forced upon anyone. Paul seems to understand this well:

"But I did not want to do anything without your consent, so that any favor you do will be spontaneous and not forced. " - Philemon 1:14

[edit on 31-8-2006 by saint4God]


Cug

posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
Thanks for the contructive feedback Skadi. I agree Christianity should not be forced upon anyone. Paul seems to understand this well:

"But I did not want to do anything without your consent, so that any favor you do will be spontaneous and not forced. " - Philemon 1:14


Too bad many of your fellow Christians don't believe this.

Sometimes it feels like everytime I turn around I'm forced to participate in a Christian ritual. Every time I buy a quarter pounder I'm handing over some paper with Christian propaganda on it. I go to a lot of car races during the summer.. many many times before the race there is a Christian prayer beforehand. At the start of many government meetings like city council meetings, the House/Senate, etc all start off with a Christian prayer.

It seems to me that many Christians Just don't understand what it's like. How would you like to be subjected to a wiccan or even a Satanic ritual before watching a ballgame? I don't think you would like it very much.

In fact I remember a few years ago in Dallas Before every meeting they had someone come in and give a opening prayer. When it came time for the Wiccan prayer The person was disinvited to participate due to protests by Christians, later the Mayor apologized and the person was invited back. What was the responce from Christians? how about this.



"I want to encourage the City Council to do as our founding fathers did—to fear the one true God," Cathie Adams, president of the Texas Eagle Forum,

Source: www.christianitytoday.com...


and



Do "whatever you have to, to stop the invocation...[the] Satanists are taking over the city." A plea by a Dallas, TX, Christian TV station to protest a Wiccan invocation delivered before city council.

Source: www.religioustolerance.org...


Looking at what happened there, I would guess if our money said "Hail Satan" on it most Christians would be in an uproar.. Why should non-Christians not feel the same way about "In God we trust"? or sitting through a Christian paryer at a event of some sort?

Now don't get me wrong, If I go to someones home for dinner and they say grace.. I don't get all uppity.. I just respectfully keep quite. but at a public event it really annoying.



BTW xtian is (mostly) Wiccan slang for Christian (think X-Mas) and personally I find it kinda rude.



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 03:39 PM
link   
Thanks Cug. I don't believe in forcing people to participate in prayer...kind of defeats the purpose of being a willful servant and expressing one's true heart. I like having it available to those who would like to though. It's like juice on the menu for those who'd rather not drink soda.


Originally posted by Cug
BTW xtian is (mostly) Wiccan slang for Christian (think X-Mas) and personally I find it kinda rude.


I didn't know it was Wiccan slang, learn something new every day. Regarding xtian, I can say that I don't follow x, nor read from the teachings of x. I don't see where x died from my sins nor rose from the tomb to pay the penalty thereof.

Mathmatically, I shall have to refer to the horizonal axis as the Christ-axis and the answer to the Y question becomes answered by only the Bible being the textbook. Looking for buried the treasure? "Christ marks the spot". In fact, I believe Christ-rays can penetrate the body and reveal an image of the heart. I'm good with these three, but I think these are the only times it may be interchangable.

Also, it can get pretty confusing for those who try to pick up dirty movies and have to wander into the Christ-rated section. Perhaps all the better if they pick up a film about Jesus, it's much more fulfilling than feeding an appetite.

[edit on 31-8-2006 by saint4God]




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join