Hate towards BS Christians

a reply to: beezzer

Glad to see you can admit that. When I push people's buttons it tends to be because I'm upset. Honestly I dislike upsetting people. In life I usually try to find a way for people to get along. Like last night when I helped calm someone down who misunderstood what another did, and smoothed things over between them.

a reply to: Puppylove

Ok Puppylove, this time you really need to let this thread go, you are already on three hours of sleep and now it's time for work, now get going missy!!!

Awww, but...

Git!!!!!

*pouts* Yes Me...

Bye all!!! Been fun and frustrating, both at the same time!!!!

originally posted by: Puppylove
I constantly see things about Christians claiming persecution, and their rights being infringed upon, that people hate Christians.

YOU'RE ALL FULL OF CRAP!!!

No one hate's CHRISTians. The problem is, most of your asses are Christian in name only and that's it. Your crap stinks, and everyone can smell it.

Most of you ignore the most important precepts of your religion, you ignore the most important statements of Jesus Himself, half of you know nothing about the man Jesus supposedly was, half of you make zero attempt to live as Jesus did. Many of your actions spit in the very face of all Jesus supposedly commanded of you.

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

"Judge not lest ye be judged."

To himself, "Forgive them, they know not what they do."

And so many others, this can go on and on...

We're talking a guy who hung out with prostitutes and sinners, we're talking a guy who helped those who sinned by leading by example, by not judging them, by lending them a helping hand. We're talking a guy who's solution to dealing with sinners, was spending time with them, and showing them a better way by leading by example, by loving them. We're supposedly talking about a guy who sacrificed his own life in his love for all men, whether they sinned or not.

Yet, what do many "Christians" do, turn their backs on those who supposedly sin, close their doors to them, claiming serving them is against their religion, who rather than show love an acceptance, leading by example and showing another way, turn up their nose and cast judgement.

No one hates Chrisrtians who act like Christians, just those who are Christians in name only.

Start acting like #ing Christians, and you'd possibly be some of the most beloved people the world over. I've met Christians that truly did their best to live by Jesus example, so few and far between that they are. These Christians I knew, that truly lived it, that truly looked up to Jesus and tried to be like Him I will say, were better people than me. I try to live up to much of what Jesus said, even though I'm not Christian, because they really good things, really great statements and lessons.

But instead of trying to follow Jesus, instead of going the way of love, people choose to ignore the best parts of the bible, the things most important to Jesus the man Himself, and instead focus on the worst parts of the bible, picking and choosing which parts are important to them, and using them to discriminate and hate on others. Do you honestly think Jesus would be cool with that?

No one is hating Christians, just those who are Christian in name only.

I'm so sick of having to accept someone is Christian just because they say so. Or people claiming their religious rights are being infringed upon when clearly their Bible does not support them. I'm sick of not being allowed to call people out on their bull# and claim the simple truth.

No one is against you because you are Christian, they're against you because you're a Christian in nothing but name only.

It's not Christians people are against, it's a wolves in sheeps clothing, the non-christians who think they can claim a title, and use it to make others fit their desires while ignoring the fact their very religion they pretend to follow does not support them.

I don't dislike Christians,

I dislike delusional bold faced liars.

The truth of the matter is that the Christian religion was founded on persecution. The bibles says if you are a true Christian you will be persecuted. So that is way you see these people flood the likes of fox news claiming persecution. We know its BS they know it's BS.

Bravo Zulu, Puppy Love. I suppose the word hate in your title is what will "stick in some people's craw", whatever a craw is... I get where you are coming from regarding the hypocrisy. I think all humans would get along much better if we were more spiritual vs. religious. I work in an ER and I tell people often that I am not there to judge them I am there to help. It works for me. Even when it is unnecessary to mention it I am thinking it. I will try to link a video that sums up my feelings. Did I screw it up? Sorry, it's Matt Johnson from The The singing armageddon days are here again. Maybe someone can help. I've been working since 1500 yesterday. I'm going to bed. Regards, J

You have a good point. These things you mention are the reason I no longer identify as being Christian. A lot of times I will just to save time so I don't have to explain the nuances of my own individual stance, but in reality, no two people follow a religion the Exact same way... so everyone basically has their own religion. Or "denomination" if you prefer.

Anyway, I just consider myself a follower of Christ, a believer of Christ's teachings and/or one who strives to be Christlike. That's not to say I discard all other religious or non religious teachings. A wise person can learn something from just about anything or anyone. I just keep Christ's message of love, kindness, forgiveness and faith closest to my heart.

a reply to: 3n19m470

And you I really really respect for that.

originally posted by: American-philosopher
a reply to: Puppylove

Well I don't know if you offered specifics. I mean couldn't the same be said of fake muslims or Muslims in name only or Jewish people in name only who are not really real or adhearing strictly to their religion? Are you only singling out Christian s because you have come in contact with some fake Christians or some thing/?

There are armies of muslims fighting ISIS who hate them. There are good, law abiding muslims who want to make a place for themselves in the world that really don't like the negative stereotypes of the radicals being applied to them, and rightfully so. I would call ISIS "fake muslims" indeed.

Is that the example you are looking for?

peace,
AB

a reply to: defiythelie

Interesting point! I hadn't seen it that way. If you believe that "believers" will be reviled, then you must demonstrate you are reviled in order to be seen as a "believer?"

I don't know that it's a conscious choice, but it may be somehow ingrained in the fabric of belief, and unconsciously brought out. Then again, ??????

peace,
AB

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: grandmakdw


Laws have to prove to be secular in nature, because it has no religious bias and gives no religion control over all the citizens of the US.

Once again. nothing is stopping you from legislating laws, so long as you keep the bible as a reason out of it. If you can't argue for the reason for a law with logic, rational, and reason, while avoiding "because the bible says so" then you have a problem.

After some thinking, you may have a point about people forcing their beliefs on others through legislation, especially wacko people.
And religious people:

Let's look at the definition of religion:
A religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence.

Let's look at some groups with leadership that has really wacko and dangerous ideas,
these groups should be forbidden from putting forth legislation because of their
very strong belief system and the dangerous ideas they hold.

One can worship an idea and have a strong idea be their religion without a book,
look at Wiccans, they don't have a book, but they are a religion.

Any strongly held idea that people think is the only correct way to think
and who seek to "impose" their thinking as the only right and correct thinking on others is a religion.

1. Al Gore said that people who don't believe in global warming should be punished, put in jail.
Can you imagine, just for not believing what he believes and saying
that people who don't believe as he does are dangerous to society, how wacko can you get.
How about the other global warming leader who said climate deniers should be killed.
Talk about an ISIS mentality.
For sure global warming worshipers should never be allowed to influence legislation,
they are really dangerous and loony for wanting to jail or
kill people just for not believing as they do.

They have made global warming a cult and we all know how dangerous cults are.

I am quite fond of people who are genuine and kind
in the way they talk about global warming and
try to educate people to their way of thinking.

But some of them are just to dangerous to allow any in the group to put forth legislation. You are so right.


2. Black Panthers who say they speak for all black people
have called for the killing of all white people and white babies.
How wacko and loony and dangerous to society is that.
They even showed up at the polls and intimidated people
who weren't voting for a black president,
and the president and his attorney general
just looked the other way and did nothing about it.
That is really dangerous to a democratic society.
With your logic no black people should be allowed to influence legislation
because of the wacko and loony ideas of their leadership
with regard to killing white people and white babies and
allowing them to intimidate people into voting the way they want people to vote.

They think their ideas are the only right ideas, how dangerous is that,
no black people should not be allowed to put forth legislation.

Now I am quite fond, as I am sure you are of black people who are genuine
and who are nice and who would never do these things.

But you have a point because of the wackos in their midst
and the people who claim to speak for all of them,
we can't trust them to put forth any legislation.


3. How about those liberals who through social media,
and destroying personal lives are attempting to impose
strict speech restrictions (very anti-constitution),
and by extension strict thought control since if you can't say it you can't think it.

Liberals destroyed one man who hired lots of minorities
and was always fair and even handed at work, so said all his employees,
but he said something in private to his girlfriend that
she recorded in their private time which was racist and out of revenge she made it public.
Now this man had never behaved racist
nor was he ever racist in any of his dealings with his employees,
yet he was forced to sell his business and was banned from ever being in that business again.
This is an oft repeated tactic of liberals.

Liberals tried to destroy a florist who hired gay people
and was always good to her employees,
but they decided to destroy her business because she was a Christian
and set her up by asking her to do a gay wedding,
which she did not want to do.

Liberals often employ personal destruction, loss of job,
loss of reputation when people say or do things they don't like or approve of.

Liberals have also sought to control what every child in America eats
during lunch hours by making the meals so low calorie and so unappealing
that children have been posting the awful things liberals have forced schools
to feed them through legislation.
How cruel to the children.

So it is clear that liberals want to strictly control
the lives of others according to the ideas
they themselves think are better than everyone else's ideas.

They hold tightly to their ideas, so tightly,
that they have used legislation and intimidation and set out
to ruin people for not acquiescing to their idea of right and wrong.
That is really wacko and loony, and very cultish.

While I am quite fond of classic liberals and there are some good liberals,
the leadership can be so cultish and cruel to people
that I don't think the group should be allowed to put forth legislation.

Well, I also don't think liberals should be allowed to put forth legislation
when their leadership is strongly in favor of an idea that is firmly against the constitution,
freedom of speech.

You are right, anyone group who holds an idea so tightly that a few members
of their group seek to harm and destroy those who don't believe as they do
should never be allowed to put forth legislation.

After all when a group holds an idea or set of ideas so tightly they have people
who wish to influence others sometimes using extreme measures that harm others,
or restrict what others can or can not do or think,
well that has become a religion.

No matter if some members of the group I can speak fondly of
who don't hold the extreme ideas.

Well, some in their group do and that makes them a danger to society
and they should not be allowed to put forth legislation. You are correct.

Anyone group with an organized collection of beliefs,

cultural systems: global warming believe strongly in conservation; blacks certainly have a cultural system unique to their group; liberals certainly hold deep cultural values regarding saying anything that might offend anyone to the point of legislating thinking on those matters

and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence.
....... Each of the groups above has their strongly held beliefs about humanity and the order in which it should exist. So any of these groups could be deemed a religion according to the actions of people who claim to speak for the whole

Once again. nothing is stopping them from legislating laws,
so long as they keep their religion as a reason out of it.
If you can't argue for the reason for a law with logic, rational,
and reason, while avoiding "because my cult/belief system/group says so" then you have a problem.

a reply to: American-philosopher
In what way does this concern you on a direct basis? Because your BELIEF system is attacked in a village 8000 miles away?

Does this make sense to a person who employs the logic that YOUR religions causes National Holidays HERE to be named after your icon?

Can it.

As an agnostic concerning everything, your faith doesn't even make sense to me and I was raised to be Catholic (complete with beatings and pedophilia). What you guys should fear is the corruption in your leadership. That will cause the divine retribution that you think is such a grand idea.

BTW, I was watching the Christian channel and the preacher was actually getting incensed (pun intended) by the things that most of here think are both impositions and horror producing. Civil Rights, War and other insults to humanity. Kudos.

a reply to: Puppylove

I was going to point out it's a little presumptuous to define who's really in a group and who isn't, especially when you're standing outside of the group.

But screw that, S & F.

a reply to: StalkerSolent

That's a bit crazy a requirement if you truly think about it. Good to know I shouldn't question a person who claims they are a police officer without proof.

It's only the religious who have that special mystical protection of, you're not one of us so you have no right to question our authenticity.

Just saying.

I mean should one not question a politician who expresses 90% conservative views who claims they're a progressive?

When is it ok to question someone religious on whether they're truly authentic to their religion and following it in good faith? Where is the line? Why should the religious get a free pass?

The guy who wants to say he's a police officer while playing cops and naughty wife in the bedroom, is fine, the second he tries to arrest someone and take them away in his unmarked car, he'd best be a real cop and be able to prove it.

The Conservative Progressive can call himself a Progressive all he wants in private, but the second he runs for office, his views should most certainly be questioned, and the hypocrisy of what he's claiming and what he's actually doing should damn well be brought into question.

As long as it's at home, in private, someone religious can say they belong to whatever religion they desire, but the second they decide to use religious freedom to allow themselves to mistreat others, they had best be able to defend their belief using the whole of their religion, and not only the parts that support them, ignoring the parts that don't.

a reply to: Puppylove There are a few christians on this site who have used the bible as a weapon to justify their own personal bigotry and use against other groups they simply do not like. You know they haven't thought if jesus would have approved of what they are doing using the bible in such a way. There has clearly been a message sent out to all american churches here that they are being persecuted. It's obvious, but I guess it all plays to the christian narrative

a reply to: grandmakdw

All those groups need to attempt to prove their beliefs and the need for their legislation through logic, reason, and rational, they need to be able to defend it with more than, "Because we believe it" and that's the difference.

Even religious whacko's as you call them, or non religious have that exact same right. So long as you do not rely on, because the bible says so as a reason for your legislation, you have the right to try and pass whatever law you want, the second the only justification you have is because my religion says so, it becomes non constitutional.

Then again so does the black panthers if their justification is, because "kill whitey" as just like religious reason, that's also unconstitutional.

Once again, the religious have the same rights as everyone else to pass legislation, so long as religion itself stays out of it.

If you cannot rationally and logically give reasons why legislation should be passed, and your only reason is because the bible says so, well that's unconstitutional. Why would you want people to be allowed to pass legislation they cannot back up with logic and reasoning?

Not saying all laws that are passed have logic and reasoning we'd all agree with, in fact, personally I think much of our legal system is corrupt, and many laws passed are passed to keep the rich richer and the poor poorer. But that's not the point of this, the point is why the founding fathers put forth this legislation. To protect you and others from things being passed for reasons of "just because."

Those other groups you mentioned run into their own roadblocks they need to get through as well, for black panthers, it's anti-discrimination laws as well, the same rights that protect blacks, in theory protect whites from persecution as well. Once again, not a perfect system, but that's not the point.

a reply to: Puppylove

Same can be said about the holier than though LGBTQ-WXYZ.. They are all FULL OF CRAP (some literally). No one hates them, we just feel we are forced to recognize filth, disease and the flavor of the day and if we dont champion it the GAYSTOPO will throw a hissy fit.

If people dont bake you a cake, you go all QUEEN TERMINATOR on everyone and cry into the cameras...

You anti-christian GAYSTOPO types are really a bunch of flamers..

originally posted by: truckdriver42
a reply to: Puppylove

Same can be said about the holier than though LGBTQ-WXYZ.. They are all FULL OF CRAP (some literally). No one hates them, we just feel we are forced to recognize filth, disease and the flavor of the day and if we dont champion it the GAYSTOPO will throw a hissy fit.

If people dont bake you a cake, you go all QUEEN TERMINATOR on everyone and cry into the cameras...

You anti-christian GAYSTOPO types are really a bunch of flamers..

Quite the homophobic little rant there. There is no GAYstopo. No gay agenda. No holier then thou LGBT. Just people who want equal rights and to be treat exactly the same way as everyone else. People who do not want a 2000 year old set of beliefs used as a reason to with hold services to them. No one is being anti-christian, people are just pointing out how ridiculous some Christians are by claiming to follow christ while looking down on anyone they feel is unworthy.

originally posted by: truckdriver42
a reply to: Puppylove

Same can be said about the holier than though LGBTQ-WXYZ.. They are all FULL OF CRAP (some literally). No one hates them, we just feel we are forced to recognize filth, disease and the flavor of the day and if we dont champion it the GAYSTOPO will throw a hissy fit.

If people dont bake you a cake, you go all QUEEN TERMINATOR on everyone and cry into the cameras...

You anti-christian GAYSTOPO types are really a bunch of flamers..

This is exactly the type of attitude that drove me away from mainstream Christianity and religion, in my youth. Hateful, bigoted, holier than thou, and not just directed at homosexuals but Hispanics and Blacks or anyone else that didn't measure up to the Churches "standards" of what they thought other Christians should be and act like.

Is it any wonder that young people don't find the Church as a place of worship any longer.


www.christianpost.com...

originally posted by: truckdriver42
a reply to: Puppylove

Same can be said about the holier than though LGBTQ-WXYZ.. They are all FULL OF CRAP (some literally). No one hates them, we just feel we are forced to recognize filth, disease and the flavor of the day and if we dont champion it the GAYSTOPO will throw a hissy fit.

If people dont bake you a cake, you go all QUEEN TERMINATOR on everyone and cry into the cameras...

You anti-christian GAYSTOPO types are really a bunch of flamers..

It's called wanting equality and fighting for your rights.
You are a homophobic bigot - simple.

How Religion Harms Education:

Atheist Ireland gave me the title of the topic they wanted me to talk about, because this is as important an issue for them as it is for me back home in Texas. This is largely because they have no separation of church and state, and every school is a religious school.

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: StalkerSolent

It's only the religious who have that special mystical protection of, you're not one of us so you have no right to question our authenticity.

That's not true. Was Stalin really a Communist? Was Lenin really a Marxist? What about Mao?

As long as it's at home, in private, someone religious can say they belong to whatever religion they desire, but the second they decide to use religious freedom to allow themselves to mistreat others, they had best be able to defend their belief using the whole of their religion, and not only the parts that support them, ignoring the parts that don't.

Religion is a personal matter, at least in the US of A, so we allow people to define their religious beliefs as they see fit.

I'm *fine* with critical inquiries into people's beliefs and practices and such, I merely would caution you that it is seems somewhat presumptuous (though I tend to agree with what you are saying) for you to say who is and isn't a member of a particular religious sect. The religious groups tend to self-regulate, and should be able to come to that conclusion themselves