There's been a lot of hostility towards Jesus and Christians in the Lounge lately.

[Aristus]

We're not the enemy, people. Please, people of every faith, and even atheists: I consider you my brothers and want to be your friend. The so-called "Christians" in the media, the Jerry Falwells, the Pat Robertsons, the Ted Haggards and so on. Please expend your anger and hostility on them. They're giving real Christians a bad name.

Please don't attack those of us who love Christ and are liberal and progressive because He was.

Bigoted, hate-filled, racist pseudo-moralizers oppose Jesus' mission. They don't fulfill it.

[LadyoftheRabbits]

1. ...

:thumbsup:

[ohiosmith]

2. Amen brother. Can I get a "praise the Lord"?

[crim son]

3. What do you believe Christ would have to say about gay marriage?

And why do you think it?

[MrCoffee]

something about getting the plank out of your own eye

before picking motes out of other people's eyes. scribes and pharisees, hypocrites!

[crim son]

11. A forgivable sin, then?

Judge not, you mean?

To me, that's not good enough. It also bothers me that all the apostles were men although yes Jesus allowed a few women to trail him about.

On edit: Please forgive me for sounding bitter. I have religious inlaws who have tormented me for seventeen years. The greatest evidence of their love and compassion for their fellow man is their willingness to point out the plank you refer to.

[xchrom]

34. mary magdalene

was an apostle.

and there weren't just some women hanging around him.

there were always women in close company.

distorted views about women and christianity come from paul -- not christ.

[crim son]

48. I haven't heard Mary Magdalene described as an apostle before.

And you are certainly entitled to interpret the descriptions of Jesus' encounters with women any way you wish. I recognize that there has been a concerted effort by Christian and secular scholars to counter the image of Christianity as misogynist however history speaks for itself. I'm not holding Christ responsible for this, but neither do I think that Christ = Christianity. Perhaps this is where I make my error, but I see Christianity as the sum of its followers, good, bad and indifferent.

I was once a believer and because of that am aware that my opinions sound uninformed simply because I no longer believe. Okay by me.

[xchrom]

33. jesus slept with john.

john is who he called beloved.

the apostles identified john as the beloved of jesus.

jesus turned the care of his mother over to john at the time of his death.

what do you think jesus would say about gay marriage?

[crim son]

51. I think Jesus would oppose it, like any Jew at the time.

But I have no evidence to support my belief, because Jesus doesn't speak of it.

Even in the middle ages and later, two male friends or travellers would sleep in the same bed at an inn or even in the home. The fact that Jesus did what everybody else was doing doesn't tell me anything about his views on homosexuality.

[xchrom]

61. out of all his male followers he called only one beloved.

and jesus was identified by others as calling john beloved.


but you're going to suit yourself.

i've only tried to do what you have done yourself -- offer another spin.

may i suggest philosohpers such as descartes --http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9_Descartes


a favorite of mine -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simone_Weil
simone weil is wonderful and quirky thinker.


and of course st francis -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_of_Assisi

my only point here is that we are two thousand years and more of human complexity.

both wonderful and tragic.

as is EVERYTHING in human history christian or otherwise.

[crim son]

65. On this we agree completely:

"my only point here is that we are two thousand years and more of human complexity.

both wonderful and tragic.

as is EVERYTHING in human history christian or otherwise." I am telling you what I think, just as you are telling me what you think. I guess you're just the deeper thinker. Very good.

[liontamer]

36. I think he'd answer it as being a non issue

If people want to get married then let them. Christ often seperated spiritual issues from worldly ones. I base my opinion on his response to questions about taxes, marriage, and political power.

[SPKrazy]

62. Truly I Say

If there was a Jesus, I don't think he was God.

I think if he existed he was a spiritually enlightened person.

The viewpoints of Jesus life all exist through the "Post Easter" lens- where something miraculous is to have happened.

With that in mind, it is impossible to look at a historical Jesus without realizing that all information about him is written by his followers who have an agenda as well.

So, personally, if Jesus existed, why would he really have cared what someone did or didn't do sexually?

Unless as you say, he was a man in a time, and held the mores of that time, and therefore would have had human opinions as well.

So, if Jesus opposed gay marriage, does that mean it's wrong? Or is the human nature and social mores of the time really what people are taking out of context and applying to their own agenda today.

And then there's the issue for me, did Jesus exist? If he didn't, is it important?

Poof! (I've been hit by lightning)

:hug:

[crim son]

67. LOL.

What you are saying is, we don't know but we behave as if we do.

[SPKrazy]

71. Well, Yes

isn't that true?

:rofl:

[chknltl]

91. Well said...

...and I seem to recall from watchin the History channel often, that the Romans of that time had even less of a problem with folks being gay. "EUMBLA", (instead of "NAMBLA"), was acceptable in that culture if I recall, and you know what they say: "When in Rome....". So it IS possible that Jesus would have had no problem with gay marriage.

[Telly Savalas]

94. He'd be asking where the buffet table at the reception is.

The central message of Christ's teaching is to love one another.

Marriage is a celebration of this idea.

[xmas74]

116. Best post here so far!

Christ probably would have been at the reception making sure everyone had enough wine to drink.

I really don't think he would have cared. His message was about loving one another.

[Aristus]

4. I have no idea what He would have said about gay marriage.

All I can go by for help is the Gospels. Jesus never mentions homosexuality in ANY context even once. I can't imagine He would have too much of a problem with people loving one another; His whole ministry was based on that.

Also, Jesus the man was a product of his time. He refused, for example, to condemn slavery, and even cautioned slaves to be obedient to their masters. If He were around today, I have no doubt He would damn slavery in the strongest possible terms. In the same way, I think He would recognize that homosexuality is not some massive conspiracy to sin against the Law of God and Moses. It is as natural a process as blue eyes or high cheekbones.

[crim son]

9. Thank you for answering the question.

I believe that because Jesus was a man of his time, he probably had the same prejudices against homosexuality, slaves, women etc. as others in his day. For this reason it is important not to view any aspect of the bible as the final Word, or inspired by God who I imagine is not affected by historical custom. Christians tend to rely on the good book as their source of information... and really, what other source is there? All the rest is reflection and speculation. I understand the fact that some Christians claim that the New Testament and the words of Christ replace the message of the Old Testament but I don't buy it. Christ himself takes his pedigree from the Old T., and comes to fulfill the prophecy. Historically, poor treatment of women has been if not encouraged by the Church, then certainly not discouraged.

We live in modern times and the message of the Christian God has been sweetened, IMHO. I can't help notice that the God who apparently sanctioned Isabella's inquisition is now our personal Jesus who loves everything we do. Every now and then the vicious and judgemental nature of religion reappears. In our country the dominant religion is Christianity and so it is against Christianity that we nonbelievers will apply our backlash.

As always this will be badly expressed by me and probably a waste of my time. You made me think, however.

[Midlodemocrat]

27. I believe that Jesus would have welcomed gay marriage.

There is nothing in scripture to support this, but I believe his tolerance and humane behavior speak volumes of his desire to have everyone live in a peaceful, loving world.

"Love one another as you love yourself"...no hatred there. The hatred comes from the uninformed 'Christians' who have only read the Old Testament. Think about it. How could one be a "Christian" and purport to worship Christ if they didn't follow his teachings and only followed the Old Testament?

Makes no sense at all to me.

:hi:

[crim son]

31. There are probably a fair number of Christians who have

never read the bible.

I grew up with a children's bible next to my bed and Jesus' words dear to my heart. But still, in my teenage years and later I wished to learn about others' beliefs, and I did. It was that experience, and a budding interest in history that slowly changed the way I thought about the bible and religion in general. It is so clear to me that people choose to believe what they wish, period, and I'd have no problem with this whatsoever if we could all agree to live in peace, according to our own beliefs but not foisting them on others.

Hi, Midlo! I appreciate your un-angry response :hi:

[blondeatlast]

35. Jesus was well aware of how difficult the pursuit of happiness can be.

My own feeling is that he would be happy to endorse anything that made that slow ride to the end easier!

[Duncan Grant]

46. That wasn't expressed badly.

You've summed up many of my own thoughts on this topic. Especially how individuals and cultures throughout time have used Christ (and the bible) to justify heinous acts.

I am annoyed by the cultural dominance of Christianity in America. My questions are: Why is it impermissible for me not to believe in it? - and - Why isn't my sex life and my immortal soul my business?

[crim son]

50. Well, I appreciate that.

And in response to your question, Christian persons on this thread would perhaps say, "I am not forcing you to believe anything." All well and good, but we rarely hear from the people who aren't eager to proselytize. These good people are not the ones who are attempting to ban abortions, regulate our sex lives and force our children to listen to Christian prayer in our secular schools. Unfortunately, the tolerant voices are soft voices.

[Duncan Grant]

72. I should distinguish between fundamentalists and liberal Christians.

Isn't it telling that fundamentalists condemn gays and liberal Christians?

I'm condemned as an abomination and liberal Christians simply don't know their bible (or so the fundies say...). Either way, the only people who have access to the 'kingdom' are those with the least generosity of spirit. Odd, that.

[SPKrazy]

59. Yeah, Why Isn't It Your Business

and mine, my business?

damned good questions that I bet no bible thumping fundie could ever give a rational explanation for!

:hi:

[Duncan Grant]

75. Could everyone please line up?

Southpawkicker and I have a few questions about your immortal soul (and your sex life). Don't be shy...

:hi:

[SPKrazy]

77. Yeah, Please Take A Number!

:rofl:

[SPKrazy]

53. No, It Isn't Badly Expressed

it's just a statement of fact. One cannot take the bible out of the context of history and not have it come out different.

(my opinion)

I, while profess to be a Christian, am probably more of an eclectic something or other that just believes that there is something greater than I am, and it is, and is in everything.

I find myself messed up when I try to apply the bible to my life. The whole idea that people have always used religion to one up others is really distasteful to me.

I think you expressed yourself well, but then I'm biased.
:hug:

[crim son]

56. If we agree, then you are biased!

I always feel compelled to jump in on discussions where few agree with me. Thanks for your support :hug:

[SPKrazy]

58. Of Course I'm Biased

but I also agree with you, seriously.

I live in the reddest part of a only recently turned blue state and I live around the reddest redneck bible thumping idiots there are!

You are spot on, I'm far from a literalist. In fact, I don't even know if Jesus did or didn't exist.

So, rock on crim son!

:hug:

[miss_american_pie]

5. ...

:applause:

[azmouse]

6. Thank you!

And God bless you.

[BarenakedLady]

7. "and even atheists"?

Ok, I know you didn't mean it the way that sounds.

But to everything else :thumbsup:

[Aristus]

8. You're right, I didn't mean it that way.

But the loudest condemnation seems to be coming from atheists, and not just people of other faiths. You see? It's like playing with fire.

[Az]

24. No worries

We can be a prickly and difficult to categorize group. You get a hug. :grouphug:

[LaurenG]

49. AZ!!

Geez, where have YOU been for over a year? Nice to see you again.

[Bzzzz]

81. I was just thinking the VERY same thing!!!

Nice to see you posting, AZ! :)

[Aristus]

68. Thanks, buddy.

B-) :hug:

[youthere]

128. AZ!!!

Where have you been?!! Would you be offended if I said I missed your prickly atheist ass?

[ghostsofgiants]

10. It's actually kind of ironic.

They act the same way toward Christianity that conservatives do toward Islam. (Which is what I was getting at with my "How can we stop Islam?" copycat last night.)

But none of it particularly surprises me, sadly.

[SOteric]

12. There are many of us at DU who are practising Christians.

Broad, sweeping generalisations about groups of people have a tendency to be wrong. It makes one look silly to engage in them; which can be a bonus depending upon whether you're the generaliser or the generalisee.

:hi:

[xmas74]

16. I stay out of them.

I'm a Christian and if I find a thread discussing or bashing Christianity I just stay away.

[Midlodemocrat]

112. So do I.

I don't like being told that I'm inferior intellectually because I am a person of faith.

[xmas74]

115. Thank you!

I don't throw my faith in anyone's face-most here probably don't know I'm even a Christian. And I don't like having my faith belittled nor would I ever belittle anyone else's faith, whether we agree or not.

I've learned that it's just easier to stay away.

[Taverner]

13. If I come across anti-christian I apologize

I have some serious chips on my shoulder with the fundies, and sometimes it comes out against all Christians.

I'm not Athiest, but if I were to identify my "faith" I would have to say Secular Humanist and proud.

[cwydro]

14. Hell, there's been a lot of hostility in the Lounge

Period.

[blondeatlast]

37. There ya go...

:thumbsup:

[Ariana Celeste]

44. Precisely.

:thumbsup:

[L A Woman]

15. Thank you....

My sentiments exactly!

[billyskank]

17. What do you mean, lately...?

;)

[Deja Q]

18. *is*, surely?

Christ was ressurected.

With luck, we'll be as lucky.

[buddhamama]

19. i am cool with Jesus

it is what people do in the name of Christianity that bothers me,
not the Faith itself.

[Kajsa]

20. Thank you, Aristus!

Thanks for stating so well what many of us feel.

I call the pseudo-Christians heretics, because they go
against what Christ stood for and taught us.

Thanks for speaking for us.

:hug:

[El Fuego]

21. I think we need a disclaimer:

"Christians" as used herein shall only refer to those Christians of the holy roller fundie variety who use their faith as a means to try to control others and bring them in line with an extreme conservative doctrine, especially when such is accomplished through political power bids intended to bring about a Taliban-like religious state.

[blondeatlast]

38. Christian*.

The distinction between most DU Christians and them is required, IMHO.

I'll continue to call myself a Christian with no footnote required. :rofl:

[skygazer]

22. Happens every Christmas

Mainly because of the fanatics out there who scream bloody murder that there's some sort of War on Christmas - even though the entire season is geared toward those who celebrate it.

My advice is not to take it personally because it's not meant to be personal. It's meant for exactly the types mentioned in your OP.

Using Ignore is similar to turning the other cheek, as they suggest in that book you folks like to quote from. Oh, and "even atheists" doesn't sound real inclusive.

[Blue-Jay]

23. Jesus is just alright with me.

His followers....not so much.

[Midlodemocrat]

25. Ghandi.

"I like your Christ, but I don't like your Christians".

[Blue-Jay]

26. Precisely.

I wish that more (note: I didn't say "all") Christians would pay more attention to Christ's teachings.

[Midlodemocrat]

29. Exactly how I feel. I'm embarrassed to say I worship the same

Lord as they do. They behavior is so hate filled, it certainly isn't Christ like at all.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

28. Really? Where?

You don't mean that YMCA Jesus thing, do you?

Because that's just plain bullshit.

[johnnie]

30. Everyone is heading in the same direction

It is just different beliefs that are taking us there.

[idgiehkt]

32. I'm sure the Christians you don't like consider themselves "real" Christians.

My parents are "real" Christians. They are also conservative and republican.

I think what you are referring to as hostility is really just freedom of speech, and I would hope that DU continues to allow freedom of speech to criticize all systems of government, of which religion and specifically Christianity is one.

[hfojvt]

41. criticism is not so hard to take

if there is some substance and explication involved.

But a simple negative statement like "Christianity is totally evil. It is responsible for almost all the problems in the world, and Christians are just weak, insecure, immature, or insane."

I'm not seeing alot of substance in the attacks. Simple name calling and sweeping generalizations.

I'm not sure if a Jim Bakker really thinks he is a Christian, but as for sincere conservative Christians, I do not see why we cannot reach them by pointing out the greed and dishonesty of elected Republicans rather than attacking their religion.

[idgiehkt]

45. I'm for debate, not censorship

people on all sides of the argument should feel free to express their thoughts and feelings as long as DU rules aren't violated.

[hfojvt]

47. there's no debate involved in simple name calling

and as far as the rules go

"When discussing race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion, or other highly-sensitive personal issues, please exercise the appropriate level of sensitivity toward others and take extra care to clearly express your point of view.

Do not post messages that are bigoted against (or grossly insensitive toward) any person or group of people based on their race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion, lack of religion, disability, physical characteristics, or region of residence."

So I can agree with you, but some of the threads do not follow that.

[WindRavenX]

39. this isn't directed at you...

...but it annoys the holy SHIT out of me (pardon the expression) when even liberal believers on DU troll science threads-- that's not cool.

Other than that, live and let live. :)

[blondeatlast]

40. So much toxic waste in GD it's bound to spillover to the Lounge

occasionally. I'm a Christian too and I've developed a thick skin as well as to learn from the torment many of my brothers and sisters have experienced from those who calim to share my faith.

[Connonym]

42. If it makes you feel any better there's a lot of hostility towards atheists CONSTANTLY

You want hostility? Tell people you don't believe in god. Then you'll know from hostility.

[BikeWriter]

43. Yeah, what's up with that?

:shrug:

[cwydro]

52. Yes, that is a good point

But it is still my favorite thing to say to Jehovah's Witnesses when they come to the door.B-) (no offense intended to Jehovah's Witnesses).

[WindRavenX]

54. thanks for pointing that out

Happens a lot, actually.

[mainegreen]

55. This is what drives me nuts:

If you as an atheist actively say religion X is wrong, you're being intolerant and judgmental but when they say your wrong it's missionary work and it's good.

:banghead:

[WritingIsMyReligion]

74. Exactly. Attack the beliefs.

Just don't attack the believer.

I can say that Christianity is a load of horseshit, just as a Christian can say that atheism is egotistial nonsense. I cannot call a Christian a numbskull, however, just as a Christian cannot call an atheist an egomaniac.

[Blue-Jay]

64. Oh, bullshit.

I'm an atheist, and I never experienced hostility from the "faithful". Then again, I tend to avoid conversations about religion with all you Jesus-freaks.

/Do you see what I did there? :D

[bertha katzenengel]

80. Whine.

Let's see: How many more Christians are there on earth than atheists? I guess no one knows for sure. But I'm willing to bet real money that there are more Christians, whether followers of Christ or Christians in-name-only.

Common sense indicates that if there were a getting-pissed-on contest, Christians would beat atheists hands down.

But why make it a bloody contest?! :eyes:

Signed,

Atheist & former fundamentalist evangelical Christian

[WritingIsMyReligion]

84. Except in America, where Christians are the 80% majority and in no danger of being oppressed. (nt)

[L A Woman]

161. In the real world, yes, but on this board it's hostility toward Christians...

and that's something people on this board can immediately fix. The real world might take a little longer. :-)

[AirmensMom]

57. Lately?

And just in the Lounge? :wow:

I've had the impression for several months that DU in general is hostile towards Jesus and Christians. It's not just "discussion" or "freedom of speech." Christians are labeled as stupid, uniformed, and gullible. And it's acceptable on DU to mock Jesus, which shows blatant disrespect towards believers. We should be able to come here and not feel attacked for our beliefs, but I'm not holding out much hope for that.

[WritingIsMyReligion]

76. I think it's fine to mock the beliefs of others, or at least criticize them.

(Certainly childish mocking like what many of us, myself included, tend to do is moronic.)

What we shouldn't do is attack the believer for believing. Saying "I think Christianity is a fairy tale no different from Santa Claus" isn't evil or wicked, it's expressing an opinion about a subject, perfectly within one's rights. Saying "I think Christians are gullible morons for believing a fairy tale" is not so hot.

[speedoo]

82. I don't think it's fine to mock the beliefs of others. Not at all.

Some religious people hold their beliefs so closely that they take offense when their beliefs are mocked. So if you mock their beliefs you mock them.

I personally have no problem with the Christianity/Santa Claus example you used, but I don't really consider that mocking. Mocking usually implies hurtfulness, whether intended or not.

[WritingIsMyReligion]

83. You mean mocking would be like "Christianity is a piss-poor child's

religion, created by an asshole with no actual moral values and perpetuated to subdue the ignorant masses"?

Yeah, that is a little strong, and guaranteed to raise eyebrows. Perhaps I should have been clearer: constructive criticism is always good. Expressing an opinion is always good. The way in which you choose to do those things is what matters.

As to the people who take dire offense when their beliefs are mocked, I must politely ask that they either grow a skin that is a bit thicker, or learn to filter out the unwanted words. Certainly getting angry is all right. But unless the criticism is true mocking, entirely unwarranted, people generally need to learn to deal with opposition.

[speedoo]

88. Do you deliberately make statements designed to anger people?

And try to get away with it by citing them as examples?

Because, if you are, it's no way to get people to listen to you.

[WritingIsMyReligion]

90. Nooo....

Do you overanalyze things and then rapidly judge people?

[speedoo]

92. Nope.

You've had quite a bit to say here, and frankly I'm way too confused by what you've said to judge you.

Which is why I asked the question.

[Evoman]

95. So can we mock Fundies? Can we mock Republicans?

Both of these people have beliefs. I'm sure many Bush followers hold beliefs so closely that they take offense when their beliefs are mocked. Yet we criticize them anyways.

I can criticize whatever I want, wherever I want, thank you very much. I think Christianity is dumb. I think believing that anybody could be resurrected after 3 days is idiotic.

The thing is, I don't think you are an idiot and I don't think you are dumb. I'm sure I also hold some thoughts that are dumb and unrealistic...that doesn't make me a moron either. The thing is, you not only think we should respect you (which I do) but also your religion (which I do not). And I can't. And I won't keep my mouth shut, just as I won't keep my mouth shut around repugs.

If that offends you, I'm sorry. But the world, and discussion boards, are not a place you can avoid criticism and offense. In fact, I would go so far as to say that Christians who say that other Christians are not "true christians" offends me, but you liberal christians do it all the time. If they aren't true christians...what are they? Atheists?

The thing is, if you offend me, I will let you know. If you get into an argument with me, I'm not afraid to get into it. But I will never, ever expect you to keep your mouth shut about what you believe or about your opinions. Because while beliefs do not necessarily deserve respect, people do...and part of giving respect, is letting other people mock or criticize what they want.

[hfojvt]

106. What is your purpose at DU?

It is possible that keeping silent about some things might help those purposes.

Also, I doubt the usefulness of disrespect. You say that not all beliefs deserve respect, but you cannot disrespect a belief without disrespecting the person holding it. To say that "this is idiotic" does not prove anything except your lack of respect. For example if somebody writes that "the Reagan tax cuts increased Federal Revenue" I do not prove them wrong by saying "that's idiotic". So an answer like that is not really an argument. Yes, you are stating your opinion, but it is a naked opinion, without either evidence or logic to back it up. Present the evidence and leave out the arrogant editorializing, or simply say 'I don't believe it' and ask them to show their evidence.

Just for example, I used the unnecessary word 'arrogant' in my last sentence. "That's wrong" is a factual statement, and even that should be backed up by evidence. "That's idiotic" is a value judgement, which is probably impossible to prove. You can prove it's wrong, but proving the value judgement 'idiotic' would require an agreed upon standard which does not exist.

In particular for you to talk that way about a distant historical event, or presumed historical event, you are assuming far more knowledge than you have, not only about history, but about life and death.

[speedoo]

107. Thank you for that post.

That's easily the most intelligent and helpful comment in this thread.

[hfojvt]

108. aw shucks. It's nice of you to say so

I know it's only a value judgement rather than a factual statement, but most people don't ask for solid proof of the things they want to believe. Nice opinions are more likely to win friends and influence people than offensive ones and even facts can be presented with honey or water instead of vinegar. A spoonful of sugar helps the medicine of admitting an error go down.

[billyskank]

110. Yeah, it's fine if you have no respect for them whatsoever

which clearly you do not. Glad to know that before I got burned.

I will make sure I never discuss religion with you. :grr:

[AirmensMom]

111. No, it's not fine to mock the beliefs of others.

Neither is it necessary. It's disrespectful and immature, and accomplishes nothing except to alienate people.

For some reason, it seems to be important for a few people here to try to convince believers that there is no God, but it's a wasted effort at best. At its worst, which I have also seen here, people call Christians evil or wicked, or even gullible morons. Jesus is mocked as "Jeebus", which has no purpose except to offend.

What we do agree on is that we shouldn't attack the believer for believing. Yet, ridiculing those beliefs is doing exactly that.

[Midlodemocrat]

117. I disagree. Mocking is belittling and serves no purpose.

Some opinions are better left unexpressed. A person of faith isn't going to be turned into an non-believer due to something that a non-believer says.

It's like telling someone you despise their new couch. They aren't interested in your actual 'opinion', most likely they are interested in your approval.

Things that I don't believe in, even here on DU, I tend to keep to myself so as not to upset people. I think it's only civilized.

[RetroLounge]

60. We're all atheists. I just happen to believe in one less god than you.

:shrug:

RL

[cwydro]

63. That is a very intriguing way to put it.

[speedoo]

93. What's your definition of atheism?

Isn't is something like: "Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods." ?

Unless you have a very different definition, how can you say we are all atheists? Clearly, some of us believe in a god.

[RetroLounge]

96. Clearly you do.

Where did I say you didn't?

(The quote is not mine, by the way.)

and clearly you miss the point of the quote...

RL

[speedoo]

99. Yes, I miss the point of the quote.

So why not explain it to me, since I clearly have a problem with it? And whose words are they?

[SteppingRazor]

120. The quote's part of an argument that goes like this:

Atheist: Well, do you believe in Thor? Zeus?

Believer: Of course not. I believe in only one God.

Atheist: Well then, I submit that we are all atheists. I just believe in one less god than you.

[deucemagnet]

123. Here's the whole quote:

“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” -- Stephen F Roberts

If the Christians on this board will examine the reasons why they don't believe in the Roman pantheon or the Aztec sun god, they'll probably come up with the same reasons why we don't believe in a Christian god.

[RetroLounge]

132. ...

"When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours"

RL

[speedoo]

134. Thank you.

And since you were responding to the OP, can you tell me why you think this is relevant to what was said in the OP?

[RetroLounge]

135. It's relevent because I BELIEVE it is.

are you mocking my beliefs?

:shrug:

RL

[speedoo]

136. No I am not mocking your beliefs.

I don't know what your beliefs are, although if I had to guess I would guess you are an atheist, based on the quote.

I am simply saying that I do not see how that quote is relevant to the OP, which was an appeal to stop the hostility to Jesus and Christians that he sees around here.

So, I ask you: why do you BELIEVE your post was relevant to the OP?

[RetroLounge]

138. Why do you care?

are you looking for an argument?

RL

[speedoo]

139. No. Are you?

Is it wrong to ask a poster to explain his post?

I am trying to figure out where people are coming from. Do you have a problem with that?

Anyway, you evidently aren't going to explain why you posted that quote, so I guess I'll just have to make an assumption.

[RetroLounge]

144. You already made many assumptions

why would you stop now?

RL

[speedoo]

146. Did I really?

Like what?

[RetroLounge]

147. You do not care why I posted the quote.

You just want another reason to argue about your poor put-upon majority religion.

:yawn:

:eyes:

RL

[speedoo]

149. Right.

Talk about assumptions.

What a waste of time this has been.

on edit... well not a complete waste of time, in that I don't have to assume anything about you.

[uppityperson]

66. I hate fundamentalists. That is all.

ooo, hyenas calling

[Skittles]

69. suck it up

it is nothing compared to what agnostics and atheists have to put up with all their lives

[dysfunctional press]

70. that would make a great band name...

jesus and the christians.

[WritingIsMyReligion]

73. Jeebus told me, this I know...

:P

Okay, all hostility aside: I'll make it plain that I dislike organized religion of any stripe intensely, and fundie OR even more so. However, I don't wish to belittle the people who believe--just the beliefs, which I believe are nonsensical. People can believe, or not believe, whatever they want, and people can criticize beliefs (or non-beliefs) all the time. Where I think we should all draw the line is at attacking the person believing.

:hi:

[trof]

78. And well deserved is what I say.

Or maybe not.
It's hard to know.
;-)

[blondeatlast]

89. You are correct on both counts, my friend.

:rofl:

[leftofthedial]

79. Hostility toward Jeebiz? You gotta be kidding!

With hiS birthday coming up and everything?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

85. theres a lot of hostility period, you should see the mocking of the gays here, atleast IRL

christians are not legally discriminated against.

that said, i apologized to speedoo today about laughing at the YMCA thing...and if that was offensive to anyone i apologize again

[tinfoil tiaras]

86. A-friggen-Men!

Not all Christians are like Fallwell and Haggard and that messed up bunch. I call them "Christians", because they are not Christians by my defenition of the word.

I'm Christian and I'm very liberal and I'm proud! :woohoo:

[jobycom]

87. Hostility towards any group is bigotry.

Southerners, Christians, atheists, Jews, Muslims, blacks, whites, Eagles fans... It's all the same hatred, just a different name.

[Evoman]

98. Republicans?

Is hostility towards racists bigotry? No.

Christians confuse hostility towards chrisitianity with hostiliy towards christian PEOPLE. And they aren't the same. I think Christianity is stupid, and non-sensical. That doesn't mean that I am necessarily hostile to people who ARE Christian. Hey, I have a Fundie friend that is like a brother to me, after all. Doesn't mean I can't tell him hes full of shit every now and then.

[jobycom]

109. Yes

If you don't respect a Christian's core beliefs, then you are saying they are too stupid to be as logical as you. That's exactly what bigotry is. And yes, that's true of Republicans as well. Arguing with them over their beliefs is one thing, saying you don't have the same beliefs as them is one thing, but saying their beliefs are "stupid, and non-sensical" is bigotry. Everyone believes that the group they are bigotted against deserves their hatred. That's why we can't get rid of it.

As for the response "I don't hate Fundies, some of my best friends are Fundies..." Gee, I heard a variation of that one growing up in the South.

[SteppingRazor]

122. Well, here's where I see a difference.

Your race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. are all things that you are born with. They are all things that you cannot change.

Your religion and political beliefs, however, are formulated later in life. They are based on your own assumptions and opinions.

If there's a whole group of people that believe something utterly outlandish -- the Flat Earth Society, for example -- are you saying that calling them on their beliefs, saying that their stupid, nonsensical ideas are, in fact, stupid and nonsensical is bigotry? I couldn't disagree more with that. Honest criticism of bad ideas is not bigotry.

[jobycom]

125. What if it's discovered that sexual orientation is not genetic?

What if it's discovered that it is choice? Is that then justification for homophobia?

And religion: there are some studies which suggest that people are hard-wired for fundamentalist beliefs from birth, that it's just a matter of luck which fundie belief they come up with. If that's true, is it still okay to be hostile towards them?

Honest criticism of bad ideas is not bigotry. Hostility (the word I used in the post that started this branch) towards a group for their beliefs is.

[SteppingRazor]

126. If hostility toward a group for its beliefs is bigotry...

then bigotry ceases to have a negative connotation. If that's what you're getting at, then OK. I'm just pointing it out.

For example, I am hostile to anyone who admires or adopts the tenets of nazism. Purely based on their accepted beliefs, I am left with an immediate reaction of hostility.

That, therefore, makes me bigoted toward Nazis. Now, if that's how you want to couch the term, then OK. But bigotry generally carries a negative connotation, does it not? So, since I'm bigoted toward Nazis, does that make me a bad person?

[jobycom]

129. Logical fallacies

First, your first assertion doesn't follow from anything. Hostility towards a group is bigotry, whether that hostility is caused by beliefs or race or orientation. There is no logical leap to conclude that "bigotry ceases to have a negative connotation" from what you say. I can reject a group's beliefs, even point out where those beliefs have logical shortcomings, or are disproven scientifically, or whatever, without showing hostility to the group that holds those beliefs.

Second, beliefs and actions (or desire for action) are not the same thing. Nazis are defined more by what they want to do than by their beliefs. I live around a lot of people who believe, usually subconsciously but not always, that whites are superior to non-whites. I disapprove of this belief in them, but I am not hostile to them. Those who make those beliefs part of an active campaign to harm someone, whether physically or by restricting their rights) are different. They choose to use their beliefs to harm others. It's that choice, and those actions, that evokes a hostile reaction, not their beliefs.

As a counterpoint--there are people who set up hospitals or other assistance in Africa, sacrifice their time, money, career, even life, to try to make the lives of other people better. Some of them do belief that they are superior because they are white, that Africans are held down because they are an inferior race. Some of them even volunteer to help people in Africa because they believe they are inferior (the old "white man's burden" syndrome. Should I show hostility to these people, who have essentially the same beliefs as Nazis? Or should I choose to disapprove of their beliefs, without hostility towards the people who hold the beliefs? My hostility towards a Nazi with the same beliefs is because of that person's actions--their choice to use their beliefs to hurt rather than help.

Hostility to Christians for their beliefs is no different. I don't hold the same beliefs as them. But I can belief differently without feeling the need to insult them or their beliefs in a hostile manner (for instance, shouting "God is make believe!" every time a discussion of religion comes up). Many, perhaps most Christians (like Muslims, Buddhists, Jews, etc) use their beliefs to try to become better people. Mother Teresa, Jimmy Carter, Martin Luther King, etc. Some use their beliefs to justify their hatred (Falwell, Robertson, Graham, etc). I disapprove of this group for its actions, or desired actions--for the choice they make on how to use their beliefs.

But that disapproval does not justify me insulting everyone who has the same basic beliefs. When someone shouts "God is make believe!" they not only insult Falwell, but they insult King and Carter and Mother Teresa.

As for hostility--I think hostility is always a bad thing. Forgiveness, tolerance, understanding, are all better character traits. I can't claim to be very good in that department. :) But it's what I believe. Don't hate me for what I believe.

[mduffy31]

97. .....

:popcorn:

[Starbucks Anarchist]

100. Thank you for speaking out, Aristus.

I'm an atheist (or an agnostic on good days ;)), and I disagree with mocking someone's deep-seated beliefs if they are causing no harm to anyone else.

That's why I hate idiots like Falwell, Robertson, etc. -- because I know they totally misinterpret and abuse the words and message of Jesus -- basically, the same reason I hate fundamentalists of any stripe.

People need to understand that there are millions of good, tolerant, loving Christians (and Muslims, Jews, etc.) out there, and that mocking them will only alienate them. Instead, we should put aside our differences regarding the nature of the cosmos and try to work together to achieve something meaningful on this earth as well.

[Floogeldy]

101. Jesus is different from the "Christians."

;)

[Lydia Leftcoast]

102. What bugs me are the people who jump into any thread that has

anything to do with religion and start in with their "fairy tales--source of all evil--shove it down my throat (the king of atheist cliches, it seems)--pink leprechauns" shtick, whether it's relevant to the thread or not. It's especially annoying when the taunting is based on ignorance, such as the assertion that clergy don't have to pay income taxes on their salaries (they do, actually), or when one of the advocates of atheism currently on the bestseller lists (was it Dawkins or the other guy?) asserted that more than half of all Americans believe that the earth is only 6,000 years old, an unwarranted extrapolation from the more likely situation, namely more than half of all Americans believing that God had some unspecified role in creating the world.

I've learned that the snarky athesits are as predictable as the people who become obnoxious on other controversial topics. A thread starts, you wait for them to show up, and sure enough, they do.

I sometimes think that they're doing this taunting to get the theists riled up so that they can then claim that the theists are intolerant or overly sensitive.

Not all atheists are like this. There are those who argue rationally and with courtesy and never cross over into that nya-nya-nya-nya-nya attitude.

If there's been any persecution of atheists on this board, I haven't seen it. I've seen claims of persecution in the larger world, undoubtedly true, but it's as if atheists consider DU a safe place for taking out their frustrations, whether the theists here deserve it or not. However, that's like coming home and kicking your cat because someone at work was nasty to you.

[speedoo]

103. Thank you for that.

While it's difficult to understand the hostility from the atheists here, it's at least helpful to know what's going on.

[Evoman]

105. I haven't much persecution of atheists on DU either.

But neither has there been any persecution of Christians. I frankly can't see why people feed the need to start these whiny type of threads. Because one or two posts offend you? Thats not a trend. There is no persecution of christians here. We laugh at a picture of Jesus doing the YMCA, and that offends so much you have to start a new thread? Give me a break. I have seen three or four threads where people have argued that we should actually PURGE atheists from the dem party...and frankly, it made me a little sick. I almost left after reading some of those threads. But I never started a whiny thread demanding people stop offending me.

Any single post on DU about abrasive atheists can be turned right back on Christians. Its the same shit...its just people can't see their own shit. Take this post, for example...I bet you there will be any number of Christians who will agree with you, and blame Atheists for "being offensive". And then in the next breath they will tell you that "atheists are angry" or "atheists have no morality" or that "atheists should keep quite, so they don't scare away christian voters", etc. BMUS used to post things in her signature that DU "LIBERAL" Christians have said about Atheists....and they are terrible.

But do you see me starting a post whining about how we are treated? No.

So enough with the whining. It offends me.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

114. I wasn't offended at the "YMCA" thread

God is big enough to take it, and I think the Christian posters who were offended by it need to lighten up. They've obviously never seen the Monty Python-type satire that divinity school students are capable of turning out.

Nor do I believe that "atheists have no morality" or "should be purged." And I believe that many have the right to be angry.

As for whiny threads...well, let's just say that there is a certain forum I have looked at but respect the exclusivity of.

Still, there is argument and there is snarkiness, and the religion threads are one example of a topic that seems to attract pointless and irrelevant flamebait from the same people over and over. (The other, if you haven't guessed are guns, I/P, and the DLC.)

[GirlinContempt]

113. I've never understood this attitude of

"Someone else did this to me and I didn't like it, so I'm going to do it to someone different now. And it's justified because someone else did it to ME!"

[crim son]

127. If you are referring to me, I will explain myself.

When I was a Christian, I was criticized harshly for not being Christian "enough". Of course I was hurt and angry, but the comment made me think about religion in general and Christianity, specifically. It made me think about the judgement implicit in many organized religions. It made me think about how the criticism was leveled at me by somebody who believed that she had both a moral right and obligation to tell me where I failed. And it made me realize that I could no longer belong to a group which, in large part, makes claims about itself which are simply not true. I call myself an agnostic because I don't know. Either does anybody else, for that matter.

[GirlinContempt]

169. Why would you think that I was

and nothing you've said there explains anything about what I was saying, maybe because I didn't read any original comments you're defending.

[crim son]

170. Good.

I always read the whole thread if I'm going to post an opinion. If you had read my comments, you'd be able to guess why I thought you might be referring to me. Because you were not I will now sleep more soundly.

[GirlinContempt]

171. I don't.

I read the whole OP. If I'm replying to a sub thread, I'll read the sub thread. But there's no reason to read every persons opinion to know what my opinion is. I read most, yours didn't stick out.

[yurbud]

104. I won't get mad at Jesus if he doesn't turn on his leaf blower before 8. I'm still trying to sleep!

[swimboy]

118. Thanks, Aristus, for this appeal.

:thumbsup:

[zanne]

119. What should we call you?

I'm not being a smartass; it's an honest question. The Jerry Fallwells, etc. call themselves Christians. How do we differentiate between you and the Loony tunes out there? When I hear the word "Christian" these days, what pops into my mind is negative. What is a positive word we can call you?

[Midlodemocrat]

121. I agree with you. It's hard to be a 'Christian' and not get lumped in

with the fundamentalist whack jobs.

I prefer to call myself 'Christ-like', because I am trying to live my life to emulate him.

[blondeatlast]

145. As I mention above, call us Christians, as we try to follow our

prophet's teachings.

Call them, perhaps, Christians*.

*So-called followers of Jesus who have not read the entire Book of Matthew whereChrist asks his followers to beware the money-lenders and to pray in the closet, not on the streetcorner.

A great many of the Christians* I haveencountered are barely familiar with Matthew. they seem to have never learned the admonishment to avoid praying publicly.

My Christian* brethren piss me off way more than any atheist or agnostic I've ever encountered. I would never presume to be free of hypocrisy but I strive not to make it an unconconsious habit, I'll say that much.

The astersik works well when referring to *, after all.

[NewWaveChick1981]

124. Fundies and other assorted idiots have abused the "Christian" designation horribly...

:hug: I think Jesus would be mortified at the terrible things done in his name. I do believe Jesus fits the definition of a liberal, doesn't he???

And although I'm an agnostic, if you look at the definition of what it means to be "Christian", I fit the definition a whole lot better than those holier-than-thou creeps. I'm compassionate, caring, and nonjudgmental--none of which are characteristics of today's fundies.

[Aristus]

164. Jesus was DEFINITELY a Liberal. If He was not, when the mob brought

the adulteress before Him, He would have picked up a rock and said: "I'LL cast the first stone!" That's what a law-and-order conservative would have done...

Instead, from His liberal heart He rebuked them and said "So what? So she sinned? What makes YOU so high and mighty anyway, hot-shot? Think you're so holy? Go ahead: cast the first stone." And the 1st Century Israel versions of freepers slunk away...

Then, because liberal does not mean 'permissive', He told her: "Don't do it again".

One thing I love about Jesus is, whether you believe he was divine or not, his message is the same: Love one another. That's it; just love one another.

[youthere]

130. Without getting too far "into it" (this is the LOUNGE afterall)...

1. Any "hostility" in the lounge (or any other forum for that matter) that is directed at Christians, I feel is (quite honestly) deserved. I'm pissed at what Christianity has become myself. I hate the fact those assholes have hijacked it, and I'm even more pissed at liberal Christians (myself included) for LETTING them hijack it. We can't just say "Oh we're not like that" or "don't be angry with US". When they are screaming their asses off about Christianity is under "attack" and bullshit like that, we need to be screaming even louder that it ISN'T. We sit and point our fingers of blame at the Falwells and the Haggards..we wring our hands and say "isn't that a shame" instead of actually DOING something. The liberal Christian church has been (for the most part)bystanders..so I feel a little criticism is more than earned on our part. If we don't want to be painted with the same brush as "them" (the Falwells and the Dobsons) then we'd better stop letting them be the voice of Christianity. It's that whole "hiding our light under a bushel" thing.

2. Hostility is part and parcel of DU..get used to it. You have a lot of diverse and passionate people here. If criticism of Christianity is likely to offend you then don't click on those threads or alert a moderator on the offending posts. On any given day there is hostility towards atheists, vegans, homosexuals, gun rights activists, John Edwards supporters, Iowans, cat owners, and even those who use cornflakes to fry chicken. What makes you think that Christianity should be immune? Turn the other cheek and all, you know. And for the the record, I rarely see posts from ANY of those groups asking DU to "lay off" (I'm not saying they don't exist..I'm just saying that I don't see them often.) I see posts like this in various forums on a regular basis.

I don't mean any of this in an offensive manner and if I come off that way, then I sincerely apologize. My anger and impatience are directed at liberal Christians as a whole..not you individually..you just happened to author the thread that "set me off". :hi:

[Lydia Leftcoast]

133. However, there's a whole thread in R&T about how horrible Jim Wallis is

for doing just what you suggest in #1.

As one of my grandmother's old country sayings put it, "If you want to beat a dog, you can always find a stick."

[youthere]

162. Very true..

you can always count on grandma for great wisdom.

[Aristus]

165. I'm not offended. Either by your reply, or by the threads I was calling out

as hostile. I'm not one of those reflexively irate "Christians" who can't wait for people to offend him so he can launch into some pre-digested screed about what he laughingly calls his faith.

I was concerned about the level of hostility coming from people whom I though knew better. That they knew that the sanctimonious lets-all-get-rich-and-go-to-Heaven assholes are NOT Christians.

But I suppose you have a point that we liberal Christians have not done enough to erode the belief that the FalwellRobertsonDobsonHaggard asshats are real Christians.

But we're doing what we can. Every peace rally and anti-war march I've attended has included hundreds of Christians from dozens of churches. And Jimmy Carter, God Bless him, is providing the best known example, every time he appears in public; he doesn't beat his chest and tell weepy stories a la George W. Bush about how "Jeezus saved m'life!". He just lives his faith every day. Living for and loving his fellow man.

[youthere]

166. You can't let it get to you..

I'd say 99.9999% of those people DO know that the christo-fascists are anything BUT Christians..but the constant bleating from the right just wears people down after awhile-myself included-and they just need to vent. There is anger at the right wing religious head cases for their intolerance and hypocrisy, and frustration with christian left for not doing more to stop it..so I guess it's only natural a few rants are forthcoming.
All we can do is keep fighting by living our faith large and loud. Every time one of those assholes speak, TEN of us need to speak louder, and I believe that it will change.
Hands and feet of Christ, brother...hands and feet.

[NNadir]

131. I think that at least several occasions I may have been guilty of this.

If so, I am wrong, and I apologize to you Aristus, and other Christians, recognizing that you are a very fine person, as are many Christians.

My parents were devoted and good Christians, and so is my stepmother. They are all fine people. I have other Christian relatives I'd rather not discuss. They use their "christianity" like a bludgeon, but that has no effect whatsoever on my love for my stepmother. In fact one of the things I love about my stepmother is that she makes her Christian principles part of her life. She is all about kindness and forgiveness and generosity.

Sometimes we atheists are angry at how we're treated. A former President of the United States went so far as to say we shouldn't be regarded as citizens. But surely that President was not speaking for all Christians. We have many Christians at DU who embrace the Christian principles that have played a positive role in Western culture.

Again, if I am to blame, I apologize.

[ThomCat]

137. I think many christians imagine far more hostility than there

really is.

[speedoo]

140. Thom, it takes no imagination whatsoever to see the hostility in this thread.

Let me know if you need help seeing it.

[ThomCat]

142. I hope we can agree to disagree on this.

I see it being much like white people complaining about "reverse discrimination." It's hard to take seriously when professing Christian beliefs is a requirement for political office and even many high corporate positions. When Christians dominate all aspects of our government, our culture, and our society how persecuted could they really be?

Jews and Muslims are far more persecuted. Known athiests are persecuted even more. Christians are at the top of the hill complaining that they're not high enough.

[speedoo]

148. I don't know.

Frankly, I have not given any of that a lot of thought. I'll just say, that as a Christian, I certainly do not feel like I have a lot of domination over Jews, Muslims and atheists. None, actually.

But I hope you are not saying that you believe this dominance you speak of justifies the hostility in this thread, in response to an OP that appealed for less hostility toward Jesus and Christians.

[ThomCat]

150. I can agree, to an extent

that hostility should be left out of it, to the same extent that hostility should be left out of any discussion.

But a lot of what's done in the name of christianity is worthy of hostile responses. The reach and scope of Christian influence warrants some hostility. You can't fight something while being scrupulously polite, especially when most Christians have not been so polite to non-christians. (Yes, there are some exceptional Christians, but that doesn't counter, negate, or forgive the rest.)

The larger problem is that many Christians think that ANY comment that isn't praising Christianity is an attack. They go on the offensive, and then the discussions escalate in hostility. So who started the hostility in those cases?

Christianity, like everything else we discuss, needs to be able to stand up to some level of scrutiny and criticism with something of a thick skin.

[speedoo]

151. I can agree with some of that.

But not this:

"You can't fight something while being scrupulously polite, especially when most Christians have not been so polite to non-christians."

How can you say "most Christians have not been so polite to non-christians"? It's impossible to quantify. Certainly that has not been my experience.

and...

"The larger problem is that many Christians think that ANY comment that isn't praising Christianity is an attack. They go on the offensive, and then the discussions escalate in hostility. So who started the hostility in those cases?"

Again, this has not been my experience and I believe you are exagerrating. Frankly I can't think of a single instance that I have seen, like this in recent years, if ever. But maybe I am not listening to enough RW radio or watching enough Fox News. Certainly in this thread, the hostility (all of it, unless I am mistaken) is coming from the non-Christians.

[ThomCat]

153. "most Christians have not been so polite to non-christians"

Very few Christians stand up to bigotry against Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, and people of other faiths. They might personally think it's wrong, but they don't stop others. Silence is a form of support.

People who do actively hate other faiths are allowed by christians to be the spokespeople, with huge audiences supporting them. Some Christians may not support those hate-filled messages, but if there was ever a fight for the voice of Christianity then the hate-filled people won.

Politicians have said such things as "I don't know that atheists should be considered patriots, nor should they be considered citizens. This is, after all, one nation under God." Other's insist loudly that this is a Christian nation, and that Christianity should be privileged in our society and our government. And statements like these get little attention, and these politicians keep getting elected by Christians.

Church leaders make political pronouncements all the time that are hateful to various other groups, and their congregations never seem to speak up in protest of that hate. Yet anyone who criticizes those church leaders is open to charges of attacking that church and hating that religion.

Violence against non-christians is not a rare thing. Attacks and vandalism are in the news fairly frequently. Muslims and Sikhs have been especially hard hit in the past 6 years.

In opinion surveys, large portions of the population consistently say that they don't trust atheists, would not vote for an atheist, and don't think that atheists are as honest or moral as Christians.

When you see all of this, it's very easy to think that the majority of Christians are not so polite to non-Christians. At the very best, those Christians are turning a blind eye to a lot of hatred that comes from within their ranks.

[speedoo]

155. Aren't you basing some harsh conclusions and judgements on the "Christian majority" arguement?

I would have expected a much stronger basis for such harsh judgements.

And why does any of that justify the hostility in this thread?

[ThomCat]

156. I don't see the hostility you keep referring to.

:shrug:

How much stronger an argument does someone need to have a legitimate grievance against Christianity? If that same level of hatred and violence was aimed at Christians then Christians would truly know hostility is.

It sounds like a double standard. On one side seeing hostility at any slight commment aimed at Christianity, and on the other side, not seeing the vastly larger, more powerful, and organized hostility and violence that is aimed outward from within Christinianity.

Nobody has presented even a fraction as much basis for the belief that Christians are harrassed or persecuted.

[speedoo]

157. It's not my business to set standards for making judgements.

I am only saying that I am surprised to see a reasonable person like you making such strong judgements on arguments that don't appear to be very strong to me.

You seem to be saying:

1. There is much oppression and hostility against Jews, Muslims and atheists. (I'll acknowledge that, but I wonder why you don't list all the major non-Christian folks. Buddhists, for example.)

2. No one effectively does anything about this. Since Christians are the majority religion, they are most to blame. (I say this is a very weak argumant and I don't accept it.)

And I do not see a basis for you saying: "the vastly larger, more powerful, and organized hostility and violence that is aimed outward from within Christinianity."

If you don't see the anti-Christian hostility in this thread, you have not read it closely enough. I would prefer not to have to re-read the hostile posts in order to point them out to you.

[ThomCat]

158. Some corrections

1. I can't list every religion so I listed the ones that are most condemned, and then used a blanked "and others" to cover the rest.

2. I didn't say that Christians are to blame because they are the majority. I said that Christians are to blame because the attacks come from Christians, on the basis of their Christianity, and other Christians stand by and allow it.

If you don't see the basis for saying "the vastly larger, more powerful, and organized hostility and violence that is aimed outwards from within Christianity" then it's because it's never been aimed at you, and you're aren't looking for it. I consider that so obvious that it defies imagination that it's even in question. Seriously. It boggles the mind that anyone doesn't see the hostility that comes out of the overall Christian communities aimed at everyone else.

I have read this thread closely, several times, and I don't see the hostility. I see Christians being defensive.

[speedoo]

160. Well, I guess it's time to end this mini-thread.

Except that I must say if you don't see the anti-Christian hostility in this thread, in the context of the OP appealing for less hostility, then I am sorry, but I don't think you and I have anything more to say to one another in this area.

[blondeatlast]

152. Must agree to your allusion to "reverse discrimination."

If I'm ever insulted regarding my faith, I tend to shrug it off because I know that my beliefs endure and my chosen religion will manage any challenge out of sheer power in both numbers and (sadly) how it permeates Western culture. I'm married to a man who is both of another race, born in another country and was raised in another religion (he has since disavowed entirely).

I've HAD to be tolerant and to toughen my hide.

OTOH, I am a devoted defender of the strict separation of the church and the government (I look at the assimilation of the "free" press and the current administration as a most horrifying example!). I don't want them peeking their increasingly voyeuristic noses into my religious practice any more than I want my practices foisted upon you.

[ThomCat]

154. That must have been a bit painful

and definitely a learning experience, being with someone of a different race, nationality and religion.

There's a lot to learn on both sides of that relationship.

[Connonym]

163. Exactly

"It's hard to take seriously when professing Christian beliefs is a requirement for political office and even many high corporate positions. When Christians dominate all aspects of our government, our culture, and our society how persecuted could they really be?"

I think I was the one guilty of bringing atheism into this thread. Hostility on my part? I don't know, I think it's more frustration and defensiveness than anything. Xtians already control the playing field, what more do you want? All these imaginary slights and wars against Christmas. Do you have any idea how ridiculous and paranoid that sounds? I don't want to convert you or recruit your children. I don't really give a damn what you believe. Why can't you offer me the same consideration? Why does my lack of faith threaten you so much?

So please, offer up your condescending prayers for my soul. I'd reciprocate with the offer to sacrifice a goat (or maybe some al dente linguine) for your soul but you'd probably think I was mocking you.

[blondeatlast]

141. Indeed they do--and I AM Christian. My sense of humor and faith are sturdy enough

to take it in stride (most of the time. I hiccuped yesterday, I will admit).

Geez, a forum with as many smart, savvy, funny people as DU and some people want us to walk on glass for them? I don't think so!

[Phillycat]

167. Yikes.

I don't really have a dog in this fight, but I think the same thing could be said of the rather militant gay/lesbian conversations that you are often a part of. If you tell me it's offensive to you, I try to take it into consideration, even if I'm not seeing it. Shouldn't you take the same tack?

[Bake]

143. Amen. And amen.

Bake

[jarab]

159. You've authored an excellent thread, Aristus. Congrats! n/t

...O...

[gfindu]

168. Excellent discussion

I for one believe in a God.

[UrbScotty]

172. Jesus never denounced abortion.

Now he did say "blessed are the peacemakers."