RE: Question on Christian post??? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

darkinshadows -> RE: Question on Christian post??? (12/4/2005 4:31:20 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FelinePersuasion

On jackass last night there was a guy who dressed up as a devil and had a sign that said keep god out of California, well one guy walking buy got so upset said what the fuck you think you're doing broke the sign in half over his knee shoved and smacked the guy with the signseveral times all the time shouting obsenities and saying get the hell out of my sight.


Shesh lol talk about flying off the handle



Well Jackass is stupid and watching it shows lack of imagination anyway, but thats beside the point.

Lets dress up as a nazi officer and have a sign that says 'keep jews out of california'
Lets dress up as the KKK and have a sign that says 'keep blacks out of california'
Lets dress up as Bush and have a sign that says 'keep anyone 'cept americans out of america'

I would Love to see the response from most americans at some anti-USA billboard found in the name of humour or political debate - oh, I forgot - its called 'antipatriotism'.

Extreme examples, maybe but see how unfunny that is? It might be bad taste humour - and call me 'flying off the handle' - but I would feel the same about any of those. People have persecuted people - muslims, jewish, BDSMers - in the name of christianity for years. But in response, people have persecuted christians in the name of whatever organisation they want to claim a name to just as long. What disgusts me is that people find this sort of behaviour as just 'flying off the handle' and dismiss it as dark humour. You can accuse me of lacking a sense of humour or arrogant when I see such non humour all you like - doesn't dismiss the fact that it is accepted because some people can't use their brain or have no sense of empathy.

Peace and Love



kisshou -> RE: Question on Christian post??? (12/4/2005 5:02:08 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: FelinePersuasion

On jackass last night there was a guy who dressed up as a devil and had a sign that said keep god out of California, well one guy walking buy got so upset said what the fuck you think you're doing broke the sign in half over his knee shoved and smacked the guy with the signseveral times all the time shouting obsenities and saying get the hell out of my sight.


Shesh lol talk about flying off the handle


Well, actually FP this is irony. The main teachings of Christians, Xtians, followers of God or whatever name you choose to call them is one of love, forgiveness and turning the other cheek. I would like to remind the lovely dark~angel that having the ability to laugh at oneself is a good thing. I would hazard a guess that like myself , whenever you read a post from someone who is lacking in faith you automatically say a prayer for them, and that my friends is really ironic ;)



maybemaybenot -> RE: Question on Christian post??? (12/4/2005 6:50:50 AM)

I simply tire of hearing about wars in the name of Christianity, as if no other organized religion has fought wars in the name of their religion.

In other countries, even today, there are **wars**, assasinations/killings/enslavement and torture going on between religions and between different factions of the same religion.
The crusades were a black mark, a horrible thing that happened. You willl have to look long and hard to find a Christian who appauds this time in history. It seems as if there is a thought out there that becasue there is a black mark in the history of Chritianity, the entire religion is evil.

The most common arguement in current times I see and hear about Christians is that we need to have tolerance for others beliefs.

Tolerance doesn't mean accepting all views as true; it means putting up with what we take to be erroneous or false in another person's thinking but respecting the person's right to think and choose differently than ourselves. If one wants to preach tolerance, it also applies to being tolerant of the Christian view.

Throughout the world, the predominat religion of the country is publically celebrated and that religions displays are publically shown during major holidays.. In this country the *lesser * < meaning numbers > religions displays are seen everyday... if you look hard enough and take off the anti Christian glasses.

I would love to see the outcries if someone tried to take a case to one of our esteemed highter courts to change the name of the Menorah to a " holiday candelabra" or to ban statues of Buddah in public places. < such as Chinese resturants >

I once had an interfaith relationship and household. < Chrstian and Jewish> We celebrated both religions holidays and decorated appropriately for each. We took part in each others traditions. We also retained our own religious belief. That was tolerance. If I had tried to decorate the Menorah with holly rings and red ribbons or he had tried to put driedels on the Christmas tree, it would have been offensive and intolerant of the others tradition. For me, personally, the driedels on the tree would not have bothered me as I believe my roots are in Judiasm. But it would have been seen as offensive to many of his older more orthodox relatives.

So for me.. tolerance is about respect. Not about eradicating.

~mbmbn~



Maybe I am the only Christian out here who enjoys seeing other displays of faith. I have learned much from seeing things I didn't recognize and asking for a little explanation or history.




darkinshadows -> RE: Question on Christian post??? (12/4/2005 8:59:05 AM)

quote:

Well, actually FP this is irony. The main teachings of Christians, Xtians, followers of God or whatever name you choose to call them is one of love, forgiveness and turning the other cheek. I would like to remind the lovely dark~angel that having the ability to laugh at oneself is a good thing. I would hazard a guess that like myself , whenever you read a post from someone who is lacking in faith you automatically say a prayer for them, and that my friends is really ironic ;)


Hi kissou -

You are of course correct in the laughing at ourselves, that is a given. I just find things like that not in good taste.
It is like chaingangs original post. It would provoke, not shown humour. Whilst the person on jackass didnt deserve being beaten, the whole idea was to be beaten - its a very staged show showing stupidity - now theres irony![:D]. They know what will provoke negativity and do it. It is the negativity that is supposed to be funny, not the act. Whilst the act of seeing some guy dressed in a fictional pose with a billboard saying whatever may raise a smile and see the irony - I see little benefit in causing an actual fight. I won't apologise for finding violence or acts provoking insurgence unfunny. Plus there was no indication that the person who struck out was a christian - he may have just been offended by anything or spoiling for fight at any time - who knows?

quote:

one of love, forgiveness and turning the other cheek


This is quite a misunderstood concept. God's only direct teaching is love. The others are teachings of guidence.
If you allow someone to do just what they want that directly affects others in a negative way, then you're just as guilty enabling this behavior and become part of the problem. God says that if we don't confront someone, we share in the guilt of the issue so you "bind" the negativity or bad karma when others are doing it by letting them know about it and taking a stand against it. We should communicate to solve problem, or through forgiveness and turning the other cheek, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't confront any mistreatment of anyone, or anything. This BTW is my God - I am not saying that all faiths, religions or people have the same guidence.

quote:

I would hazard a guess that like myself , whenever you read a post from someone who is lacking in faith you automatically say a prayer for them, and that my friends is really ironic ;)


[:D]... now kissou, you should know me by now - ya think I would pray for someone without them knowing - why - that would be 'unconsensual', and I am sure you know my thoughts on a matter as important as that 'C' word!....lol

Peace and Rapture



FelinePersuasion -> RE: Question on Christian post??? (12/4/2005 4:38:58 PM)

Yeah, jackass is a stupid show but they do some pretty funny things that are not assholic and are amusing, like the whole episode where they went out to play in the snow on rubber tubes and slid down the hill.


President bush is a touchy topic anyway some like him some don't some don't care. I might be a little more upset if someone had a sign saying keep blacks out of California yeah, But I don't think being amused by some antics on jackass or some other dumb show like the man show is imaginationless:)

Edited to add


Maybe boredom and lack of better shows.



IronBear -> RE: Question on Christian post??? (12/4/2005 6:44:00 PM)

We cant get jackass here (Praise be to whoever you worship) Guess I'll settle, when I just want to be braindead for a while, for jerry Springer where at least Steve makes for good comic relief at times if my humour bunker has reached desperation limits and i just need something.. Any bloody thing to make me laugh.

Angel and Kiss, Love you both, when I want to remain something like sane, I read your posts. By the by, even us old pagans are wont to automatically say a small prayer to our deities when we see something wrong happening too.



MHOO314 -> RE: Question on Christian post??? (12/4/2005 7:47:05 PM)

it was pulled for flaming



Sunshine119 -> RE: Question on Christian post??? (12/4/2005 8:29:42 PM)

Amaros,

I am an ethicist, a theologian and a Christian. Like darkangel, I consider myself a follower of Christ. I don't buy the whole package, hook, line and sinker, but the basic priciples are the best I have found by which to live my life. Christianity has picked up probably more from the diverse areas in which the early Christians prostelytized, than those things that were actually part of the "Jewish" Jesus' life. However, given all of that, I do find offense when the word Xtians is used. Chi-Ro is not Xtians. If you can't write it with both greek symbols than the use of one Greek letter and the invention of the rest of the word is simply not accurate. And, if it is seen as an insult to many Christians. Those who do not hold the same beliefs should not insult those who do by using it. Now we can argue the extent to which political correctness should be taken. However, if it does insult a significant portion of the population, respect is a simple thing to accord them.

Now, as to celebrations! I'm all for celebrating everything. All the Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu and Buddhist holidays. There are even a few Pagan holidays I know about as well (some Christian holidays are actually Pagan in origin). I'd love to hear about other holidays as well. Celebrate Life!



Sunshine119 -> RE: Question on Christian post??? (12/4/2005 8:52:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: onceburned
The connection between spirituality and BDSM has supported a few threads here at Collarme. If I define religion as what I share with other people, and spirituality as my relationhip with God, I see no conflict between spirituality and BDSM. In some ways the submission is similar. My religion, however, has no bearing on BDSM... its not something I would practice in church or bring up when in religious fellowship.

quote:

Everyone is tiptoeing around the fact that there is definite friction between organized religion and and alternative sexual lfestyles: organized religion has felt licence to slander, persecute and even kill, from time to time, those they define as sexually devient throughout history - i.e., there's some bad blood there.


Yes, I agree that much of traditional Christianity (but by no means all of it) is hostile to sexual minorities. The hostility is particularly pronounced by individuals who identify as being traditonal or defenders of tradition. And in the United States, such people are trying to use the power of government to impose their views on everyone else.

I worry that non-religious people mistake these conservatives as representing all of Christians. It certainly is not true. If we consider the matter of homosexuality we see that many evangelical groups, such as Focus on the Family, are actively railing against gays and the 'gay agenda'. But the Episcopal Church has ordained a bishop who is gay, the United Church of Christ (a rather large denomination) has officially adopted a pro-gay affirming stance.and many individual churches have issued similar statements.
quote:

If any Christians in here do have any cogent thoughts on how they reconcile their religious principles with their sexual preferences, I'd be happy to hear them




Just do a search on any of the bible sites on line for the terms "sex", "fornication", "prostitution" or even any version of "pre-marital sex".

There are NONE in the Gospels and few anywhere else in both the new and old testaments. Mostly they are seen in the Old Testament under the 613 Jewish laws. But still, few are found. Adulterer is there, but that can have more to do with social structure than sexual issues.

The hang-ups christiantiy developed were clearly developed after the time of the early church. In fact, in some of the writing that were discovered at Nag Hamadi, dating back to the early christian church, there was a far more diverse, tolerant, group. Perhaps that is why this sect was extinguished in the fourth century.

As for how I reconcile my religious priciples with my sexual preference of a submissive, I would have to say that I live to serve others and that boils over into my personal relationships as well as my professional life. In running a social service agency, I live to serve those who need us. And, I try to live my life abandoning it to God's providence, trusting that what comes to me is what comes from the hand of God. From the hand of my Dom or directly from the hand of God, the origin is the same.



Amaros -> RE: Question on Christian post??? (12/5/2005 6:25:13 AM)

quote:

Of course the conservatives have tried to fool people by defining any one against them as un-Christian. But we shouldn't allow them this victory. As a Christian I can say that many of the Bush administration's policies are immoral - and are good reasons to have rejected Bush last year. The Democrats need to re-claim religion as an organizing base. Why they haven't done so is a mystery to me... and may have cost them the election in 2000 and 2005.


Precisely - which is why you should resist the urge to take it personally when the discussion is about public policy. This tactic has spread far and wide, and it's use as a disrupter is not always deliberate, but it is not a valid debate tactic.

For instance, any discussion about the latest attempts by the Kansas School board to subordinate science to religion invariably ends up in one of these snits - religion, specifically the Chrstian religion, is behind it, but that isn't the same thing as saying every Christian is a superstitious nitwit - quite clearly, it a certian faction, but if you happen to belong to that faction, or even if you don't the fact that the debate is about public policy menas that the glove come off, you can't hide behind some presumed sancttity, and lob cheap shots from behind it - you can try maybe, but it doesn't tend to enhance your credibility.

In fact, I think you are right, the ravings about how New Orleans "deserved what they got" was pretty much the last straw for me, organized religion has lost any shred of credibility it might have had right there as far as I'm concerned, but I can still respect all those Christians who have done their good deeds in secret, as it were - too bad a few loudmouthed morons have to get all the press and give you a bad name.

At the same time, it's difficult to refrain from commenting as I have above, ascribing the whole thing to "Christians" - they are Christians, and speaking asChristians - if you don't like them speaking for you, you do need to mention that. I don't agree with eveything - or even most things liberals say and do, much of it I find wrong-headed or even embarrasing intellectually, but I have to put up with all the crap about liberals just the same, all I can do is describe my position.

As the mans said, "I just want to get the conservatives out of the way so I can get to the liberals".

As for the last part, it's pure right wing rhetoric that democrats don't uphold religious principles, it's just that they don't lie and promise to try and impose it as public policy - all the same, they often do, and in ways that are sometimes more draconian than anything a conservative could get away with, and democrats can get away with it because nobody belives their motivations might be religious, being godless commies and all, ya know.

Some of Joe Lieberman's views are not far removed from Pat Buchanan's w/regard to mass media, but Lieberman is a mainstream democratic candidate, Buchanan is considered fringe right - so it goes.



onceburned -> RE: Question on Christian post??? (12/5/2005 2:41:39 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sunshine119
Just do a search on any of the bible sites on line for the terms "sex", "fornication", "prostitution" or even any version of "pre-marital sex".

There are NONE in the Gospels and few anywhere else in both the new and old testaments. Mostly they are seen in the Old Testament under the 613 Jewish laws. But still, few are found. Adulterer is there, but that can have more to do with social structure than sexual issues.


Hmmm... it may depend on which translation of the Bible you use. Matthew 15:18-20 mentions "unchastity" as a defiling act (along with adultery, murder, false witness, etc. http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew15.htm

But yes, the Apostle Paul seems to have made a bigger fuss over fornication that did Jesus.



onceburned -> RE: Question on Christian post??? (12/5/2005 3:11:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Amaros
For instance, any discussion about the latest attempts by the Kansas School board to subordinate science to religion invariably ends up in one of these snits - religion, specifically the Chrstian religion, is behind it


No, that is not true. There are some Christians who are behind the creationist movement, but do not confuse the actions of inviduals or even of some denominations (I don't know, but maybe the Southern Baptists are against the teaching of evolution). But I can affirm that the Catholic Church, which is no small part of Christianity, supports the teaching of evolution. Please, do not over-generalize - Christianity is a very diverse religion.

quote:

clearly, it a certian faction, but if you happen to belong to that faction, or even if you don't the fact that the debate is about public policy menas that the glove come off, you can't hide behind some presumed sancttity, and lob cheap shots from behind it - you can try maybe, but it doesn't tend to enhance your credibility.

I don't understand the point you are trying to make. You recognize that only a portion of Christianity is supporting creationism... so why do you want to claim that all Christians have to defend creationism?

quote:

In fact, I think you are right, the ravings about how New Orleans "deserved what they got" was pretty much the last straw for me, organized religion has lost any shred of credibility it might have had right there as far as I'm concerned

I feel frustrated by this statement. A few kooks say that New Orleans deserved to be destroyed... so you write off all of organized religion? What about all the religious organizations that didn't think this? I don't have any figures, but my guess is that 99.5% of Christians were offended by such statements. I certainly understand your anger. I felt it too! I think you are rushing to judge the many based upon the bizarre views of a mere handful. I know a couple people who think the United States should pull its troops out of Iraq and then drop nuclear bombs on the territory, killing everyone. But that doesn't mean that all Americans or factions of American government feel that way. I think the kooky views about New Orleans and about Iraq are just that... the ravings of a few crackpots. And there will always be a few crackpots, in any large group.

quote:

too bad a few loudmouthed morons have to get all the press and give you a bad name.

I agree its too bad that a few loudmouthed morons get all the press. But I would hope that people would understand that these kooks don't represent the majority. The BTK psychopath in Witchita does not represent the views of the majority of BDSM practitioners.

quote:

As for the last part, it's pure right wing rhetoric that democrats don't uphold religious principles, it's just that they don't lie and promise to try and impose it as public policy


I think Democrats are just as spiritual as Republicans. But the Republicans have been willing to mobilize churches and to campaign upon what they have defined as "faith issues" e.g. abortion or homosexuality. The Democrats should never have allowed "faith" to be defined in such narrow terms. Jesus never talked about homosexuality and abortion.... but He did talk quite a bit about helping the poor, which is a core value of the Democratic Party. But Democrats have abandoned the field... they have allowed Republicans to proclaim themselve the party of "religious values".




darkinshadows -> RE: Question on Christian post??? (12/6/2005 4:25:33 AM)

quote:

In fact, I think you are right, the ravings about how New Orleans "deserved what they got" was pretty much the last straw for me, organized religion has lost any shred of credibility it might have had right there as far as I'm concerned, but I can still respect all those Christians who have done their good deeds in secret, as it were - too bad a few loudmouthed morons have to get all the press and give you a bad name.

At the same time, it's difficult to refrain from commenting as I have above, ascribing the whole thing to "Christians" - they are Christians, and speaking asChristians - if you don't like them speaking for you, you do need to mention that. I don't agree with eveything - or even most things liberals say and do, much of it I find wrong-headed or even embarrasing intellectually, but I have to put up with all the crap about liberals just the same, all I can do is describe my position.


What you are doing in essence is exactly what every person who doesn't understand and comprehend something does, generalise. There were outpourings of distain from the christian community for the comments on NO - but just like all discussions, there are those that are newsworthy and those that are deemed not to be - news broadcasts accentuate the negative because is sells and because people would prefere to be blind to the realisations that not all christians felt this way. It is great to pigeonhole people. All BDSMers abuse, all christians hate gays, all americans are fat, all english have bad teeth, all pagans take part in ritual sacrifice, all muslims are al qaeda and believe in killing... we know these are all lies, so why do they still come up? Its when people prefere to perpetuate these myths by always bringing the negative into the foreground instead of looking at the positive that is the major problem. There is another thread here today on the bibles for porn swap - yet I am not naive enough to believe that ALL atheists support this small minority? So why should others think the same of christianity? If it isnt chrisitanity, its some other organisation and because of the human condition many do not have the ability or the willpower to look deeply into something they could never comprehend because it is seen as a waste of time.
Why talk to someone or communicate when you can take the piss, have a whine or blow a head off eh?

Peace and Love



maybemaybenot -> RE: Question on Christian post??? (12/6/2005 5:30:16 AM)

Eloquently said, darkangel !

I thought the same, when I read that post, but could not compose it as nicely as you.

Micheal Marcavage is no more representative of the majority of Christians than the militant Hindu who killed Ghandi is of Hinuism, nor the Buddhist monk who killed the President of Sri Lanka in 1959 representative of Buddhism.

It was and is mainstream Christian, Jewish and other religious organizations who have lent the most help to people of New Orleans. < as a group of individuals, not gov. orgs.> Such as the Salvation Army, Catholic Charities, Jewish National Fund, and United Jewish Communities.

Excluding NGOs, it is always the religious charitable organizations who are in the trenches assisting in disasters, be them domestic or international. I think this speaks much louder than the rantings of the President of Repent America as to where Christians hearts are and what we represent.
~mbmbn~



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125