Religious Propaganda Part II

[Guderian]

In the first religious propaganda thread we discussed religion trying to convert people through subtle manipulation. (which then turned into a existence of god thread)
In religious propaganda part II, I put forward another issue with religion. Hatred being justified by using religion and vice versa. And please dont turn this into a existence of god thread.

http://christiansbiblestudy.org/

Seems innocent doesn't it, your probably wondering what the heck is he blabbering on about now? Click on the link to find out.

First off, are any of these things true? Or are they taken out of context as i suspect?

How do you (religious people) feel about religion being used this way and what are you doing to fight it?

And as you can see religious text can be interperted in many ways. And Imo if you belive in faith then you can use faith to justify your beliefs. Even if it is false i.e. the quotes at that site can be justified by a racist using faith saying "if you don't belive in what the bible tells you, you've lost faith in god".

[TheBagelmeister]

Hatred being justified by using religion and vice versa.

It's about one of the most hypocritical things in the world. Religion is supposed to be about, in theory, making people good, yet hatred is considered an evil thing. Not to mention, in some religion's like Christianity, isn't the forgiveness of someone emphasized? I think religion justifying hatred, and visa versa, is one of strongest arguements against organized religion. Once it's run by people, it's purposes change to the far from ideal.

[Bovril]

This reminds me of the South African churches during aparthied.

Here's a link for a web site run a bunch of proper crazies:
http://www.godhatesfags.com/main/

[Epirote]

What religon has to do with anything?
Even if there was no religion Man would still be doing other kind of propaganda.
With religion Men just want to make their differences more clear.

[Guderian]

Im not saying only religion creates propaganda. Just pointing out that religion does use propaganda in a negative (manipulation, deciet, passing off theolgy as science etc) way to convert people or get it's point across. People have to be aware of this and have to realise that religion like everything else in life is not as straight forward as it claims to be.
Religion claims to advocate tolerance compassion and equality but there are many branches of religion who use it for nefarious deeds. Religious people have to do something about this or stop advocating religion altogther. They can't say "oh well those are evil people, nothing to do with us" and let it continue. Because it all comes down to the fact that there are so many sides to religion claiming it supports everything from hatred to politics to charity that it makes religion look ridculous.

With religion Men just want to make their differences more clear.

And why would you want to do that? Are you saying it's ok to quote from the bible with the intention of inciting hatred?

[MaximiIian]

Here's a link for a web site run a bunch of proper crazies:
http://www.godhatesfags.com/main/

Those wacko people deserve to be shot, and I'm not the only one who thinks so.

[Ardeur]

I can't help but snicker. Seems like everytime someone wants to complain about religion, they go grab the most po-dunk, ma&pa, homemade websites imaginable and hold them up as representatives of an entire religion.

Anyhow, all that aside. I would have to say that as a Christian, I feel sickened that so many non-Christians lump me in the same group as people such as this. Their message is obviously misrepresentation of Scripture, and as such they are false, and therefore not Christians. People need to put a little more effort into choosing a religion and examining the doctrines of the churches they are considering. To just heed the message of anyone claiming to be Christian is to leave yourself wideopen to the possibility of being led astray.

To any on the fence, do not let people such as the authors of these "extremist" websites trick you into thinking that they are Christians. I don't even need to click the link to the site posted by Bovril. With a URL like godhatesfags.com, Its pretty much a given that the message they present is not Christian.

To Guderian's question of what am I doing to fight it? The same thing I do to "fight" any incorrect teaching, and that is to lead a Christian example in my daily life, and to seize any teachable moments I am presented with. To go head to head with these people would only incite a heated argument.

The problem arises when people such as this become voices within the church. Then you have to nip it in the bud. Taking it before church leadership, and explaining why the person's message is counter to Scripture will be enough to deal with the problem. From there, the church leadership can either work with the misguided person, study the Bible with them, or ask them to stop using the church as a forum for false teaching.

[Epirote]

And why would you want to do that? Are you saying it's ok to quote from the bible with the intention of inciting hatred?

My english are bad and sometimes I cannot make my opinion clear.

I want to say that People in general use their religion as a tool to state the differences between them and their adversaries.
If they belong in same religion they use the racial differences.
If they belong same race and same religon then.......... they use other tools.
It never ends.

Religion is not responisble for the nature of man kind.
It is being used.

[Gubbins]

http://www.bjorn-comic.com/study.htm

A much, much better Bible study.

[TheBagelmeister]

Brodiseus, for me atleast, I'm not saying religion is an evil thing (although I do not agree with it). It's okay if someone uses the Bible or another other 'Holy Book' privately. But once it turns in a beaurcracy (sp?), a political entity, religion has become corrupted. Organized religion has had a long history of atrocities, with few good things.

Personal religion does not harm any one. It does not impose it's will on anyone. It just sticks to itself. So, atleast I, am not complaining about Christians, but those who need to impose their will.

[Bovril]

http://www.bjorn-comic.com/study.htm

A much, much better Bible study.

Both hillarious and informative. Great link.
I guess you do have to be crazy to be a Bible believing Christian. Hooray for liberal interpretation then.

[Ummon]

Well Bovril, the link is infact not informative, and full of falsehoods.

The page on the validity of the old testament is not a demonstration of anything. Infact "fulfilling" means adding something to the extent that the rules are completed. Now, when you read the New Testament, it has a 99.9999% (I have doubts about one phrase, in truth) of absolutely non-violent content. How does a non-violent message complete a violent message? By introducing it into a non-violent context, and changing it not because it changes the detail, but because it changes to overall image. The detail is still the same, the message changes.

The rest of the site is just what one finds around the web today. Promotion of reverse-bigotry, christian-hating, refusal of the roots of our civilization (which are graeco-roman civilization and jewish-christian relgion). One web page is not enough to understand the first page fo the Bible, let alone its whole meaning. But it can be a useful tool to spread quick lies about, and mistrust towards, the good aspects of religion.

Satanists and Christ-haters (noticed the black page, red characters? just a hint of course) are just like integralist christians. People with an agenda who has nothing to do with salvation, freedom, virtue, and truth.

[Gubbins]

The guy's just an artist. Like me and hopefully most people with a brain he realises that Christianity is an archaic mythology, well beyond its sell by date.

[Ummon]

I am sure you believe only those who agree with you have a brain, but this is your problem. More often than not people with a brain do disagree on many subjects.

[Søren]

I am sure you believe only those who agree with you have a brain, but this is your problem. More often than not people with a brain do disagree on many subjects.

This is an uneccessary troll statement. I will however say that it was provoced by some extremly provocative trolls from Gubbins on another thread.

Ummon: Please read my post on that thread, but do not single out Gubbins on this thread.

Now to the topic at hand.

Well Bovril, the link is infact not informative, and full of falsehoods.

The page on the validity of the old testament is not a demonstration of anything. Infact "fulfilling" means adding something to the extent that the rules are completed. Now, when you read the New Testament, it has a 99.9999% (I have doubts about one phrase, in truth) of absolutely non-violent content. How does a non-violent message complete a violent message? By introducing it into a non-violent context, and changing it not because it changes the detail, but because it changes to overall image. The detail is still the same, the message changes.

The rest of the site is just what one finds around the web today. Promotion of reverse-bigotry, christian-hating, refusal of the roots of our civilization (which are graeco-roman civilization and jewish-christian relgion). One web page is not enough to understand the first page fo the Bible, let alone its whole meaning. But it can be a useful tool to spread quick lies about, and mistrust towards, the good aspects of religion.

Satanists and Christ-haters (noticed the black page, red characters? just a hint of course) are just like integralist christians. People with an agenda who has nothing to do with salvation, freedom, virtue, and truth.

Quite so Ummon, it would be ridiculous to take views on religion by web sites of this nature. Note that if they really belived the bible to be true, they would not be saying these rascist things that exactly contravene much of the bible. As for saying that the Jews are different to Israel, I think that hardly needs to be graced with an answer.

[Guderian]

Quite so Ummon, it would be ridiculous to take views on religion by web sites of this nature. Note that if they really belived the bible to be true, they would not be saying these rascist things that exactly contravene much of the bible.

But that's the problem isn't it? The interpretation of the Bible is not clear, so it can be used for these things. I'm not against religion i belive like others have stated on this thread that religion should be used ONLY for personal spirituality. But many facets of religion use religion to convert or manipulate people in favour of their agenda. When a site named christianbiblestudy can relay a messsage of hatred and violence then religious people have to take action to make sure that the populace are aware of it's true intentions.

But that does not happen. Religion is based on blind faith and the bad side of blind faith means people can be manipulated easily. But because religion is so depandant on faith they cannot condemn faith when it's used for purposes like christianbiblestudy.org. Religion can't have it both ways, it has to choose. Either condemn these hatred and exploitation groups (i.e. KKK, Patriot groups, racist groups, faith healing ministries, exorcism minsitries etc) and try to expose them or abandon the practice of asking followers to have blind faith in thier religion.

Of course this isnt going to happen becuase religion has entrenched itself into everything now and can get away with anything. So religions around the world get to act innocent and are above the law while thier followers murder, rob and exploit people.

[Bovril]

Well Bovril, the link is infact not informative, and full of falsehoods.

It's full of Bible passages. Whether that means its full of falsehoods is of course up to the reader.

The page on the validity of the old testament is not a demonstration of anything. Infact "fulfilling" means adding something to the extent that the rules are completed. Now, when you read the New Testament, it has a 99.9999% (I have doubts about one phrase, in truth) of absolutely non-violent content. How does a non-violent message complete a violent message? By introducing it into a non-violent context, and changing it not because it changes the detail, but because it changes to overall image. The detail is still the same, the message changes.

OK, lets see his reference for this.
Matthew 5:17-20 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."
Now the law could either mean the Torah, or it could mean the whole of the scripture. Either way, there's a whole lot of killing homosexuals to be done. Its very clear that even the 'the least of these commanments' must be kept, be it about the ritual uncleanliness of women with a period, or wearing clothes made from more than one type of thread. Of course, this passage is contradicted by other parts of the NT where Jesus and others abrogate certain parts of the law (never the whole thing though), but for the 'Bible Believing' Christian (a terms I use to mean someone who thinks each verse of the Bible or even just the NT is sound at least in a theological sense) this passage applies at least to all those laws which are not specifically abrogated elsewhere. That includes killing people who convert from Christianity to another religion ("but surely only the evil viscious Muslims do that!", read Dueteronomy).

The rest of the site is just what one finds around the web today. Promotion of reverse-bigotry, christian-hating, refusal of the roots of our civilization (which are graeco-roman civilization and jewish-christian relgion). One web page is not enough to understand the first page fo the Bible, let alone its whole meaning. But it can be a useful tool to spread quick lies about, and mistrust towards, the good aspects of religion.

If the guy hates Christians, it doesn't render his points worthless. He does point out the glaring disparity between what many Chrisitans say they believe (i.e the Bible) and what they do believe. Now, I'm of the opinion that its a damn good thing that not even the most fundementalist of Christians actualy does what the Bible says, which is why I praised liberal Biblical interpretation earlier on. I don't have a problem with Christianity myself. What I do have a problem with is people who claim to be following the Bible closely, but actually are just using it for their own agenda, picking out the parts they like, and refusing those they don't.
The overall message of the NT is pacifistic. No one can deny it (even if it supports sexism and slavery as well). However, this is irrelevant to those that believe each and every verse of the Bible. If you do that there is no way of extrapolating a general meesage from the text, since you are bound by the details and the minutiae.

[Ummon]

The question here is if the quoted passage means that you have to kill homosexuals and many things like these.

It might look like a yes. But the old testament says also to kill unfaithful wives. When Jesus spares the woman from lapidation, then, he is breaking his own law.

This is another apparent contradiction, like the one we were talking about in the thread about Islam, or above, about God being in everyone. Let's see if we can solve it.

He says "the one who's without sin, throw the first stone". This is a pretty concrete paradigm of behaviour, and it means that sin doesn't CEASE to offend god, that it should still be punished, but that NO MAN IS PURE ENOUGH TO DO THIS. Since all men are sinners, we should show restraint in enforcing the law of God.

Besides, Jesus is arguably without sin. Why doesn't he throw the stone?

So when words fail, like every enlightened person, Jesus leads by example, and the apparent contradiction of the rules becomes coherence in the action.

The interpretation which is given of the chrisitan scriptures on that site, is a cold, sterile, unltimately false analysis (this is the falsehood I was referring to, you can correlate true facts in order to support falsehoods). It's not matter, like we were doing with the Koran, of discriminating two equivalent instructions, but we are called to dicriminate between them by following an example of love. Christianism is and has always been based on the imitation of Christ.

Psychologically infact, the process which is perfected in the Christian "mythology" and "lythurgy" is that of an internal "conjunctio oppositorum". The death of Jesus on the cross is the self-sacrifice which allows a new form of mindset to emerge from the archaic times, in the form of a unified "self" where before we had hundreds of different psychological complexes, represented by pagan gods, or one cruel divine superego ruling a trembling ego and a demonized unconscious, in the jewish canon.

The unified mind of the christian era does not subside to its own parts, it just unifies them, and like any OLOS (greek for whole, see olistic), it is greater than the sum of its parts. The meaning of the whole changes, while the meaning of the parts remains the same.

[Gubbins]

Besides, Jesus is arguably without sin. Why doesn't he throw the stone?

Wrath - one of the seven sins.

John 2:13-16"The Passover of the Jews was near, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. In the temple he found people selling cattle, sheep, and doves, and the money changers seated at their tables. Making a whip of cords, he drove all of them out of the temple, both the sheep and the cattle. He also poured out the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. He told those who were selling the doves, "Take these things out of here! Stop making my Father's house a marketplace!"

He sounds pretty pissed to me.

[Ummon]

Wrath is a human characteristic, and infact, Jesus was human. But christians state that he was God too, and God is without sin.

So again, is this a real contradiction?

Because wrath is an expression of our animal nature, and therefore, the shadow, or to be more clear Satan in a psychological sense. As a goal, and as a way of life, wrath is a sin. But wrath as an instrument for action, is not necessarily a sin. The enlightened man does not follow the lead of his emotions, he rides them as a man rides a horse, and uses them for his own goals.

Thinking in absolutes, everything is a sin.

Again Christ's wrath should be seen looking at the WHOLE, not the part. Jesus doesn't kill the merchants. He kicks them out of the temple. The purpose of the action is removing human trade from the abode of religion. Wrath is only an instrument, and so the man be wrathful, yet without sin.