Christians Hurt Themselves

[Felixion]

Alright. I'm going to preface this post by saying that anyone who is a practicing member of the Christian faith will very likely be
a.) confused
b.) insulted
c.) angered
d.) sexually stimulated

by the writing that follows. If your reaction falls under the "d" category, I also would like to say you should seriously reconsider your

a.) religious affiliation
b.) sexual orientation
c.) psychological well being.

Ok.

I'm going to be bold and say that the majority of those who participate in disucssions at this forum are not followers of the Christian faith, and that a majority of that majority would agree that those who do - depending upon the level of intensity with which they worship - are bat-**** insane.

In all honesty it's not exactly fair that Christians have the bad rap that they do. There are many Christians and Christian organizations who do great things on a daily basis, and deserve nothing but praise and respect for their efforts.

But - there are also douchebags like this tarnishing your image.



The problem with people like Mr. Joel Osteen, the man most know for looking like the kind of guy who kills and eats children in his basement in Kentucky and also preaching whispery sermons in his gargantuan Colliseum of Christ, is that they talk about your soul and salvation with such joy and pleasure it makes you wonder if they're secretly hoping you go to hell.

His ridiculously large worship center was formerly the stadium at which the Houston Rockets played.

...and the nearby Interstate has ramps designed especially to bring people to this facility. Osteen credits that design to the act-of-God...

Of course, this couldn't possibly have been the logical decision made by an urban planner who thought that easy interstate access to a professional sporting arena would be a good idea. No, no, no. This was God's decision.



In an interview with Larry King, Joel Osteen took a moment to explain what the goal of his new book was.

"Just my basic message of becoming all God's created you to be"

Right, thanks Joel. Because obviously if we're not being what God created us to be, we're not doing what's right. Nevermind the reality that a lot of us don't actually believe in God.

....




Or how about Jerry Falwell. Despite being the offspring of Satan, I'm fairly convinced that a family of five could live comfortably in a yurt made out of the skin that hangs from Jerry's chin. Aside from his grotesque, clearly sinful physical appearance, I should point out that Falwell does battle the evil forces of the world. What evil forces you might ask?



No, not drug abuse.



No, not gang violence.



Certainly not the obesity epidemic.

We'll not even touch on racism, a failing education system, the already failed healthcare system. No, none of that. Mr. Falwell takes most issue with this.

...he is purple - the gay pride color; and his antenna is shaped like a triangle - the gay-pride symbol...

....




We all know this little Troll o' Jesus. Just listen to this heartwarming message from Ol' Pat.

I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war, and I don’t think any oil shipments will stop.

This was regarding Hugo Chavez.

My point in showing you how completely nuts these guys are is I'm puzzled by something. Why do Christians consistently choose complete ****ing morons to represent them publicly? I'm not talking about your everyday, slightly slower than the bunch dimwits, i'm talking about the "what-the-**** is wrong with that guy?" kind of moron that belongs in One Flew Over the Cukoo's nest as an extra.

Perhaps the Christians need to consider that having these kind of people as your representatives to the world is not doing you any favors.

[Tankbuster]

Alright. I'm going to preface this post by saying that anyone who is a practicing member of the Christian faith will very likely be
a.) confused
b.) insulted
c.) angered
d.) sexually stimulated

Never been so happy to be an atheist

[Denny Crane!]

This is such bad logic. Like a theist asking me why I picked Stalin to represent Atheism.

[Dayman]

It seems to me that the moderates rarely ever get time on the air or their views expressed. There are, and to go out on a limb here, most Christians are, moderates. They don't get exposure because an average Christian with beliefs that don't offend or polarize, do not make for good airtime. The extremists, however, are able to do that, boost ratings, raise controversy, and get their views heard because they are so out there. Case in point: WBC.

[Ringeck]

It seems to me that the moderates rarely ever get time on the air or their views expressed. There are, and to go out on a limb here, most Christians are, moderates. They don't get exposure because an average Christian with beliefs that don't offend or polarize, do not make for good airtime. The extremists, however, are able to do that, boost ratings, raise controversy, and get their views heard because they are so out there. Case in point: WBC.

Well, blowhards do get all the coverage - it is good news to watch people rant, after all. That's why guys like Dawkins and his Creationist foes get so much coverage when they blow up publicly.

[Dayman]

Well, blowhards do get all the coverage - it is good news to watch people rant, after all. That's why guys like Dawkins and his Creationist foes get so much coverage when they blow up publicly.

Although it seems that whenever anyone criticizes Christianity in the U.S. publicly, it gets blown out of proportion.

[Ringeck]

Although it seems that whenever anyone criticizes Christianity in the U.S. publicly, it gets blown out of proportion.

I think that depends greatly on where you are in the US. But it is a point; criticizing Christianity in Europe barely raises eyebrows, relative to the US.

[Spurius]

It seems to me that the moderates rarely ever get time on the air or their views expressed. There are, and to go out on a limb here, most Christians are, moderates. They don't get exposure because an average Christian with beliefs that don't offend or polarize, do not make for good airtime. The extremists, however, are able to do that, boost ratings, raise controversy, and get their views heard because they are so out there. Case in point: WBC.

Same thing goes for Islam, mutatis mutandis, but moderates in practice never speak out in one voice against such radicals or bozo figureheads.

Part of them will think, well at least he's keeping us 'in the picture', even if they don't entirely agree.

Think that's what happens in RL.

[Seda]

It seems to me that the moderates rarely ever get time on the air or their views expressed. There are, and to go out on a limb here, most Christians are, moderates. They don't get exposure because an average Christian with beliefs that don't offend or polarize, do not make for good airtime. The extremists, however, are able to do that, boost ratings, raise controversy, and get their views heard because they are so out there. Case in point: WBC.

This sums up my (A christian's) views quite nicely. Most of us Christians do not have wet dreams of people going to hell, most of us do not recoil at the sight of anything purple (though I do posess a deep rooted fear and loathing of barney and the teletubbies.... ), most of us do not think we need to gun down anyone who doesn't agree with us or even hates our guts. But some do. And they're good TV. And last time I checked, we didn't elect those people who make dumbass statements to the contrary.

[Felixion]

Well I think that might be a legitimate question. If you choose someone like Joseph Stalin to be the representative of your belief system, or lack their of, people will then associate the image and values of the representative with those of the belief system.

[Denny Crane!]

Well I think that might be a legitimate question. If you choose someone like Joseph Stalin to be the representative of your belief system, or lack their of, people will then associate the image and values of the representative with those of the belief system.

This is the crucial distinction. I don't choose Stalin as my representative theists do that for me, just like you are doing it for theists.

It is an astounding leap of logic and more in line with Ad Hominem. You are basically saying look here:

A is bad therefore B is also

A= Extremists that have little or nothing to do with the moderates

B= Moderates

Or as the West Wing put it in their 9/11 special. AQ is to Islam what KKK is to Christianity. They are trying to say be careful not to associate proponents of radicalism or ideas that happen to come under the same banner as ideas propogated by others that although have the same name may contain radically different ideas or principles.

Other peoples perception do not shape ideas and you should attack an idea based soley on what it contains not what others say it contains.

[King of Axum]

christians are to dammm religious. how can the bibile ( meaning book) possibly be used for guidance towards salvation of ones soul. damm religion

[Felixion]

This is the crucial distinction. I don't choose Stalin as my representative theists do that for me, just like you are doing it for theists.

It is an astounding leap of logic and more in line with Ad Hominem. You are basically saying look here:

A is bad therefore B is also

A= Extremists that have little or nothing to do with the moderates

B= Moderates

Or as the West Wing put it in their 9/11 special. AQ is to Islam what KKK is to Christianity. They are trying to say be careful not to associate proponents of radicalism or ideas that happen to come under the same banner as ideas propogated by others that although have the same name may contain radically different ideas or principles.

Other peoples perception do not shape ideas and you should attack an idea based soley on what it contains not what others say it contains.

Wrong.

That's not at all what I'm saying. I'm not at all saying that all Christians are the same nutjobs as the aforementioned, but I am saying that there seems to be a trend in the Christian religion that those who are put in the public spotlight as the representatives of their faith are out of their god damn minds.

You're misunderstanding me entirely.

[Denny Crane!]

Wrong.

That's not at all what I'm saying. I'm not at all saying that the aforementioned "extremists" are all Christians, but I am saying that there seems to be a trend in the Christian religion that those who are put in the public spotlight as the representatives of their faith are out of their god damn minds.

You're misunderstanding me entirely.

Nope the fundamentalists always get the spot light. The moderates do not make good news.

Did the christians choose them to be there? Does this in anyway cast aspersions on the character of christians or their belief structure. It really doesn't.

[Centurion-Lucius-Vorenus]

Wrong.

That's not at all what I'm saying. I'm not at all saying that all Christians are the same nutjobs as the aforementioned, but I am saying that there seems to be a trend in the Christian religion that those who are put in the public spotlight as the representatives of their faith are out of their god damn minds.

You're misunderstanding me entirely.

Generally people who are moderate about thier faith are smart enough to know that your television isnt a good place to get salvation from. The only people who watch people like Jeri faldwell, are people that actually believe in them, and people who believe they are crazy for a good laugh. Unfortunately, people who think they are crazy get a wrong message about the christian faith.

[Turbo]

Bah, extremists are not representative of any faith. Your analogy could also be applied to the Jihadist who call for holy war as representative of the Muslim faith. Using Christian bible fundamentalists to represent the average christian is ridicious.

[Irishman]

Other peoples perception do not shape ideas and you should attack an idea based soley on what it contains not what others say it contains.

While I can see this criticism. I think that the line is drawn differently for atheists as far as religions. The problem is that atheism only refers to the absence of God, and as such using any one person as the "face of atheism" seems odd.

However, the Christian religion (the topic of this thread) does follow strict moral rules, and has many things which can show that a person is the personification of a 'christian'.

I think the major problem is that much of what these bigots preach IS supported in the Bible, and I honestly think that it is blatant racism and sexism of the bible which will have to be countered in the near future.

[Turbo]

While I can see this criticism. I think that the line is drawn differently for atheists as far as religions. The problem is that atheism only refers to the absence of God, and as such using any one person as the "face of atheism" seems odd.

However, the Christian religion (the topic of this thread) does follow strict moral rules, and has many things which can show that a person is the personification of a 'christian'.

I think the major problem is that much of what these bigots preach IS supported in the Bible, and I honestly think that it is blatant racism and sexism of the bible which will have to be countered in the near future.

I think I can understand your thoughts on this but I arrive at some different conclusions than you have.

I think that the bible is not the sole word of God. God did not suddenly go silent after the bible. God speaks through the Church and through his followers. What comes out of people's mouths can be the exact opposite as we are creatures who have a darker evil side that competes with the Holy spirit.

There are literally hundreds of different translations of the bible, and even more interpretations. The Catholic bible for example has more books than the protestant version. These guys have more criticism from the Christian community than any other, and they get their publicity from those who are not believers, particularly the secular press.

Lastly, the relevance between the social issues during the early days of Christianity and today is not what the bible should be teaching. Some islamic extremists use the Koran to justify murder and the terrible repression of women. In reality however both the bible and Koran are guides to higher spirtual learning. I think it is just a matter about how you approach the reading of the subject material.

[The Good]

christians are to dammm religious. how can the bibile ( meaning book) possibly be used for guidance towards salvation of ones soul. damm religion

You are probably wondering how one single book has so much influence around the world, aren't you? Well, let me briefly explain. Let me start by asking you this question. Did you know that the Bible, despite being inspired and influenced by God, had around forty (Human) authors? And this was all in a time span of thousands of years. If someone were to order around forty writers to work on writing one book, about as long as the Bible, there would no doubt be problems. First of all, each writer may have a very different style of writing, second, even if it was completed, it would still not look well done, as the story would not flow smoothly, and it would be confusing to read. Finally, there would be many dissagreements between the writers.

Even secular leaders such as Napoleon believed the Bible was not just a book and held it in high regard when it came to literature, in fact, he once said it has a life of it's own compared to other books. Another example is that before the twentieth century, Historians did not believe that the civilazation known as the Hittites existed, even though the Bible described their kingdom. However, we now know today that the Hittites were indeed a kingdom that actually existed. The Bible is actually very authentic when it comes to history.

[Felixion]

You are probably wondering how one single book has so much influence around the world, aren't you? Well, let me briefly explain. Let me start by asking you this question. Did you know that the Bible, despite being inspired and influenced by God, had around forty (Human) authors?

The Bible had forty human authors because only humans can have any part in the writing of a book.

You call these people I've listed extremists, and radicals but the reality you need to come to terms with is that they're getting it from somewhere. It's called the ****ing bible.

The Christian religion is the essential problem. This debate is much like the debate over gun control. You can claim that only a small portion of "crazy" people who own guns are going to use them to commit crimes, but that doesn't change the fact that it is the availability of guns that is the root of the problem.

Sure, only some of the people exposed to Christianity are going to be completely over-the-top, out of their ****ing minds about it, but that also doesn't change the fact that were there not a psychotic manifesto of intolerence...(ahem. The Bible.) floating around for people to cling on to, we wouldn't have a problem.