Jeezuz, some Christians are so easily offended!

[mopaul]

whuzzup wit dat? grow a thicker hide and don't get all bent out of shape when someone criticizes your faith. you are either strong in your faith, or you're so unsure of it that you must lash out at anyone who raises doubts or critiques.

and when the offended start wailing, they come off as persecuted victims of society or whatever. Christianity is not under attack out here, but from within, like with brother pat and brother jerry.

climb down off your cross, and be strong in your faith, or just give it up.

[Gman]

1. They want to be "persecuted"

so that they can speak of being persecuted as Jesus spoke of his followers being persecuted. Their leaders know if their people feel persecuted they're easier to motivate to go vote. In fact, all these fundies seem to actually enjoy being a victim. The creationists are very good at being victims and enjoy whining about being told how ignorant and stupid they are.

[jonnyblitz]

2. I don't think mopaul is referring to the "fundies" in this post

he is talking about christians here at DU who start threads complaining about christian bashing..

[Gman]

3. Oh...

nevermind.

[seabeyond]

4. being a christian i know i dont have to defend god. he is

perfectly capable, way more than i, to take care of himself. you are right mopaul. i also totally respect the anger to christianity right now, as i am angry and there should be anger. i would be more comcerned if people werent angry. it is at men, not the religion

and in that i will be able to be totally loving to those that are angry, which is after all the christian way, understanding what is in their heart. not the desire to convince, convert or anything else. but allow free will

go mopaul. i know many christians wont get this, they will still have hurt feelings. i just cannot agree with that emotional position.

faith, ...... then i am done

[mopaul]

5. people in general are easily offended over little things

not just christians, but the fat, the tall, the short, the black, the white, etc.

i know of thousands of decent christians who are centered, and strong in their faith, and can handle anything that comes down the pike.

i support freedom of religion, and freedom from it if i so choose.

[seabeyond]

6. one nation under god, we will begin healing when we

christians can say, we are one nation, many under god, but equally those that are not under god too

[Thtwudbeme]

62. Actually, that is: "One nation, (comma) under God,

Not one nation under God.

Interesting how the comma changes things, eh?

btw, that needs to be drug out of the pledge.

[msongs]

67. which god, whose god, what god? You wanna get the christies in a wad - >

say the pledge of idolatry...er allegiance, and say the words
"..one nation under ALLAH.."

boy the wingnuts will want to peel your skin off live and chop you into bits because they are the only true religion...and they have hundreds of millions of dead bodies to prove it.

Msongs
www.msongs.com/political-shirts.htm

[Igel]

75. How about one 'ummah, under Allah'?

Or maybe one 'narod, under Bog'.

Or maybe one 'raza, under Dios'.

Or nous pouvons keep it v chistom English iazyke tout simplement. Si lo quieres asi. Jak chces.

But I really do insist on the comma.

[SemperEadem]

74. we're a nation of 8 yr olds who need nanny-laws

to keep up from getting mad at people who won't think like we do.

[tlsmith1963]

7. The Extremists are Being Attacked...

...not the more moderate Christians. If the moderate Christians don't like our criticism, then they need to rein in the more "wacky" members of their religion. They are no better than bin Laden.

Tammy

[bertha katzenengel]

14. Christianity is not one huge ball of people.

No one group can possibly have any control over another. There are too many different denominations and sub-denominations and splinters, etc., etc., to number - yet you call for moderate Christians to reign in radical Christians. It wouldn't work even if anyone were foolhardy enough to try it.

Just one reason why: super-fundamentalists think that anyone who doesn't believe the way they do is wrong. They interpret the Bible - their only authority - literally, very strictly, and anyone with an interpretation other than literal is outside the will of God and therefore not worth listening to. They will instantly turn a deaf ear the moment they hear something that doesn't match up w/ their beliefs.

How on earth is a moderate Christian supposed to reign that person in?

[ultraist]

16. Some expect the Islamic leaders to reign in Muslim extremists

Why aren't Christian leaders expected to reign in their extremists? :shrug:

[bertha katzenengel]

23. Why do we expect that Islamic leaders could reign in their extremists?

IMO that question is more to the point. A fundamentalist is a fundamentalist, no matter what he believes in. He has a blind devotion to his strict faith and because he does not THINK he cannot be swayed.

[ultraist]

32. I don't. But many do.

You raise a good question: Should religious leaders be expected to reign in their extremists? Is it the responsibility of Christian leaders to reign in the Pat Robertsons?

[bertha katzenengel]

48. I think maybe it's possible within the Catholic Church.

But not knowing too much about that church, I couldn't really speculate beyond that opinion.

But as to the broader question? "Should" they? No clue.

[Igel]

76. Frequently it's the congregations that need to rein in their

extremist pastors. And they frequently do so. It takes them more than the 2.3 milliseconds necessary for extremist Christian rants to get posted on DU, however.

And pastors also rein in their extremist lay members.

The problem occurs when the two team up: extremist lay members with extremist pastors. Then they wind up doing something, and the Federal government, overriding the church/state restrictions, get involved.

Mix in church and state, as so frequently happens in many countries, and you have a different kettle of fish.

Dispose of denominations, and there's yet a different mix of species in the kettle.

[Touchdown]

78. Sounds like you've absovled yourself of any responsibility.

When the witch hunts come, fundamentalist orthodoxy reigns supreme, coersive confessions become the rule of the day, and the adulterers, homosexuals, and scientists are stoned to death, then it's not your fault for doing nothing, because you were "not worth listening to". How nice to see such a strong sense of justice from moderate Christians.

How do reign them in? By doing what you are doing now. Stating your faith, that you believe they are wrong, and out of touch. Telling the rest of the world that they are dangerous to themselves, but also to the rest of us if they're left to control the rest of us. Yelling from the rafters that they do not speak for you. You are doing it now, and should keep doing it. Speak out against them, loud and often, and those who haven't fallen so far down the rabbit hole can be pulled back to join the living again.

I agree they need deprogrammers, but for the love of God, never, ever throw your hands up and say that there's nothing you can do with those people. The end result in doing nothing is 400 more years of inquisitions.

[acmavm]

8. The things that people find offensive about Christianity really are not

part of any Christian ideals. Not at all. Being a Christian today has nothing to do with the teachings of Jesus Christ. And neither side seems to be able to figure that out.

In a way, this is kind of funny. You hear people here screaming all the time 'defend your beliefs'. Religion is one area where if you do, you get condemned. So I guess what people here really mean is defend your beliefs, have the courage of your convictions, except in religion where 'we' have determined that you have no rights to state your views, they have no validity, and you all are a bunch of whiners for even trying to articulate an opinion on the subject. Amen.

[bertha katzenengel]

38. "Being a Christian today has nothing to do . . .

. . . with the teachings of Jesus Christ."

According to whom? I know several Christians, my beloved among them, who are followers of Christ.

Many who call themselves "Christian" don't seem to measure up to what that word means - look at today's ubiquitous example, Robertson. But it's not valid to dismiss followers of Christ out of hand because these people pervert the label.

[shaniqua6392]

9. Remember this:

The so-called Christian Right and its' leaders, such as Pat Robertson, Bush, James Dobson and the like, are not Christians. Maybe they were at some point, but now they are lost to God. They do not represent me. They do not represent God. They have strayed from their faith as far as I am concerned. They are committing horrific sins condoning war, killing, etc. They love money and power. They do not care about the poor or sick. They lie on a daily basis about their faith. They combine politics and religion to further their agendas. Everything they do makes Jesus weep because they are doing it in the name of God. They decided to use faith as a way to get voters and it worked. I know many people of faith who vote Republican simply because they always say they are going to do something about abortion and gay marriage. How can a person of faith ignore the sins of these leaders in the hope that someday abortion will be outlawed? They say that they vote Republican because they are pro life. What a joke. I never get offended when someone criticizes Christianity on DU. Most of the time I just respond by saying that Bush is not a Christian and that Repugs have hijacked Jesus to further their political agenda to become more powerful and rich. They are everything Jesus did not stand for. Jesus definitely was more aligned with the beliefs of those who are more liberal/Democratic. I do fear that Christianity is being attacked from within and by the time anyone realizes it, it will be too late. But, I do not worry about my own faith. I see what they are doing and I have to believe that good triumphs over evil. Sorry for the rant.

[mopaul]

10. no apology needed, i support your beliefs

the loudmouthed blowhard assholes like those mentioned above are truly not christians, they are the ones christ warned us about.

[shaniqua6392]

12. They are the ones Christ warned us about.

You said it in eight words. I thank you for your support. Sometimes I feel I am the only one who looks at Bush and company and sees that evil is in control right now. I can only pray and wait as other Christians are like sheep being led to the slaughter because they are being ignorant and naive.

[Tesha]

11. They don't actually have much faith.

They want people to believe they have faith but, in practice, they
don't actually have much faith.

I think deep down in their hearts, most of them know their beliefs
are just fairy tales for adults in the hopes that they won't simply
spend eternity rotting in their graves.

Tesha

[DerekG]

13. I'm rarely offended, but some posts are simply virulent

When I read messages such as "those who look to the Bible for moral guidance can't think for themselves," you better believe I'm going to respond.

[jonnyblitz]

17. well, PLEASE don't look to leviticus for guidance

on gay issues. I am gay and I don't believe I am worthy of death. :eyes:

[Roland99]

19. Well, to be honest, Christians aren't supposed to follow Judaic law

They should only be following what Jesus taught, like the Beatitudes.


Too many of the Fristians forget that and focus on the Ten Commandments and other aspects of the Old Testament that suits their agenda.

[DerekG]

24. I'm well aware of the depraved/immoral passages of the KJB

Like most Christians, I'm not a fundamentalist. I have the ability to place the Bible in a historical and cultural context, thereby eschewing those passages (even chapters) I find abominable.

The Bible is not the word of God, but a witness (or testimonial, if you wish).

[jonnyblitz]

27. too bad all christians don't think like you ..

:hi:

[ultraist]

31. And please overlook all of the mysogyny in the Bible.

;) (To coattail off of your comment).

[jonnyblitz]

58. whoever wrote the bible didn't think to highly of women..

that's for sure.

[ultraist]

15. Some people simply refuse to accept the facts about their religion

"Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites."
Thomas Jefferson

[DerekG]

22. So are you proud to be an American?

America, after all, spawned the two greatest crimes in modern history: the genocide of the Native American and chattel slavery. And we have a proclivity for conducting wars, all of which--save the Revolution, Civil War and WWII, perhaps--were imperialist to the core.

So if the atrocities of reactionaries should shame Christians, shouldn't you be ashamed to be an American?

[ultraist]

30. Of course, I'm proud to be an American

But that doesn't mean, I stick my head in the sand and deny the attroicites that stain our history.

What is irritating, is when one LIES about the facts. Christianity has spawned a lot of violence and divisiveness. If certain Christians choose to be intellectually dishonest, they should NOT expect the rest of us to follow along.

[DerekG]

43. I've never seen one Christian DUer deny the bloody history of Christianity

But what vindictive posters don't seem to realize is that there are two factions of Christianity.

There is the Christianity of tyrants like Pope Innocent III, and there is the Christianity of Saint Francis of Assisi.

There is the Christianity of conquerors like Christopher Columbus, and there is the Christianity of Bartholomew de Las Casas.

There is the Christianity of bigots like John Calhoun, and there is the Christianity of William Lloyd Garrison.

There is the Christianity of warmongers like George W. Bush, and there is the Christianity of Archbishop Desmund Tutu.


Distinctions should be made.

[ultraist]

63. Well, I have

I've seen a few become irate in response to any criticism of their religion, no matter how historically factual it was.

I've also seen many Christian DUers exhibit an acceptance and respect for other's right to hold an opposing viewpoint.

[Roland99]

18. I think those perceived as bashing Christianity don't mean to generalize.

My guess is the attacks are leveled at the faux-Christians (the Fristians) like Frist, Dobson, Phelps, Robertson, etc.

I believe in the heat of the moment some people's rhetoric ratches up a bit and generalizations occur and that may offend someone.

The only way to avoid that is to be careful when one posts a message to be sure they don't mean ALL Christians. I'm sure I'm guilty of it a time or two in the past but I do try to avoid it.



I mean, some of my best friends are Christian! ;)

[Thtwudbeme]

20. MoPaul...one of the things that has shocked me the most

in going to a university and studying religion...and politics since Bush cheated his way to our White House...is how strongly people identify with their myths.

Those personal myths, whether they be religious, or political in nature, work their way into people's psyche until the person feels that that myth is their own personality.

This is why we, as a nation, need to remove ALL references to any religion in political public discourse. Whether the Fundamentalist is a Liberal or a Conservative, by the very nature of the hope of a great afterlife myth, they hold us back from true progress as a society.

Stephanie

[tx_dem41]

25. I wonder why a Christian DUer would ever be offended by a post..

like this. I have no idea at all. Not a one. :eyes:

[Thtwudbeme]

28. Clarify please, exactly what about my post is offensive

thank you.

Stephanie

[tx_dem41]

34. Oh...one word that comes to mind is "condescension".

[Thtwudbeme]

35. I asked you to please clarify your post;

giving me one word doesn't help me to understand your point of view very well.

Can you elaborate on your thoughts?

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tx_dem41]

47. Smugly calling someone's personal beliefs "mythical" is quite...

simply "condescending". I'm an Atheist. As I respect others to respect my belief in my Atheism, I provide that same respect to others.

As for "removing religion from all political DISCOURSE". Why do you have no respect for the First Amendment?

[Thtwudbeme]

49. Do you understand the word "myth" in a scholarly context?

Christianity is indeed a myth--however, that word has taken on negative connotations in the vernacular of the US. I am sorry that you took it that way; however any anthropology student can tell you that myths are important in every society.

Myths generally involve an explanation of human origin that involve supernatural elements (Virgin birth, the rapture verses in Paul's letters, etc.) that are unsupportable by concrete evidence.

Calling Christianity a myth is not a slam at all. If you are really interested in exploring the topic of myths, I would point you in the direction of Joseph Cambell's writings. I think that an educated person such as yourself would find him fascinating, and give you new insight into the importance of myths in all cultures-and our own.

As far as the First Amendment in concerned...how is taking God out of political discussion going against that? What makes you think I don't respect the first amendment? Clearly I do...however... please think about this: what has religion done for us a a society? Really, other than some ancetodal evidence of some people's decency (Mother Theresa's shelters and hospitals, some religious colleges, Quakers using the underground railroad, etc...--note those are ALL private enterprise) ...religious thought used in governing has done NOTHING for societies as a whole.

Stephanie

[tx_dem41]

52. Be as "scholarly" as you choose to be.

I choose to respect others, and expect it in return.

[Thtwudbeme]

54. That's an interesting reply

Well, I guess that's it then. Sorry I wasted our time.

[ProfessorGAC]

77. Read Joseph Campbell, Please

There is NOTHING derogatory about the term myth. You are looking for offense where none was implied.
The Professor

[Thtwudbeme]

81. Thank you for that clarification of the use of "myth"

Stephanie

[DerekG]

64. Quakers weren't the only ones operating the Railroad

My apologies, but it should be noted that the abolitionist movement was comprised of evangelicals, Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, Unitarians, and even a few Calvinist thinkers (John Brown). True, the genesis of the Underground Railroad could be traced back to Levi and Catharine Coffin--Quakers both--but this illegal, heroic struggle involved Christians from all walks of life (credit should also be given to the transcendentalists).

[Thtwudbeme]

69. Yes, I was just naming some religious groups off the top of my head

and trying to point out that those all were "private" enterprises-

But, I agree with you, those people deserve credit also-

Stephanie

[DerekG]

29. "Remove ALL references to any religion in political public discourse?"

So I assume you'd like to take scissors to all those pesky "God" and "Jesus" references from Rev. King's "Beyond Vietnam" speech?

[Thtwudbeme]

33. Dear, that speech was delivered by a minister at a church.

That's not a good example of political public discourse.

I am sorry; I have a huge poster of MLK that I want framed to try to keep it from fraying more...he is one of my personal heroes that I hope to emulate.

However, he wasn't voting on law, or passing public policy. There's a difference between political public discourse, and public discourse.

Stephanie

[DerekG]

53. Stephanie, "Beyond Vietnam" was no mere sermon

That masterpiece of a speech was delivered at Riverside, yes, but was broadcast over the radio waves, printed in periodicals, and televised (in excerpts) on Face the Nation throughout the year. King's intentions for delivering "Beyond Vietnam," and the content of the speech itself, are precariously close to "political public discourse," as is Robertson's "Patwa" against Chavez.

[Thtwudbeme]

59. I realize that

and I understand where you are coming from.

I think you didn't understand me; MLK's speech was public discourse. Did he influence anyone using religious references? You bet...and this speech has gone down in the annals of American History as one of the "greats."

However, when I write "Political Discourse," I specifically mean our laws, our constitution, our public schools- our pledge, and God help me out here...our money.

I don't have a problem at all with anyone, minister or otherwise, discussing religious views anywhere anytime. Right to the point of the courthouse lawn, or science class.

Does that clarify my thoughts? I am sorry...I know sometimes I can't be clear on things...sometimes, I practice "writing" on DU. It helps :)

[tx_dem41]

65. That clarifies it for me.

Thanks.

[DerekG]

70. That does clarify things, and I agree with you on several points

The word "God" should be expunged from our pledge of allegiance, and I find it unholy that His name appears on money. It runs contrary to the ideals of the Republic, and it is an insult to my faith.

[Thtwudbeme]

71. Exactly!

Having God's name on money is more offensive to me than it is to my husband--who is an agnostic/atheist.

Sometimes I use DU to learn to expound on my ideas, and love it when people critique the hell out of my posts.

Thanks for your comments,

Stephanie

[DerekG]

72. It's all rather tragic, isn't it?

Nineteen hundred years ago, Christians were so intoxicated with Jesus' ethos that they braved torture and death, in glorious defiance of Nero and his murderous empire; nowadays, a sizable minority of adherents insist that our own empire be a Christian one.

How insecure in their faith they must be--and how insane.

[ultraist]

37. MLK, Jr. was not a politician

Religious leaders have a right to pursue whatever causes they wish, but politicians should leave the church OUT of our state.

[tx_dem41]

42. Yep....apparently the personal speech freedoms instilled in the First..

Amendment mean nothing to someone who would propose such a thing.

[ultraist]

36. Well said!

The myths and memes are deeply rooted in people's psyches and are the architecture of their worldview. Many people are not even aware of the myths that guide their thought processes.

I agree, it's critical that we frame the political debate in non-religious terms.

[johnnie]

21. I'm not Christian but

You wanna see a lot of people freak? Start a thread saying "Jeezuz, some Agnostics/Atheists are so easily offended".
I'm not taking sides of either but I have seen non-Christians freak out on here too.
Just sayin'....

[tx_dem41]

26. Naaah....you have to be making that up.

Never have I EVER seen that. :eyes:

For the record....I am an Atheist.

[dogday]

44. Good point. Let's just face it, we have had some

posts where everyone is slammed at one point at time. We have offended each other in many ways. I personally have seen topics on such things Atheism, Gays, Blacks, Jews, Christians, Women... Am I forgetting anything?

We are a diverse group of people and are going to offend, as long as we settle it and move on, who cares really? Take your hurt feelings and shrug it off. Believe me there are worse things in life. What you ask? Well, my son leaves in November for Baghdad. I guess that is why I post so honestly about things, this is really not all that important....

[johnnie]

51. I don't get offended easily

But I try to remember that many people do. I agree with you, sometimes it's best just to move on. Trying to change someone's mind on here is a bit ridiculous and the chances are very slim. It cracks me up sometimes to see people go on and on with each other over a topic and knowing full well that minds won't be changed. It has nothing to do with being a "know-it-all", stubborn or bullheaded, it's just that people tend to like their own opinions better than other people's opinions.
As for your son, my thoughts will be with him. I have a friend whose son is being deployed there in October. I can tell how she has changed her priorities also. You are right, there are much more important things in life than winning an argument on DU.
Take care, and give your son a hug.

[dogday]

68. I appreciate it

Yes, I am looking at the world through new eyes. I have zero tolerance for frivolous things these days...

[ultraist]

57. Yes, you forgot a few "groups"

SUV drivers
Suburb dwellers
Meat eaters
"Illegal Aliens"
Home school parents

;)

[dogday]

66. You are right

and I am sure there are more out there.... Thanks

[SidDithers]

56. Which confirms what Stephanie was saying in #20...

I don't presume to speak for her, but that is what I took from her post.

That people become so deeply rooted in their myths - Christian, Shinto, Athiest, Liberal, Conservative, whatever - that they see any criticism as criticism of them personally.


Sid

[Thtwudbeme]

60. Thank you!

Yes, that is exactly what I meant...

Stephanie

[ultraist]

61. Yes, it does happen.

Because people's beliefs/worldviews are so closely tied with their personal identity, they take any criticism of their beliefs as a personal attack.

To offer an extreme example, my mother in law is a very uninformed Republican. It's impossible to have a logical discussion with her about any political issue, because she takes any criticism of any Repuke's position as a personal assault on her.

[etherealtruth]

40. Do posts like this serve any productive purpose?

We have more in common with each other (philosophically) than we do with the public in general ... why do we need to seek out areas of disagreement and try to divide ourselves?

[Thtwudbeme]

45. Yes, these threads serve a very productive purpose

without dialog, how are theists, non-theists, and weirdos like me (theists who believe their beliefs have no place intruding on other's lives) supposed to come to any agreement?

Stephanie

(if you don't like them, use the "hide thread" feature)

[johnnie]

55. I doubt an agreement will ever be reached

All sides have their opinions and will most likely stick by them no matter what. I doubt minds will be changed or the "battle of the beliefs" will be solved in a thread on DU.

[etherealtruth]

82. I don't see them stimulating productive dialog ...

I see most responses espousing the writers point of view with few truly trying to understand others view point ...

I'm an agnostic that is intrigued by many of the traditions and rituals of religion ... everything from the Greek pantheon to Scientology ... I don't think the existens of God(s) is ever knowable or unknowable, but I am intrigued by those having certainty in whatever their belief system is ... I would LOVE to see true productive dialog r/t this, but don't GENERALLY see it in these threads ...

On days like today, I check in hoping to find that I'm wrong ...

[Walt Starr]

46. Yeah, actually, they do.

When I first came to DU, I found myself easily offended over many things.

I grew thicker skin. Anybody who expects to spend any time at all on DU had better do teh same, or they will just go insane because the criticism of Christianity is simply not going to stop so long as there are Pat Robem$omes and Jerry Fartwells in the world.

[etherealtruth]

50. I've learned a lot here ...

I've altered positions and solidified positions based on info provided here ... I've marveled at the intelligence and insight of some posters (and the stupidity of others).

I just don't see the value of these threads ... yes I can ignore them and generally I do ... occasionally I read through to see if anyone has anything profound to say ... I don't see it ...

Sure, I'll go back to ignoring these threads most of the time (popping in, hoping for something new)

[ProdigalJunkMail]

73. gosh...no one here gets offended by anything

especially not Mopaul...

SubjectProdigal

[bryant69]

79. I seriously cannot believe that you aren't trying to provoke a reaction

with some of your posts. And I don't know why you should get upset when you provoke that reaction.

[mopaul]

83. i'm not upset at all actually

and very few are provoked it seems

[bryant69]

84. Why did you change the name of

your post on the bible being dangerous, out of curiousity?

[TWiley]

80. Get off that Cross....... We need the Wood.

The idea that "everyone else is picking on Christians" drive me up the wall. Doesn't their own text say "he who lives by the sword shall die by it"?

Well, they have condemned everyone but their own to hell. On second thought, Christians cannot even get along with each other. Evidently, the Protestants do not even think that Catholics are Christian for some reason.

The Baptists condemn every one to hell who does not believe in their superstitions, and a majority of American Christians seem to think that the shrub is the greatest born-again since cheese whiz.

Why does hearing voices and talking to imaginary friends entitle people to a "privileged" place in society anyway?

[Bluerthanblue]

85. Hell, why do we care when bush speaks for 'us'- why do we get offended?

I admire you MoPaul-
Your talent and wit are a bright spot on this board imo.
But, when people speak 'for' me- and what they say is shit, expect me to clarify that i'm not serving it on MY menu.

Silence is tacit approval.
Silence is NOT golden, when it is in response to a lie.

[Moderator]

86. Locking...

This is flamebait.