brassblaster brassblaster

Why so hard on Christians?

▼

Why so hard on Christians?

from JoeUser Forums
Is it just me, or does it seems to be open season on Christians these days? We have no Jiihad in our bible. If you are or not a Christian, I would hope that you would be able to plainly see the injustices being brought against those of Christian faith. Christian high school students not being allowed to form Christian clubs in their own school, yet Muslims and anyone even closely connected to the homosexual community have free reign.
Am I missing something here? Weren't our countries born of Christian forfathers?
Do we, as Christians, strap explocives to our bodies to cause as much pain and suffering, all in the name of a god that requires this kind of action?
Of course not, because we believe that God loves us all,equally and passionately. And yet we are ridiculed. Yet we are called bigots for standing for what we believe in.
What happened recently in the news when a newspaper published cartoon characterizations of the prophet muhomad? Calling it a peacefull protest is a gross understatement.
What happened with a recent episode of South Park when they depicted Jesus in a rather unfortunate predicamate? Were we calling for the heads of the head writers, or we quitely sitting down, letting those who could not restrain themselves voice their displeasure. There are much bigger pictures to concern us more, much more than a simple episode of a show that ridicules anything that they can think of that, they think, possibly put Jesus in a bad light.
The bigger picture is simple. Either there is a God that created us and loved us enough to send his Son to die on a cross for our sins, or we are all fools to believe that there is anything after death but a box with six feet of earth on top. Me? God is real. I'm staking my life on Him!!
religion
9,453 views 56 replies
Reply #51 from JoeUser Forums Top
My little historical diversion was to show that tolerance (originally religious tolerance, but with other kinds following in its wake) came about as a kind of truce in an unwinnable struggle. This is a tolerance where you agree to a minimum of civilty and social co-operation towards people whose beliefs, morality and lifestyle you really don't like, but you have (wisely) given up trying to change by force. Although we take this for granted today, it was at the time an immensely original thought; in previous societies almost everyone shared the same beliefs, morality and social ethos - and if they didn't they were in trouble.

Tolerance however is also being used here as a kind of code word for agreeing with the other person's point of view; indeed it is being proposed (unrealistically) as the litmus test of 'tolerance'. The fact remains that, at a political and social level, people still have very strong opinions on what is right for society as a whole and struggle in the political arena to get society to accept those ideas. We are very fortunate that in the contemporary western world that struggle is carried out through a system of free democratic elections and through forums such as this, rather than through armed struggle.


You're a smart cookie. And this is so true.
Reply #52 from JoeUser Forums Top
Tolerance however is also being used here as a kind of code word for agreeing with the other person's point of view; indeed it is being proposed (unrealistically) as the litmus test of 'tolerance'. The fact remains that, at a political and social level, people still have very strong opinions on what is right for society as a whole and struggle in the political arena to get society to accept those ideas. We are very fortunate that in the contemporary western world that struggle is carried out through a system of free democratic elections and through forums such as this, rather than through armed struggle.


Thank you. I admit I have never seen this use of the term. My understanding of tolerance has always been of the sort originally understood. It would seem to me that a pluralistic society would require a certain level of tolerance or otherwise would tear itself apart. That we have the systemic tools to struggle with, though because of them, no solution is ultimately "winable." Therefore it would seem, we are left to nurish the practical reality of tolerance as a solution for civil society. I do not wish to convert, only to freely co-exist and co-exist with some level of acceptance of my right to do so by my neighbors. Some might argue I have no such right. It is to them lessons on tolerance might well be directed. Yet those being corrected are often left with the feeling they are being attacked. Hence the main point of the question which initiated this particular forum dialogue.

Be well.
Offworld Trading Company
Reply #53 from JoeUser Forums Top
This is good, but there is still a problem. I might not like, for various intellectual and philosophical reasons the religious 'style' of, for example, fundamentalist christians - in fact reading what I write here regularly it is clear that I don't - and yet, if I were to expect them to 'give up' their biblical literalism for something that I consider more intellectually respectable, it is more than possible that they would also lose in the process that religious fire which, at its best, makes their religion a living thing and not just a dry Sunday observance.

Of course, if my feelings are easily hurt - which sometimes they are - I might not like the fact that they consider that my religious path will inevitably end in the fires of hell. But at the end of the day so what? If they truly follow their religion - and remember truly following it also includes holding fast to those doctrines that you and I find objectionable - then they should be doing their utmost to live up to the extremely demanding standards of loving kindness that are to be found in their scripture.

If they are doing this but stumbling, well at least they are trying. If they are doing this and actually succeeding, then not only will their harsh theology be tempered by their religious practice, but I would have to say that their 'spirituality' is probably superior to mine, regardless of whether or not it is as intellectually cogent. As the good book says "Love covers a multitude of sins" and that probably goes for 'intellectual errors' also.

Also I don't think I've yet said how nice it has been to (virtually) meet you, so I also wish for you to be well
Reply #54 from JoeUser Forums Top
This is good, but there is still a problem. I might not like, for various intellectual and philosophical reasons the religious 'style' of, for example, fundamentalist christians - in fact reading what I write here regularly it is clear that I don't - and yet, if I were to expect them to 'give up' their biblical literalism for something that I consider more intellectually respectable, it is more than possible that they would also lose in the process that religious fire which, at its best, makes their religion a living thing and not just a dry Sunday observance


Absolutely. More than possible, I'd say probable and that would be a loss. The thing about tolerance, as I see it is that we do not have to like another's point of view, but we should attempt to co-exist with it. I do not think it much to ask the same in return. But perhaps it is. Sunday blue laws are an example. My sabbath is Saturday. Yet, Sunday is the sabbath as Christians have it (I guess they think God changed his mind or something ) and have democraticly enacted laws that essentially force others to follow. A truely pluralist society would not allow a religiously based legistlation to occur. If I should attempt to challenge such a law, Christians get up in arms suggesting I am attacking their faith.


Of course, if my feelings are easily hurt - which sometimes they are - I might not like the fact that they consider that my religious path will inevitably end in the fires of hell. But at the end of the day so what? If they truly follow their religion - and remember truly following it also includes holding fast to those doctrines that you and I find objectionable - then they should be doing their utmost to live up to the extremely demanding standards of loving kindness that are to be found in their scripture.


Quite so.


If they are doing this but stumbling, well at least they are trying. If they are doing this and actually succeeding, then not only will their harsh theology be tempered by their religious practice, but I would have to say that their 'spirituality' is probably superior to mine, regardless of whether or not it is as intellectually cogent. As the good book says "Love covers a multitude of sins" and that probably goes for 'intellectual errors' also.


Yes, this is faith itself, I think. We each strugglet o make sense of the forest amidst the trees.

Also I don't think I've yet said how nice it has been to (virtually) meet you, so I also wish for you to be well


A deep bow to you.

Be well.
Reply #55 from JoeUser Forums Top
"And the love of many will grow cold." Perhaps the sifting of the wheat from the chaf?
Reply #56 from JoeUser Forums Top
"And the love of many will grow cold." Perhaps the sifting of the wheat from the chaf?

Could be. But which are you and how do you know?