Why is Christianity so Hated?

[hylandrdet]

What bull.

I CORINTHIANS 5
Paul writing to the local church in Corinth:

11 "But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such a one not to eat."

The point is that any sin that is practiced openly and unrepentantly by a believer should call for our separation from that person. Sounds like a judgment to me.

No, it's called advice. The point of that scripture is for you to NOT hold such company so close as to allow them to taint your spirituality.

That was not a call for segregation, it was a call for you to know when to part company when they they try to tempt you. Ex: "Yo dude, you want a drink?". Repsonse,"No thanks. Hey, it's late, I think it's time for me to go home. See you tommorrow."

Which dovetails nicely with Jesus' own words to the woman caught in adultery. Ironically, probably the most favored verse by the "do not judge" crowd.

John 7: 53 - 8: 11
"He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her..."
"Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more."

Jesus did not say, "No one has a right to judge you, so go on and live your life however you want to." He said, "Go and sin no more". At the same time, he showed the Pharisees that their motives for judging this woman were improper; they were using the letter of the law and this woman's actions to try to trick Jesus into saying something that would get Him in trouble with the Roman governor. Jesus is letting them know that the way they judge will be applied to them as well. They knew they were as guilty as the adulteress. He never said Adultery is okay, or that no one can find fault with it. He did, however, forgive the woman ("Neither do I condemn thee").

Improper? Jesus judged them to be hypocrites. His' judgement declared that these men were not capable of judging her, because all of them had sinned.

His "Go and sin no more" declaration was warning to that woman; to advise her to make it HER own personal responsibility to "sin no more". To ignore his warning, would result in her burning alongside these hypocrites. The liberals understand that we had all sinned at one point or time; this means that we are all disqualified from legislating morality. So what's the alternative...?

http://www.bartleby.com/108/19/109.html

Psalm 109. Ask the lord to handle it, for he is infallable and therefore his judgments are without question. Did you notice the beginning of Psalms 109.

"1 Hold not thy peace, O God of my praise;

2 for the mouth of the wicked and the mouth of the deceitful are opened against me:they have spoken against me with a lying tongue.

3 They compassed me about also with words of hatred; and fought against me without a cause."

Sounds to me like someone's been judged by people who'd lacked the moral creditials necessary to make such judgments. Wait a minute, that sounds familiar...

It is not smart or logical to take your (mis)interpretation of the Bible and try to use it against Christians.

Yep, I thought I'd recognized something like that!

In a word, you conservative christian americans will NEVER reach moral creditials needed to pass judgment on anyone. Why? Because we know you , as well as other, had sinned.

Oh by the way, tell Pat I said Hi and tell him that I'll confess that I drunk a beer today so long as he doesn't send a covert team out to kill me!

 

[Gunny]

No, it's called advice. The point of that scripture is for you to NOT hold such company so close as to allow them to taint your spirituality.

That was not a call for segregation, it was a call for you to know when to part company when they they try to tempt you. Ex: "Yo dude, you want a drink?". Repsonse,"No thanks. Hey, it's late, I think it's time for me to go home. See you tommorrow."



Improper? Jesus judged them to be hypocrites. His' judgement declared that these men were not capable of judging her, because all of them had sinned.

His "Go and sin no more" declaration was warning to that woman; to advise her to make it HER own personal responsibility to "sin no more". To ignore his warning, would result in her burning alongside these hypocrites. The liberals understand that we had all sinned at one point or time; this means that we are all disqualified from legislating morality. So what's the alternative...?

http://www.bartleby.com/108/19/109.html

Psalm 109. Ask the lord to handle it, for he is infallable and therefore his judgments are without question. Did you notice the beginning of Psalms 109.

"1 Hold not thy peace, O God of my praise;

2 for the mouth of the wicked and the mouth of the deceitful are opened against me:they have spoken against me with a lying tongue.

3 They compassed me about also with words of hatred; and fought against me without a cause."

Sounds to me like someone's been judged by people who'd lacked the moral creditials necessary to make such judgments. Wait a minute, that sounds familiar...



Yep, I thought I'd recognized something like that!

In a word, you conservative christian americans will NEVER reach moral creditials needed to pass judgment on anyone. Why? Because we know you , as well as other, had sinned.

Oh by the way, tell Pat I said Hi and tell him that I'll confess that I drunk a beer today so long as he doesn't send a covert team out to kill me!

So liberals have figured out that they are sinners; yet, you presume to judge conservatives as not having figured it out.

A Christian is a Christian, regardless political affiliation, Einstein. Kind of obvious which comes first with you since you can't even make a commetn on religion without dragging your stands-for-nothing political party into the fray.

 

[Hobbit]

Ok, lemme explain the stoning of the prostitute thing as best I can.

According to Jewish law, when a man and a woman had sex out of wedlock, they were both to be taken to the edge of the city and stoned. Theologans theorize that this is because in the Old Testament, sin could not be so easily forgiven as now, requiring blood sacrifices and whatnot. Therefore, particular types of sinners had to be regrettably excecuted not because they were now evil, but because their sin had to be removed from the community for the common good.

In this particular case, there were two things missing. The first was a fair tribunal to determine what she was actually doing. The second was the man she sinned with. These guys had simply caught her that very day and dragged her out to make an example of here for their own political gain. Instead of treating the execution as a sad but necessary purging, they were making a real spectacle of it, and the distinct lack of the man being executed along with her shows how they truly felt about the Jewish law.

Now, back to the subject at hand. I see people all the time saying that you can't legislate morality, when what they really mean is that you can't legislate Christian morality. Legislating against murder, theft, and rape are all legislating morality. However, it's morality that doesn't clash with secularism, so it's not labeled as morality. For something more along the lines of opposing morality, how about 'hate speech?' Many things labeled as 'hate speech' are not universally viewed as morally wrong actions. They're only viewed as wrong by hypersensitive liberals like those in the NAACP and the ACLU. When they get 'hate speech' laws passed, they're legislating their morality at me. Why the double standard?

Now, as far as Christians not judging, there's a difference between judging a person and judging their actions. If a person's actions are directly against the Bible, you are well within your rights to tell them so, as long as it's in a proper fashion. There's a procedure in, I think, Phillipians for doing this. Whenever you tell somebody they're doing something wrong and they say, "How dare you judge me!" the proper response is pointing out that you never called them a bad person; you just called them on their actions.

 

[Abbey Normal]

I think Hobbit did a good job of showing how your statement...

"You can't call yourself a good christian when pass negative judgment upon others. That GOD's job. Your attack on the liberal contradicts the very point you're trying to make about being a good christian."

...is wrong, so I will leave it at that. I hope you understood his points.

 

[Avatar4321]

+ :alco:= This.

I'm sorry, but I don't even have enough space to break down this bullshit. I'm just going to keep this simple. Liberals are good Christians because their love is unconditional; their only flaw lies within the fact that their compassion for others is too extreme. It needs to be controlled.

Conservatives are,"all men are created equal, except gays, blacks, jews, muslims, hispanics, asaians, indians, democrats, liberals, martians, hollywood, the medias, Ashley Simpson, Paris Hilton, the pope, the ACLU, David Letterman, OJ Simpson, Terrell Owens, Cat Stevens and anybody that resembles Bill Clinton.

You can't call yourself a good christian when pass negative judgment upon others. That GOD's job. Your attack on the liberal contradicts the very point you're trying to make about being a good christian.

Liberals love is unconditional? Are we living in the same dimension? How are the people protesting at a hospital that takes care of wounded soldiers who were injured protecting their right to protest unconditional love? How are the people using a grieving mother for their political hate purposes showing unconditional love?

There was only one person on this earth whose love was unconditional. His name is Jesus Christ. He suffered and died so everyone might live. He healed the sick. He made people whole. He opened the eyes of the blind, the ears of the deaf. How do people protesting against the brave men and women who protect them do any of that? How does trying to drive a company out of business because they might cut down a few trees to build houses or prepare meat for people to eat show unconditional love to those who need their jobs so their families can eat and survive? How exactly is always saying we shouldnt have gone into Iraq and liberated hundreds of thousands of people from a ruthless dictator showing unconditional love?

How is encouraging deviant sexual activities showing unconditional love when you know that such activity will hurt someone in the long run? How is encouraging women to kill their unborn children unconditional love? How is encouraging division and superiority because of the color of ones skin showing unconditional love? How is using other peoples money to spend on your pet social projects showing unconditional love? How is focusing on "good intentions" rather than results showing unconditional love?

How on earth can you equate an idealogy of such hate and contempt for man with unconditional love?

 

[Oceanic]

It's a good question, really, especially when you think about why the Romans stopped persecuting them. Among other contributions, a GOOD Christian:

- Pays taxes...fairly

- Obeys the law

- Volunteers in the community

- Does all civic duties

- Helps the poor

- Serves his/her country

- Treats all human beings as equals

- and many other things to better the world as a whole

All liberals claim it's ok to do anything that doesn't harm others, so why do they hate Christianity, since Christianity itself never harmed anybody, and don't give me that crap about the inquisition and the Crusades, either. That was a bunch of corrupt officials using Christianity as leverage to give them money and power.

Oh, and here's another thing I don't want excuses for. Liberals, do, in fact, hate Christianity. Muslims try to blow us up and they get liberal lawyers. Christians try to indicate their religious alignment outside their own homes and they get sued.

Oh, and if Powerman comes in here claiming he doesn't hate Christianity, don't quote him. I have him on ignore for a reason and I'm sick of hearing his drivel. He has an irrational hate for Christianity and won't give any useful answers here.

About the Crusades and the Inquisition who do you think represents the Church more, a good Christian according to your criteria or high ranking historic church officials? Also about the liberals hating Christians, what do you think Jesus was? Just curious.

 

[theim]

About the Crusades and the Inquisition who do you think represents the Church more, a good Christian according to your criteria or high ranking historic church officials? Also about the liberals hating Christians, what do you think Jesus was? Just curious.

Jesus was a Jewish son of a carpenter. Or are you implying Jesus would be a liberal? Laughable. Jesus was pretty insistant that everyone spread the Good News, even (and especially) on public property, not ever espousing the idea that people should just keep that stuff in the church.

 

[Oceanic]

Jesus was a Jewish son of a carpenter. Or are you implying Jesus would be a liberal? Laughable. Jesus was pretty insistant that everyone spread the Good News, even (and especially) on public property, not ever espousing the idea that people should just keep that stuff in the church.

I didn't mean regarding economics I meant this definition:

Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.

 

[no1tovote4]

I didn't mean regarding economics I meant this definition:

Christ could be considered more Libertarian than Liberal. He never suggested that the Government should solve your problems, spiritually or physically. He suggested that each person has a personal responsibility for others.

 

[Oceanic]

Christ could be considered more Libertarian than Liberal. He never suggested that the Government should solve your problems, spiritually or physically. He suggested that each person has a personal responsibility for others.

Sounds like a refreshing POV, I'll look in to it.

 

[archangel]

As Jesus answered a person who questioned him at the Roman Seaside resort:

Rabbi:What do you say about our tradition of abstaining from eating meat on Friday...Jesus answered:It's not what you put into your body that defiles it...it is what comes out of the mouth that does!

Very profound and applies to all those who question his wisdom and logic...
to put it simple...talk shit and ya get sick!

 

[Bonnie]

Tells me you are making things too simple. There are some verses in the Koran that say to slaughter the infidels and what not but they also have rules of how they engage in war. They are not taught to use the type of tactics they use from the Koran. The Koran would condemn the actions of the terrorists. I can promise you that.

So murdering is okay, but HOW you do it is problematic for Islam. Well I can sleep better now Thank You

 

[Bonnie]

Christ could be considered more Libertarian than Liberal. He never suggested that the Government should solve your problems, spiritually or physically. He suggested that each person has a personal responsibility for others.

Exactly right D!!

 

[Powerman]

So murdering is okay, but HOW you do it is problematic for Islam. Well I can sleep better now Thank You

My point is that terrorism conflicts with the laws of war within Islam. In other words terrorists aren't representatives of Islam. They are simply lunatics who use religion as a cover. I have several friends who are moslems and condemn the actions of terrorits.

It boils down to this:

All religions have some primitism to them. Muslims in general are more primitive because their geographical culture leads them in that direction. State sponsored religion is the best model for primitism that we have in the modern world and it is easily observable when you look at the Arabic regions of the world. The religion itself isn't any more primitive than Christianity or Judaism, it just so happens to be the Abrahamic faith that the more primitive people follow.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

My point is that terrorism conflicts with the laws of war within Islam. In other words terrorists aren't representatives of Islam. They are simply lunatics who use religion as a cover. I have several friends who are moslems and condemn the actions of terrorits.

It boils down to this:

All religions have some primitism to them. Muslims in general are more primitive because their geographical culture leads them in that direction. State sponsored religion is the best model for primitism that we have in the modern world and it is easily observable when you look at the Arabic regions of the world. The religion itself isn't any more primitive than Christianity or Judaism, it just so happens to be the Abrahamic faith that the more primitive people follow.

It scripturally supports violent conversion in a way christianity does not, even though in the past christianity has been radicalized. Islam also supports lying to nonmuslims to further islam. I'd question your friends more closely.

 

[Powerman]

It scripturally supports violent conversion in a way christianity does not, even though in the past christianity has been radicalized. Islam also supports lying to nonmuslims to further islam. I'd question your friends more closely.

All religions lie in some form or fashion to further themselves. Religions are businesses.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

It scripturally supports violent conversion in a way christianity does not, even though in the past christianity has been radicalized. Islam also supports lying to nonmuslims to further islam. I'd question your friends more closely.

In both Christianity and the Islam, those often viewed as the most extreme are the same who take a very litteral interpretation of their respective texts...at least in my opinion.

My problem with Islam is the lack of strong leadership that allows their religion to be misrepresented. I will concede that Christians (although certainly not all of them) would be very vocal in speaking out about similar acts. When Pat Robertson is calling for people to be taken out, a swarm of Christians quickly ostricize him.

This doesn't change the fact that many Muslims are peaceful people. I can only hope that a voice comes through the fuzz to lead them past this.

 

[Abbey Normal]

Welcome to the board, ClayTaurus. Intriguing name, too.

 

[archangel]

In both Christianity and the Islam, those often viewed as the most extreme are the same who take a very litteral interpretation of their respective texts...at least in my opinion.

My problem with Islam is the lack of strong leadership that allows their religion to be misrepresented. I will concede that Christians (although certainly not all of them) would be very vocal in speaking out about similar acts. When Pat Robertson is calling for people to be taken out, a swarm of Christians quickly ostricize him.

This doesn't change the fact that many Muslims are peaceful people. I can only hope that a voice comes through the fuzz to lead them past this.

Islam was created in the 7th century...Judiasim and Christanianity preceeds this by several centuries...most of Judiasim and Christainity was formed and to some extent taken from ancient Symarian writings pre Islam...why is it Islam only took that which they seek as the way?...Just some food for thought!

 

[Bonnie]

All religions lie in some form or fashion to further themselves. Religions are businesses.

I think you may be confusing the cost of operating churches with the majority of that money going towards the needy and other good causes with corporations whose goal it is (and justly so) to make money.