Obama upsets US Christians....again

[TerranceL]

Actually, it's not what's happening at all.

Christianity has a bloody history -- this is a fact.

The attitude seems to be, "it happened a long time ago, therefore it never happened."

That is a strawman, of course it happened, the question is, what in the world does it have to do with what's going on today?

Nobody is claiming that Christianity is violent and atrocious today -- that claim is reserved for Islam.

Nobody is claiming that the entire religion is violent and atrocious -- again, that claim is reserved for Islam.

Nobody is claiming that every single Christian should be held responsible for the actions of its most atrocious members, past or present -- once again, that claim is reserved for Islam.

Do you have any arguments that aren't strawmen? Are we to take the words of bigots and behave as if they are the prevailing arguments made against islam?

Apparently they don't teach much of what we were enlightened from.... These things happened; that's a fact.

One which nobody is disputing.

Christianity was, for lack of a better term, saved form itself thanks to the Enlightenment. Clearly, Islam is in desperate need of a similar paradigm-shifting event.

Amen.

Alas, if it ever does come, it certainly won't come from the Christians.

That's nonsensical why would you even say that? Where else would reform come from but within?

 

[psalms 91]

It seems that today everyone has a history that they dont like and want to drag up. It really isnt important what happened in the past beyond remembering it so that it isnt repeated but even in Christianity it is said to forget someones past and forgive or you will not be forgiven. Today is what is iomportant for we cannot change the past but today we can make a difference. I am tired of the past being dragged up by people who probably wouldnt like their past dragged up and be reminded of it all the time. All I can say is get over it and move on and make a real difference today.

 

[Sistrin]

If the Church had the power it did during the crusades then I think Yes!.

And you would be wrong. Christianity does not teach persecution at the tip of a sword, nor to slay those who do not believe in like manner, nor to persecute and murder gays simply for being gay, nor to force women to submit to marriage at age nine if there happens to be someone who wants to marry you, nor to kill the infidel nor any other like atrocities being committed by ISIS and other Islamic groups on a daily basis.

This line of reasoning is truly pathetic. Islamic militants burn a guy alive and the response of the left in general is "but Christians..."

Indeed -- the rise in secularism is what stripped the church of the power to commit atrocity without accountability...

Nonsense. The teachings of Christ contain no instruction to commit atrocities, much less without accountability.

 

[TLK Valentine]

That is a strawman, of course it happened, the question is, what in the world does it have to do with what's going on today?

It's called a historical parallel -- the Muslim world is going through now what the Christian world went through in the past.

As has been noted, Christianity rose above its propensity for atrocity thanks to the Enlightenment, although it does suffer the occasional minor relapse -- the use of Christianity to justify slavery and the South's secession being the most recent one of note. (Google "Cornerstone Address" if you think otherwise)

"Many governments have been founded upon the principle of the subordination and serfdom of certain classes of the same race; such were and are in violation of the laws of nature. Our system commits no such violation of nature’s laws. With us, all of the white race, however high or low, rich or poor, are equal in the eye of the law. Not so with the negro. Subordination is his place. He, by nature, or by the curse against Canaan, is fitted for that condition which he occupies in our system. The architect, in the construction of buildings, lays the foundation with the proper material-the granite; then comes the brick or the marble. The substratum of our society is made of the material fitted by nature for it, and by experience we know that it is best, not only for the superior, but for the inferior race, that it should be so. It is, indeed, in conformity with the ordinance of the Creator. It is not for us to inquire into the wisdom of His ordinances, or to question them. For His own purposes, He has made one race to differ from another, as He has made “one star to differ from another star in glory.” The great objects of humanity are best attained when there is conformity to His laws and decrees, in the formation of governments as well as in all things else. Our confederacy is founded upon principles in strict conformity with these laws."

If the problems were similar, it would stand to reason that the solutions would also be similar -- the Islamic world needs an enlightenment of its own.

The problem is that I don't see that happening -- the Christian world would never allow it.

Do you have any arguments that aren't strawmen? Are we to take the words of bigots and behave as if they are the prevailing arguments made against islam?

Are we to take the actions of extremists and terrorists and behave as if they are the prevailing actions of Islam?

Doesn't feel good, does it?

One which nobody is disputing.

Not disputing, but dismissing. Not much of an improvement.

Amen.

We agree.

That's nonsensical why would you even say that? Where else would reform come from but within?

Ask the "nation-builders" and "liberators" that come from without. You thought Iraq would be better off without the evil influence of Saddam Hussein -- witness the result; the devils we didn't know turned out to be a lot worse than the one we did.

Now multiply those results a thousand times over, and you'll get a glimpse of your future.

But let's assume that, for once, we learn from our mistakes and back off (LOL!)

We all know that things are going to get worse before they get better -- and the Christian world will never allow either of those to happen.

They won't let it get worse in the short term without the pathological need to interfere-- ahem, I mean "save" them -- which will be perceived as hostile and responded to in kind.

They certainly don't want it to get better in the long term, because Christianity is currently the dominant religion of the world, with Islam in second place -- and the Christian world is going to want to keep it that way. Have a new mosque built in your neighborhood if you doubt that.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Nonsense. The teachings of Christ contain no instruction to commit atrocities, much less without accountability.

"The teachings of Christ" have very little to do with the actions of his self-proclaimed followers in this day and age.

Too many Christians today spend more time trying to get around Christs' words than they do following them.

 

[grandvizier1006]

"The teachings of Christ" have very little to do with the actions of his self-proclaimed followers in this day and age.

Too many Christians today spend more time trying to get around Christs' words than they do following them.

You really don't know what you're talking about, you just want to bash us. What exactly is gained from it? Do you want us to apologize?

Well, here, you go. I, a Christian, am sorry that your life has been ruined by us and that we Christians have brought so much horror on the world. The world would be so much better off without us, as you say. We have committed so many horrible atrocities and we're all hypocrites. I can't pay you any reparations because I don't have enough money, so that will have to come later.

There, now that that's over with, the Cornerstone Address had nothing to do with Christianity. Yes, the South was Christian. Yes, the South was racist. The two aspects are not eternally entwined like atheists like to pretend they are. Accusing "all" of your opponent's ideology's adherents of being prejudiced in some manner is just stupid, especially considering that you yourself are prejudiced against Christians.

Finally, your talk of the Christian world and Islam is complete ignorance. The "Christian world" is long gone, thanks to your beloved Enlightenment. That, BTW, didn't save Christianity from itself. Christianity saved itself from itself, and the opinions of a few Frenchmen did nothing to undermine Christianity. After the Reformation it was understood that freedom of religion was necessary for efficient governments, and the Enlightenment philosophes spread that concept around, and when they did I doubt that it was a byword for state atheism or whatever. Christianity can and often benefits from things "outside" of it. And to assume that no Enlightenment would have meant that "the whole of Europe was just this horrible place where Christians were always stoning people that were different" is just plain ignorance. History can't be painted so black and white.

Regardless, the world was effectively secularized in terms of motives for actions in the 18th century. You can't really blame "those evil Christians" much for anything afterwards. Slavery and Jim Crow, for example, was committed by SOME people who HAPPENED to be Christians, not in the name of Christ like Obama ignorantly says. Furthermore, both of these things were ended by Christians, so even going by your logic, "We fixed ourselves".

The secular world is apatheist, so they don't care much about what radical Islam does so long as radical Islam doesn't destroy them (which it wants to). But right now the main feud is between the secular west and radical Islam, nothing to do with "the Christian world". Shockingly enough, we Christians are still around even though our "evil reign of terror has passed away". Yes, a lot of Christians nowadays are living in fear and ignorance of Islam, but that's mainly in America where there aren't many. In Britain the Christians just let the Muslims be and everything is mostly fine. Same thing with America if more Muslims showed up.

So stop living in the past and live in the present. I thought that "secular" people were supposed to be good at that.

 

[TerranceL]

Are we to take the actions of extremists and terrorists and behave as if they are the prevailing actions of Islam?

Doesn't feel good, does it?

Given that it wasn't an argument I've made... burn that strawman down.

Ask the "nation-builders" and "liberators" that come from without. You thought Iraq would be better off without the evil influence of Saddam Hussein -- witness the result; the devils we didn't know turned out to be a lot worse than the one we did.

I did? I was against the Iraq war. I'm against pretty much the majority of our interventions.

Now multiply those results a thousand times over, and you'll get a glimpse of your future.

Just my future? Leaving us so soon?

We all know that things are going to get worse before they get better -- and the Christian world will never allow either of those to happen.

Yes you've made that claim, but never got around to saying just HOW christians would keep it from happening. I do however like the "christians won't let the world become a better place!" argument. It's delusional.

They won't let it get worse in the short term without the pathological need to interfere-- ahem, I mean "save" them -- which will be perceived as hostile and responded to in kind.

Are you talking about Christians, or governments? Are you now saying that the US is a christian nation? You're smarter than that.

They certainly don't want it to get better in the long term, because Christianity is currently the dominant religion of the world, with Islam in second place -- and the Christian world is going to want to keep it that way. Have a new mosque built in your neighborhood if you doubt that.

Or conversely build a Christian church in Mecca.

There are 13 mosques in my city, guess how much griping I hear about it.

 

[SuperCloud]

When Jesus’ followers saw what was going to happen, they said, “Lord, should we strike with our swords?” And one of them struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his right ear. But Jesus answered, “No more of this!” And he touched the man’s ear and healed him. Luke‬ 22‬:49-51‬ NIV)

Yes, I understand that, Dkh.

There are contradictions, oxymoron, and then there are contradictions we can reconcile called "paradoxes."

On the other hand, characters in literature can make statements that are meant to be symbolic or are better taken in a deeper context, perhaps from statements or views that culturally preceded it by years or centuries or more.

Jesus statement at the Last Supper that those that don't own swords should buy one, clearly contradicts his later statement about not using swords to bring resolution to the problem of His possible arrest.

The thing is we ought not bring in our own ideologies but attempt to infer from these things what the author(s) meant by them.

In the world of literature there is the maxim that good literature does not tell (explicitly state) but shows.

Bearing that in mind what is shown in your passage above? Think of it as a theater stage scene with all the clothing and props.

You're focusing only on Jesus healing the severed ear but missing entirely that He was traveling with armed men carry swords (or Long knives or "short swords" how ever you prefer to describe them), and that one of those swords present was used to cut off an ear.

So, it's like Obama or any U.S. President traveling with armed Secret Service men, knowing full well they are carrying guns, but makes some statement that is recorded in print. And 2,000 years later someone reads that and declares that President Obama was 100% against the use of firearms or any violence whatsoever to resolve conflicts (from ISIS to Syria to whatever).

Jesus also does not berate the Roman soldier that comes to Him to aid His servant. He does not berate Him for being a military man of war.

Some earlier Christian converts were in fact Roman soldiers. Some of them were martyred for their faith.

 

[SuperCloud]

Regardless, the world was effectively secularized in terms of motives for actions in the 18th century. You can't really blame "those evil Christians" much for anything afterwards. Slavery and Jim Crow, for example, was committed by SOME people who HAPPENED to be Christians, not in the name of Christ like Obama ignorantly says. Furthermore, both of these things were ended by Christians, so even going by your logic, "We fixed ourselves".

Jim Crow was not specifically a "Christian" resolution to some perceived biological dilemma. It overlapped with Protestant Christianity in the USA because Protestants were more apt to believe in the secular, Enlightenment driven, racist science of biological determinism.

I'm stating this as a mulatto and biology major. So, TLK is grossly misinformed (as is Obama).

Looking at the genocide brought in by Enlightenment, secular, influenced British scientist on the Tasmanian people, one could say that secularism, the Enlightenment, and science are ISIS before Christianity pacified them.

The last living Tasmanian man, after he died, a British scientist took some of his skin to make a tobacco pouch out of. Similar to the science driven Nazis who are said to have made lampshades out of the skin of dead Jewish people.

Because of biological determinism (which was a major motivating factor in Nazi Germany) the United States was still forcibly sterilizing girls and women into either the 1960s or 1970s.





Slavery is a more complicated issue. I'm not sure why Obama even brought it up as the Trans Sahara Slave Trade is believed to have traded in more black African slaves than it's counterpart across the Atlantic. It also predated--and out survived--the Trans Atlantic Slave Trade.

Plus, logically deducing from his narrative, the Declaration of Independence and the formation of the United States of America is analogous to the rise if ISIS the Islamic State. And there can be no differentiating the economic rise of the United States (that means its Federal political apparatus too) from the internal slave trade within the United States of America. Northern Industry was intimately tied to agricultural production of rice, tobacco, and especially *cotton* in the South.

Yet, Obama's goal is totally differentiate the secular Federal Government of the USA from the money earned from slave labor and the removal of Amerindians from their lands. He wants to distort the history to wash the hands of *secularisam* clean and put full blame of Christians.

But in fact the story is more complicated. There were secular and Christian (Catholic and Protestant) people that supported the slave trade and Jim Crow. And there were secular and Christian people on the other side who opposed the slave trade and Jim Crow.

You see the same thing with wage earning labor issues in the late 1800s into the early to mid 1900s.

Unfortunately for secular *capitalists* it was secular *socialists* who were generally fighters for racial and gender equal rights, reasonable workday hours, overtime pay, fair wages etc.

If it is said "history repeats itself if it is not learned from," well.... Catholicism always accepted the full humanity of black people including the enslaved blacks. The United States Constitution and the secular government of the United States did not. The USA had biological science behind it whereas Catholicism had sound logic. Both claimed to have the greater morality.

If we can identify what species an organism is by its genetic profile, and if the human life cycle begins at "conception" (which means "beginning") or that is to say when a human female egg is fertilized, then the unborn even at the stage of a zygote constitutes human life.

That the secular United States Government denies to know if a zygote constitutes human life or not, is only reminiscent of when the secular United States Government denied the full humanity of people of black African ancestry.

 

[TLK Valentine]

You really don't know what you're talking about, you just want to bash us. What exactly is gained from it? Do you want us to apologize?

Of course not. It would be a pointless gesture.

Well, here, you go. I, a Christian, am sorry that your life has been ruined by us and that we Christians have brought so much horror on the world. The world would be so much better off without us, as you say.

Only problem is, I didn't say that. Can you show me where I did?

We have committed so many horrible atrocities and we're all hypocrites. I can't pay you any reparations because I don't have enough money, so that will have to come later.

Funny thing is, I'm not asking for reparations -- why are you offering?

Some problems aren't solved by throwing money at them.

There, now that that's over with, the Cornerstone Address had nothing to do with Christianity. Yes, the South was Christian. Yes, the South was racist. The two aspects are not eternally entwined like atheists like to pretend they are.

Not eternally entwined, and I never said they were -- Alexander Stephens did a bang-up job of entwining them at that moment, using Christianity to accomplish a political goal.

That much hasn't changed much over the years -- the difference is that we can agree that Stephens' goal was morally reprehensible...

... um, we can agree to that, right?

Accusing "all" of your opponent's ideology's adherents of being prejudiced in some manner is just stupid,

I couldn't agree more.

especially considering that you yourself are prejudiced against Christians.

Not in the slightest -- I'm prejudiced in favor of truth.

Finally, your talk of the Christian world and Islam is complete ignorance. The "Christian world" is long gone, thanks to your beloved Enlightenment.

You sound bitter about about that -- not so gone after all, is it?

That, BTW, didn't save Christianity from itself. Christianity saved itself from itself, and the opinions of a few Frenchmen did nothing to undermine Christianity.

Nor did the Enlightenment.

After the Reformation it was understood that freedom of religion was necessary for efficient governments, and the Enlightenment philosophes spread that concept around, and when they did I doubt that it was a byword for state atheism or whatever.

Freedom of one religion necessarily means freedom from all the others, correct?

Christianity can and often benefits from things "outside" of it. And to assume that no Enlightenment would have meant that "the whole of Europe was just this horrible place where Christians were always stoning people that were different" is just plain ignorance.

Good thing I didn't say that -- why did you?

History can't be painted so black and white.

Nor can it be painted in good and evil... and yet...

Regardless, the world was effectively secularized in terms of motives for actions in the 18th century. You can't really blame "those evil Christians" much for anything afterwards.

Nor did I -- your strawman notwithstanding.

Slavery and Jim Crow, for example, was committed by SOME people who HAPPENED to be Christians, not in the name of Christ like Obama ignorantly says.

Christians who HAPPENED to use Christianity as justification -- that's no coincidence, no matter how much you would like it to be considered one.

Furthermore, both of these things were ended by Christians, so even going by your logic, "We fixed ourselves".

And I applaud you for that -- you saw an internal problem and you fixed it -- so let's not pretend the problem never existed... or that things couldn't have ended a lot worse had you failed.

The secular world is apatheist, so they don't care much about what radical Islam does so long as radical Islam doesn't destroy them (which it wants to).

Radical Christianity, too.

Of course, radical Christianity has long since been de-fanged. They grumble and complain, whine "persecution!" every once in a while, and engage in the occasional lawsuit, but ultimately, they're powerless.

But right now the main feud is between the secular west and radical Islam, nothing to do with "the Christian world".

Agreed -- and one can only hope it stays that way. There is absolutely nothing that Christian institutions can contribute to this conflict that won't make things exponentially worse.

Shockingly enough, we Christians are still around even though our "evil reign of terror has passed away".

You are quite fond of quoting.... yourself, I can only imagine. Certainly nobody else here said that.

But, histrionics aside, you are correct. And Muslims will still be around long after these issues are resolved. Their culture will be similarly "Enlightened," as Christianity was, and they will see the value of freedom of religion, as (the majority of) Christians eventually did.

It may very well be that their culture will eventually overshadow Christian culture as the dominant one of Western civilization -- if not humanity. We can only hope it does not overshadow secularism.

But of course, if Christians could learn the lesson, so can Muslims.

Yes, a lot of Christians nowadays are living in fear and ignorance of Islam, but that's mainly in America where there aren't many. In Britain the Christians just let the Muslims be and everything is mostly fine. Same thing with America if more Muslims showed up.

Agreed -- so the solution is that America needs more Muslims. I've got no problem with that; competition is supposed to be a healthy thing.

So stop living in the past and live in the present. I thought that "secular" people were supposed to be good at that.

Secular people are good at learning from history -- not in dismissing it.

 

[Albion]

Jim Crow was not specifically a "Christian" resolution to some perceived biological dilemma.

That's right. It was an American phenomenon and no more a "Christian" event than almost anything else that ever happened in the USA (since it has always been primarily Christian in make-up).

 

[SuperCloud]

One other thought:

Coptic Christianity has none of the genocide and racism that secularism, science, and the Enlightenment has.

Coptic Christianity is part of the Oriental Orthodox world.

But neither the Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox were on any significant scale involved in the subjugation of Amerindians from Brazil Northward to Canada, nor did the Eastern Orthodox Christian countries and Oriental Orthodox countries colonize these places.

It is in my mind not a wrong that Catholicism called for "A war for the cross" (what enemies of Catholicism latter coined "The Crusades.").

Not that some Crusaders did not commit great evils. They did. Not so unlike some U.S. military men in Vietnam, WWII, or some say the Iraqi war... committed great evils.

But the Christian world was analogous to the secular West today. Islamic military forces had already crashed into, invaded and taken, Eastern Christian territories. The Christian West sat on it's hands (attacked by pagan forces from other directions, however) and did squat. Islamic forces even invaded into Catholic territories. Catholicism still did squat.

At some point Constantinople seeing the writing on the walls asked for the Pope to inspire military aid to support them. Kind of like secular leaders today ask one other to aid each other on the "War on Terrorism" (even 9-11 was like a soft pat on the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] compared to what the Christian world had suffered in attacks centuries ago) or to join together as Crusaders again "evil" Russia.

How Catholicism went about some of that we can see today was problematic and even aided in the fall of Constantinople. Not to mention the Pope refused an alliance with the Mongolian Khan who wanted to wipe Islam off the face of the map, and even offered to attack Egypt and return Egypt to the Christians.

But at least the Crusaders fought. At least they showed up for the fight. Had no one fought all of Europe would be Muslim today.

What is the great sin for Catholicism--in my view--is not the Crusades but the colonial efforts that robbed indigenous people, grossly expolited the natural resources of these territories, and reduced (rather than uplift) millions of people to slavery. Not to mention the horrific Middle Passage alone. Utterly nightmarish and evil.

But Catholicism tied itself too closely to empire and money men. And those two were about colonization.

Money actually ran in the reverse during the Crusades for Crusader kingdoms. It was costing European monarchs money--sending money to those Crusader kingdoms--to keep them afloat. It was not an endeavor that made Europeans rich beyond belief. Although, it did intellectually enrich Europeans by exposing them to the more culturally refined and far more learned Muslims, Jews, and Eastern Christians.

Per the Crusades it does not even have to be viewed as a good guy vs bad guy thing. Especially as there were good and bad and all in between on both sides. But it can simply be viewed as two different social, cultural, religious, and political worlds that were bound to collide at some point. Not unlike secularism waging its Crusade today against the Islamic world and claiming some holy Crusade for "democracy" (Yet, allied with Saudi Arabia--who in fact due to being a different Islamic branch than its enemy neighbors--is instructing the USA to attack Syria, and the USA is 100% silent on Crusading for holy democracy in Saudi Arabia).

 

[Albion]

Given that it wasn't an argument I've made... burn that strawman down.

I did? I was against the Iraq war. I'm against pretty much the majority of our interventions.

But, but, you ARE showing a Libertarian Party logo, so that must mean you are a Republican, and because you are, you must agree with everything that George W. Bush did. All of this is a "given," doncha know?

 

[grandvizier1006]

Of course not. It would be a pointless gesture.




Only problem is, I didn't say that. Can you show me where I did?



Funny thing is, I'm not asking for reparations -- why are you offering?

Some problems aren't solved by throwing money at them.



Not eternally entwined, and I never said they were -- Alexander Stephens did a bang-up job of entwining them at that moment, using Christianity to accomplish a political goal.

That much hasn't changed much over the years -- the difference is that we can agree that Stephens' goal was morally reprehensible...

... um, we can agree to that, right?



I couldn't agree more.



Not in the slightest -- I'm prejudiced in favor of truth.



You sound bitter about about that -- not so gone after all, is it?



Nor did the Enlightenment.



Freedom of one religion necessarily means freedom from all the others, correct?



Good thing I didn't say that -- why did you?



Nor can it be painted in good and evil... and yet...




Nor did I -- your strawman notwithstanding.



Christians who HAPPENED to use Christianity as justification -- that's no coincidence, no matter how much you would like it to be considered one.



And I applaud you for that -- you saw an internal problem and you fixed it -- so let's not pretend the problem never existed... or that things couldn't have ended a lot worse had you failed.



Radical Christianity, too.

Of course, radical Christianity has long since been de-fanged. They grumble and complain, whine "persecution!" every once in a while, and engage in the occasional lawsuit, but ultimately, they're powerless.



Agreed -- and one can only hope it stays that way. There is absolutely nothing that Christian institutions can contribute to this conflict that won't make things exponentially worse.



You are quite fond of quoting.... yourself, I can only imagine. Certainly nobody else here said that.

But, histrionics aside, you are correct. And Muslims will still be around long after these issues are resolved. Their culture will be similarly "Enlightened," as Christianity was, and they will see the value of freedom of religion, as (the majority of) Christians eventually did.

It may very well be that their culture will eventually overshadow Christian culture as the dominant one of Western civilization -- if not humanity. We can only hope it does not overshadow secularism.

But of course, if Christians could learn the lesson, so can Muslims.



Agreed -- so the solution is that America needs more Muslims. I've got no problem with that; competition is supposed to be a healthy thing.



Secular people are good at learning from history -- not in dismissing it.

Ok, I'm sorry. I was upset and frustrated at your statements, which I frankly strongly disagree with and find to be VERY inaccurate and untrue. No, I don't plan on elaborating, because I'm not an expert and debating people. It's just that:

1. I don't want Christianity's history to be painted as "this stupid thing we once believed in, thank goodness we don't take it seriously now". That's too broad and generalizing.
2. I don't want to have to feel guilty about what other people who claimed to be Christians did in the past. Were they genuine Christians or not, only God knows, and to you secular people there's no difference. And most Christians can't tell them apart, either, and it just leads to that stupid Scotsman's fallacy, so if you're going to use it to tell me that a "true Christian" is purely subjective, please don't. I'm not in the mood, and I have my own ideas of what a true Christian is. It's just not very defined right now (and it's not like some specific doctrinal things, like you're not a Christian if you don't believe X, Y and Z).

My point is, I'm sorry I put words in your mouth and let myself think that I just had to say something. I've sinned by letting myself get so pointlessly worked up and deliberately allowing myself to fill my brain with hatred. I apologize.

I just don't like people insulting my faith and saying that Christianity's past is entirely filled with atrocities. I used to feel very guilty about that and wondered how on Earth Christians would be able to mend all of this stuff. Frankly I love my faith and don't want it to be "phased out" by secularism or Islam or anything else. I really don't see why I can't just believe in what I do in peace. My beliefs aren't harming anyone, and neither is me airing them. Remarks like yours just trigger me too much, and quite honestly I think you're grossly inaccurate.

 

[Supreme]

The President has a point. But the events he mentioned are history. An important part of history, but history nonetheless.

ISIS commits atrocities on a daily basis. I can't think of any Christian organisations that murder people in such a horrific fashion that are operating right now, thank God.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Ok, I'm sorry. I was upset and frustrated at your statements, which I frankly strongly disagree with and find to be VERY inaccurate and untrue. No, I don't plan on elaborating, because I'm not an expert and debating people.

No need for you to elaborate -- and your apology is accepted, appreciated, and reciprocated.

Now that we've both cooled off....

It's just that:

1. I don't want Christianity's history to be painted as "this stupid thing we once believed in, thank goodness we don't take it seriously now". That's too broad and generalizing.

And I've certainly never tried to paint it as such, and I apologize to anyone who got the mistaken impression that I did. Christianity, like any religious faith, can be a productive and uplifting societal tool, but it can be misused -- particularly for social and political power.

Christianity has been misused as such in the past; I believe Islam is currently being misused as such in the Middle East.

Christianity is, according to its followers, a personal relationship with God -- key word: personal. It is its own reward, and should not be used as a means to an Earthly end. Most Christians realize that, I think -- a few forget, or worse, ignore it. Like any shameful part of history, it must be acknowledged and remembered so that it is not repeated.

In time, Islam will, I believe and hope soon, be in a similar situation... at the moment, however, there are too many people using it as a means to their own selfish ends. (You'll notice that for all their talk of martyrdom, you never see the terrorist leaders blowing themselves up, do you?)

2. I don't want to have to feel guilty about what other people who claimed to be Christians did in the past.

I don't want to feel guilty about the Trail of Tears, the internment of the Japanese during WWII, McCarthyism, or the abuses at Abu Ghraib and GITMO. And I don't; why should I? I didn't do it...

But as an American and a human being with a conscience, I want to remember these incidents and see to it they don't happen again. Also, while I am not responsible for the atrocities of the past, I know that I am, at least in my own small part, responsible to do my best to prevent similar atrocities in the future.

Were they genuine Christians or not, only God knows, and to you secular people there's no difference.

God only knows if anyone -- yourself and myself included --are genuine Christians. You say you are; they say they are -- and at least on this forum, I cannot argue against anyone making such a claim.

And most Christians can't tell them apart, either, and it just leads to that stupid Scotsman's fallacy, so if you're going to use it to tell me that a "true Christian" is purely subjective, please don't. I'm not in the mood, and I have my own ideas of what a true Christian is. It's just not very defined right now (and it's not like some specific doctrinal things, like you're not a Christian if you don't believe X, Y and Z).

And herein lies the problem. There's no practical difference between a "true" Christian and a practicing or professed Christian. We're dealing with people who are sincere in their beliefs and are acting on them -- that's the unfortunate reality of the past and the present. So even if you were willing to explain the difference, doing so to me would make no difference... you'd have to explain it to them, and I sincerely doubt your proclamation of "you're doing it wrong," will have any impact whatsoever on their behavior.

My point is, I'm sorry I put words in your mouth and let myself think that I just had to say something. I've sinned by letting myself get so pointlessly worked up and deliberately allowing myself to fill my brain with hatred. I apologize.

Apology accepted -- and I apologize for not being clearer; Jesus never gave any orders to kill, oppress, enslave, or subjugate others, but that hasn't stopped people, and indeed entire institutions, from doing so in his name.

He is blameless; His followers (and I mean those who actually committed these acts), not so much.

I just don't like people insulting my faith and saying that Christianity's past is entirely filled with atrocities.

And I don't blame you -- neither I nor Obama said "entirely," however.

Personally, I say any atrocities are too many, and to say that there have been some atrocities committed in the name of Christianity is not an insult, but a historical fact.

I used to feel very guilty about that and wondered how on Earth Christians would be able to mend all of this stuff. Frankly I love my faith and don't want it to be "phased out" by secularism or Islam or anything else.

That would be impossible -- it's your faith. Neither secularism nor Islam can crawl inside your mind and sever the relationship with Christ you believe you have.

It might happen -- maybe in 50 years, maybe in 500 years, maybe never -- that your faith will no longer be the most popular one on the planet, but so what? You don't need your faith to be popular in order for you to keep loving it, right?

Besides, these things tend to happen in cycles.... witness Iceland:

Iceland to build first temple to Norse gods since Viking age | World news | The Guardian

I really don't see why I can't just believe in what I do in peace.

I don't see why not, either. My remarks didn't shake your faith in any way, shape, or form, and had you said nothing, you would've remained unaffected.

My beliefs aren't harming anyone, and neither is me airing them. Remarks like yours just trigger me too much, and quite honestly I think you're grossly inaccurate.

And you are, as always, free to believe as you wish, regardless of what others think.

...as am I.

 

[grandvizier1006]

Thank you for forgiving me. This is why I took a break from CF, I kept getting "triggered", you could say, and it's just unhealthy for me to vent my rage on other people.

 

[TerranceL]

Thank you for forgiving me. This is why I took a break from CF, I kept getting "triggered", you could say, and it's just unhealthy for me to vent my rage on other people.

You weren't triggered, you got angry and popped off. It happens.

Having PTSD triggered is a whole other ball of unfun wax and that word is overused and people need to put a stop to it.

 

[brewmama]

You weren't triggered, you got angry and popped off. It happens.

Having PTSD triggered is a whole other ball of unfun wax and that word is overused and people need to put a stop to it.

Being "triggered" is a common idea and word used in therapeutic circles I've been in, and doesn't have anything to do with PTSD.

 

[TerranceL]

Being "triggered" is a common idea and word used in therapeutic circles I've been in, and doesn't have anything to do with PTSD.

You should tell that to these people then:

Post Traumatic Stress Disorder

NIMH · Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)

Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder | Mental Health America

Trauma trigger - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A trauma trigger is an experience that triggers a traumatic memory in someone who has experienced trauma. A trigger is thus a troubling reminder of a traumatic event, although the trigger itself need not be frightening or traumatic.
The term 'trauma trigger' is not used or recognised in scientific literature[1] but is related to posttraumatic stress disorder.[2]

I'm sure your circles know more about it than they do.