Hating Christians, what's the root cause?

[jcook922]

Hmm, coming from a Humanist, that's really funny. Like you people desire to allow others to live freely without your quasi-religion demanding all submit to it. What a joke. How about a little introspection yourself?

First examine yourself and then go and talk to others about how they can push their beliefs in the marketplace of ideas. To the secularist, it sure appears like everything must be secular or ridiculed, marginalized and ghettoized. Tell me how I'm wrong on that? You have been to school haven't you? You do watch the news or raed newspapers?

Is this where the thread gets derailed by personal attack tactics?

"I," as a Christian, do not feel hated by most non and anti Christians, but in the case of Humanists, I feel belittled, insulted, degraded and personally attacked because I see the world differently than do they, and I refuse their incessant rule over all.

One just needs to listen to the rote of the common humanist such as Dawkins, to know that my assertion here is based on absolute fact.

My cornerstone as a Humanist is that everyone is allowed to have their own beliefs and freely practice them, but when it comes to law and government, no religious beliefs have a place in legislature. It's that simple for me, while Humanists run a huge gamut of stances on that topic, I'm of the opinion that offending one group with beliefs versus letting them be comfortable by quashing the rights of others, the latter is better. I would rather gays have the right to marry and Christians be offended, than the other way around.

To be honest, I get cheap thrills out of playing Devils advocate in certain cases. I am disgusted by people who are so far-gone of their views that they cannot appreciate the view of the other side, be it Christian, Atheist, or Gay. I'm the global neutral, there to fight Extremism in every sense, because extremism breeds intolerance which infringes on the rights of all. There will always be extremism just like there will always be crime, so in the same way that there will always be a police force there must always be folks like me.

 

[IzzyPop]

Show cause for anything other than a man and woman marriage in any place anywhere in the Torah, the Prophets, or the Writings we Christians call the Old Testament. And then after that, show where and how the Apostolic testimony: "The New Testament," can provide any reason to alter and redefine the union of one man and one woman.


There is no same-gender marriage ANYWHERE in the Bible. Your point and your tact was completely sidetracked.

So show where there is same-gender marriage anywhere in the Bible?

I call Bingo!!

Here we have shifting the goal posts. I have a straight line on my Logical Fallacy Bingo card for this thread. Should we maybe do a Blackout instead of normal Bingo? PCF should get us there in a couple of days.

 

[Tomk80]

Now is that a typical thread derail or a typical insult? It's hard to differentiate the two most of the time? The commonality and rote clouds the differences so often.

How about answering the OP, Joe Friday style?

Already answered it by using you as an example. Do I really need to spell it out for you?

Just the facts sir.

You are one of the facts. Have you know idea of your own behavior on this thread?

It appears you are dispalying the hate category. Is that so?

In what way?

I feel those question are true to the OP.

You are a good answer to the question in the OP.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

My cornerstone as a Humanist is that everyone is allowed to have their own beliefs and freely practice them, but when it comes to law and government, no religious beliefs have a place in legislature. It's that simple for me,

So much for the majority having a voice. The totalitarianism of humanism proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. No democracy allowed I see. lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, John Dewey? We hear democracy, but we see something altogether authoritarian.

. . . while Humanists run a huge gamut of stances on that topic, I'm of the opinion that offending one group with beliefs versus letting them be comfortable by quashing the rights of others, the latter is better.

Then you'll oppose gay activists outlawing Christian truth then?

I would rather gays have the right to marry and Christians be offended, than the other way around.

I on the other hand, do not care about gay culture at all. It has nothing to do with the Christian Church at all. If you are going to a social cop then keep them away from our rights to be free of gay activist's impositions.

To be honest, I get cheap thrills out of playing Devils advocate in certain cases. I am disgusted by people who are so far-gone of their views that they cannot appreciate the view of the other side, be it Christian, Atheist, or Gay.

A self-appointed Centurion are you?

I'm the global neutral, there to fight Extremism in every sense, because extremism breeds intolerance which infringes on the rights of all.

I'm digging the opneness of your statements. Usually the leftist hide behind all sorts of neologism.

There will always be extremism just like there will always be crime, so in the same way that there will always be a police force there must always be folks like me.

Isn't that a rather an extremeist position? "I" do not want "you" as any kind of authority over me and Christians in any way shape or form. What gives you the right to think you rule anyone at all? As a military man, you serve the civilians at their request.

 

[jcook922]

So much for the majority having a voice. The totalitarianism of humanism proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. No democracy allowed I see. lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, John Dewey? We hear democracy, but we see something altogether authoritarian.




Then you'll oppose gay activists outlawing Christian truth then?



I on the other hand, do not care about gay culture at all. It has nothing to do with the Christian Church at all. If you are going to a social cop then keep them away from our rights to be free of gay activist's impositions.



A self-appointed Centurion are you?



I'm digging the opneness of your statements. Usually the leftist hide behind all sorts of neologism.



Isn't that a rather an extremeist position? "I" do not want "you" as any kind of authority over me and Christians in any way shape or form. What gives you the right to think you rule anyone at all? As a military man, you serve the civilians at their request.

I believe Gays and Christians should have the same legal rights, that all citizens should have the same legal rights. I'm far from a communist, people should keep the things they gain from their own work. Gays and Christians should be able to marry, have sex, and be activists if they so choose. All I see is Christians persecuting gays, and then Christians acting like they are the "victims" of gay culture. If they teach gay marriage in public schools, then they should teach Creationism as well, or teach neither.

I'd like some real life examples of how gays STOP Christians from doing anything, when Christians would stop them from getting married and being open about the life they chose. It isn't about eternal damnation, reproduction, or culture, it's about the fact that both parties are citizens, and people, and have to tolerate eachother in equal fashion. Gays are just a bit better at tolerating Christian extremism, because there's nothing in gay culture that says being Christian is wrong.

I'm not saying I'm the authority over anyone, just an activist in my own way. I spoke my piece on my position and how I feel, and I debate and fight for it, just like you. Being in the military I feel very passionately about the fact that our country is about people having rights, and that nobody has to have their ideas suppressed because there are those who don't agree with them.

Your opinion seems to be that because Christians are a large majority in the USA, they should be the ones at the helm of dictating what is and is not socially acceptable. I'm saying that those times are over, and that you have to quit being stubborn and tolerate people you don't like, or might even hate, because that's part of being a civilized human being REGARDLESS of what nationality you are.

 

[Tomk80]

Leave it to PF to confuse democracy with mob-rule.

 

[Paulos23]

Leave it to PF to confuse democracy with mob-rule.

Indeed, until the mob rule goes against him then it will be about protected rights.

Edit: Izzy makes a better point, we are not a democracy but a republic with checks against mob-rule.

 

[IzzyPop]

Leave it to PF to confuse democracy with mob-rule.

Ummm...not to be pedantic or anything, but that is what a democracy actually is. Our founding fathers had some not really nice things to say about true democracies. They implemented several checks against 'the tyranny of the majority.'.

 

[Tomk80]

Ummm...not to be pedantic or anything, but that is what a democracy actually is. Our founding fathers had some not really nice things to say about true democracies. They implemented several checks against 'the tyranny of the majority.'.

Yeah, you're right. Was thinking of that just now. America has always had checks and balances against that.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

I believe Gays and Christians should have the same legal rights, that all citizens should have the same legal rights.

How interesting, I have been consistent on that level. Although, "marriage" means a man and a woman. As long as it is adults.

I'm far from a communist, people should keep the things they gain from their own work

Dewey wasn't a commie either, but his adherants almost to a person hail from the socialist/communist camp. And they are mean and very authoritarian.

.

Gays and Christians should be able to marry, have sex, and be activists if they so choose.

I already like you categorizing. Go on.

All I see is Christians persecuting gays, and then Christians acting like they are the "victims" of gay culture.

We know the train coming down the track. As you can see in Canada, they are coming for us and will not allow dissent. I see a civil conflict on the horizon. The absurdity of comparing gay sex to slavery, is not going to have the same outcome as did the civil war.

If they teach gay marriage in public schools, then they should teach Creationism as well, or teach neither.

They do teach gay marriage in school now. And Christians are told to shutup or get charged with a hate crime. One of my closest friends just called me about a book his first-grader grandson just came home with. It was about "two fathers." The book was so cunning, at know time did it outright say anything about gay this or that. But the message was planted within the minds of other people's children. The book was titled Two.

I'd like some real life examples of how gays STOP Christians from doing anything, when Christians would stop them from getting married and being open about the life they chose.

Soulforce. This gay group literally stops Christians and demands that they celebrate gay sex, gay culture and gay theology. The Bible-affirming Christians were in their own places and directly confronted by these gay activists from Soulforce.

It isn't about eternal damnation, reproduction, or culture, it's about the fact that both parties are citizens, and people, and have to tolerate eachother in equal fashion.

You do realize that now, GLBT's are complaining about the word tolerance?

I'm not tolerating that you do not understand what evil is.

Gays are just a bit better at tolerating Christian extremism, because there's nothing in gay culture that says being Christian is wrong.

Soulforce is leading a movement accusing Bible-believing Christians of spiritual terrorism.

I'm not saying I'm the authority over anyone, just an activist in my own way.

As long as you keep talking about Christians being able to rid their Churches of gay culture, I am agreable to your views about two different cultures walking different paths, but I do not like the tone of authority over Christians from humanists, progressives and liberals. This is a very serious subject to Christians that believe in the Bible. I would think that even you can see our point. Not to mention, that decadence and hedonism has destroyed societies when debauchery runs wild.

I spoke my piece on my position and how I feel, and I debate and fight for it, just like you. Being in the military I feel very passionately about the fact that our country is about people having rights, and that nobody has to have their ideas suppressed because there are those who don't agree with them.

tell that to your side that has outlawed Christian expression in public schools and public discourse. We have just as much right to speak about our "orientation" as does anyone else. According to your logic.

Your opinion seems to be that because Christians are a large majority in the USA, they should be the ones at the helm of dictating what is and is not socially acceptable.

Democracy right? Do the math. You are claiming that Christians must submit to the authority of the majority even when gay activists only have a majority of liberal judges ruling the populace. Democracy is not about a judge or a few judges dictating what the majority votes on.

I'm saying that those times are over, and that you have to quit being stubborn and tolerate people you don't like, or might even hate, because that's part of being a civilized human being REGARDLESS of what nationality you are.

I most certainly do not have to tolerate people that are trying to inflict their anti-Christian views over me. Those times will be over fast. As evil spreads, the Church grows even faster. Christians have more than proven they are a very tolerant people, but to a point. Remember EVERY Christian is called out from the secular world and worldview. Ekklesia is what The Church was called before the english word Church was employed.

[Latin eccl

sia, from Greek ekkl

si

, from ekkalein, to summon forth : ek-, out; see ecto- + kalein, kl

-, to call; see kel

-2]

I will always hope that that is the case even for my enemies.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

wrong post

 

[Beanieboy]

Probably a nonsequitor, but at this point of the thread, it's not detracting much.

Another thing that rubs me the wrong way:
Christians who equate sickness, disaster, or misfortune as "God's Punishment." Robertson saw "God's punishment" when terrorists flew planes into the WTC. It wasn't a group doing a collectively heinous thing. It was the fault of the people it was being done to.

Would you, on finding out that someone's child was shot in school, say to them, "Well, maybe you should start coming to church more often, and God wouldn't haven't punished you"? Would you say to people in Katrina, who may have lost their family members and friends, "Well, you do have Mardi Gras, you know...", rather than feel compassion about the devastation.

Most of us watched, and felt something terrible inside. We saw people that were stranded on their rooftops. We saw people unsure where they were going to go or live. We saw people who didn't know where their kids were.

How can one be so hard hearted to not feel compassion for such things?

The same is true with AIDS/HIV, hurricanes, forest fires, and earthquakes.

I don't understand how anyone can dare call themself Christian, and be so hard hearted towards their neighbor, and offer judgement, rather than a helping hand.

 

[Beanieboy]

A snake, has a conotation, when applied to a human, as being slimy, sneaky and dishonest. Even in allegory, this story does not bode well for those that lead others into sin. You take YOUR pick, allegory or actual fact, and you and I will walk the Bible narrative all the way to Christ Jesus and His Disciples and not one word of orthodoxy being altered. Now, the myth charge made against Genesis I reject. But either way you head, B-B, you are not going to impose a non or anti Christian agenda onto and into the Church.{

Again, I believe you missed the point. I asked how the person believed in a talking snake and tempting Eve with the apple. He was simply angry that I hadn't said serpent and fruit, but how does that change the question?
A walking, talking serpent? That's MORE believeable?

If Adam comes home smelling of cheap wine and perfume at 2am on Tuesday night, and in the morning, Eve, angered, says, "Where were you last night, and why did you smell like perfume?", is it logical, or make any sense for Adam to say, "I didn't come home last night! I came home today, this morning! After 12am, it's Tuesday! So, I'm not even going to answer your question!" ?

That sounds like someone who doesn't have an answer.

Again: My point: dodging the question by focusing on nonissues, such as minor details, that tries to derail the question asked.

Am I trying to disprove Eden? Not at all. Again, not my point in this thread.

But you do make a very good point:

You would do better to stick with the Buddha on moral issues that irritate you.

This is a good point. It makes more sense to me.

 

[jcook922]

Well deliberated post, in the quote I'll put my individual responses.

How interesting, I have been consistent on that level. Although, "marriage" means a man and a woman. As long as it is adults.

-We'll just need to agree to disagree there.-

Dewey wasn't a commie either, but his adherants almost to a person hail from the socialist/communist camp. And they are mean and very authoritarian.

-I was more referring to your use of mao and stalin/lenin, but I see where you're coming from.-

I already like you categorizing. Go on.



We know the train coming down the track. As you can see in Canada, they are coming for us and will not allow dissent. I see a civil conflict on the horizon. The absurdity of comparing gay sex to slavery, is not going to have the same outcome as did the civil war.

-I'd never submit to any one viewpoint being in absolute control myself, and I'm pretty sure there are plenty like me who feel the same way.-


They do teach gay marriage in school now. And Christians are told to shutup or get charged with a hate crime. One of my closest friends just called me about a book his first-grader grandson just came home with. It was about "two fathers." The book was so cunning, at know time did it outright say anything about gay this or that. But the message was planted within the minds of other people's children. The book was titled Two.

-I believe that is wrong, that both sides should either be taught, or excluded from public schools entirely. Fair is fair.-

Soulforce. This gay group literally stops Christians and demands that they celebrate gay sex, gay culture and gay theology. The Bible-affirming Christians were in their own places and directly confronted by these gay activists from Soulforce.

-I also believe this to be wrongdoing, only from the other side. Christians don't have to celebrate gays and their culture, they do, however, have to accept that all sides have to be able to live in society together without trying to push eachother into our own beliefs.-

You do realize that now, GLBT's are complaining about the word tolerance?

-GLBT? Not familiar with the term. I think Tolerance is the perfect word for it, to me it means Christians don't have to approve of gays or vice versa, y'all can hate eachother as far as I am concerned... But you do have to learn to live peacefully amongst eachother without violence, and to not force one to live under the others thumb.-

I'm not tolerating that you do not understand what evil is.

-It's not that I don't understand, it's that I have a different understanding of evil than you.-

Soulforce is leading a movement accusing Bible-believing Christians of spiritual terrorism.

-There are plenty of Christians guilty of such a crime, but Christianity as a religion and a movement is not guilty as a whole. Place blame with individuals, not the group itself in this case.-

As long as you keep talking about Christians being able to rid their Churches of gay culture, I am agreable to your views about two different cultures walking different paths, but I do not like the tone of authority over Christians from humanists, progressives and liberals. This is a very serious subject to Christians that believe in the Bible. I would think that even you can see our point. Not to mention, that decadence and hedonism has destroyed societies when debauchery runs wild.

-Churches should have the right to do whatever they want within their own faith and church, as long as it does not interfere with citizens outside of said church and faith. The same needs to apply to gays, or any other movement for that matter.-

tell that to your side that has outlawed Christian expression in public schools and public discourse. We have just as much right to speak about our "orientation" as does anyone else. According to your logic.

-Already gave my opinion on this, all or known. Creationism and Homosexuality or neither. I agree with you in this respect completely.-

Democracy right? Do the math. You are claiming that Christians must submit to the authority of the majority even when gay activists only have a majority of liberal judges ruling the populace. Democracy is not about a judge or a few judges dictating what the majority votes on.

-I am not a Christian, and I refuse to submit to some sort of "rule" by Christianity because you make up a large percent of our population. This is no a Theocracy, and I didn't swear an oath to protect our constitution and our freedoms so your faith can tear them to shreads. This isn't about submitting to authority, this is about being fair to reasonable demands that extremist groups on both sides refuse to "tolerate".-

I most certainly do not have to tolerate people that are trying to inflict their anti-Christian views over me. Those times will be over fast. As evil spreads, the Church grows even faster. Christians have more than proven they are a very tolerant people, but to a point. Remember EVERY Christian is called out from the secular world and worldview. Ekklesia is what The Church was called before the english word Church was employed.

-You don't have to tolerate them inflicting them on you in regards to your children in school or your church, but you do have to let them practice their beliefs, and they have to let you practice yours.-

[Latin eccl

sia, from Greek ekkl

si

, from ekkalein, to summon forth : ek-, out; see ecto- + kalein, kl

-, to call; see kel

-2]

I will always hope that that is the case even for my enemies.

The only people willing to try and bring order to the needed balance are moderates who won't tolerate being the "Silent Majority" and will get out there and work to get their views expressed. We are very few.

 

[Beanieboy]

There is no same-gender marriage ANYWHERE in the Bible. Your point and your tact was completely sidetracked.

So show where there is same-gender marriage anywhere in the Bible?

There is none, so it doesn't condemn it either.

And? What did Jesus say to the woman CAUGHT IN THE VERY ACT of adultery? C'mon Mr Bible scholar?

"Neither, do I codemn you. GO, and SIN NO MORE?"

He said NEITHER DO I CONDEMN YOU. Go and sin no more.
Why do you take a passage that humbles those that condemned her, shows Christ's mercy to her (he could have cast the first stone), granted her forgiveness, and released her to go and sin no more, and simply say that the entire point was that she should stop sinning, and condemn her?

I'm not a biblical scholar, nor did I ever claim to be, but that isn't the point of the story, <staff edit>

<staff edit>

How many times are "we" to forgive a fellow Christian that sins?

As many times as you wish Christ to forgive you. 7? Then seven it is.
My faith teaches to forgive endlessly, and I believe, I am forgiven endlessly.

C'mon Beanieboy. If you want to quote scriptures and hold Christians accountable for what it says, and have them LIVE BY IT, then stay on the consistent path of scripture.

Forgiveness of sins TO God, means "I CAN"T REMEMBER THEM."

Verse? I remember the sins of those who have transgressed against me. I simply don't bring them up once I have forgiven them.
But God "forgets"?

Per God. I'd advise you, if you ever want to become a Christian, that you never forget that. Judging people is a very dangerous place to live.


Judging a person for sins they have repented of is a very wrong thing to do. In fact it is probably blasphemous.

Judging people at all is blasphemuous. Do you know their heart? Their situation? Their soul?

Are you God? Are you the one who sits on some throne in judgement of who is good or who is not? What arrogance!

Luke 18
9He also told this parable to some people who trusted in themselves and were confident that they were righteous [that they were upright and in right standing with God] and scorned and made nothing of all the rest of men: 10Two men went up into the temple [[i]enclosure] to pray, the one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector.
11The Pharisee [j]took his stand ostentatiously and began to pray thus before and with himself: God, I thank You that I am not like the rest of men--extortioners (robbers), swindlers [unrighteous in heart and life], adulterers--or even like this tax collector here.
12I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I gain.
13But the tax collector, [merely] standing at a distance, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but kept striking his breast, saying, O God, be favorable (be gracious, be merciful) to me, the [k]especially wicked sinner that I am!
14I tell you, this man went down to his home justified (forgiven and made upright and in right standing with God), rather than the other man; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted.


The Pharisee judged the tax collector. He wasn't doing anything the tax collector did. He simple thought himself better than the tax collector. He bragged about his righteousness, rather than acknowledge God's mercy. He loved his own perceived holiness, rather than was thankful for God's compassion and love for him.


Were I Christian, I wouldn't have said it this nicely. Christ didn't.
I don't know how many times I can quote that Parable to you, to show you how clearly in conflict you are, and still have you not understand. <staff edit>

 

[Polycarp_fan]

Leave it to PF to confuse democracy with mob-rule.

I know what mob rule is. I've been to college. Watch what kind of people scream and disrupt a speaker at an invited event. It is the leftists. Mob rule pal.

Hmm, Hugo Chavez ring a bell?

 

[Polycarp_fan]

There is none, so it doesn't condemn it either.

The Old Testament witness AND the New Testament witness opposes same-gender sex acts. From Romans to Jude, there is one consistent voice about same-gender sex. Opposition, no support, no promotion, no celebration. For that you have to go to the pagans.

He said NEITHER DO I CONDEMN YOU. Go and sin no more.

So she was sinning. She was told to amend her ways in the future. Is that hate speech or phobia?

Why do you take a passage that humbles those that condemned her, shows Christ's mercy to her (he could have cast the first stone), granted her forgiveness, and released her to go and sin no more, and simply say that the entire point was that she should stop sinning, and condemn her?

Context and reality. He did not say that she had a mental illness or a congenital excuse for her sexually inappropriate behavior. He told her to stop and don't do it again. you'd get fired from any job in America if you said that to the wrong person these days.

I'm not a biblical scholar,

I have pointed that out on many occasions.

. . . nor did I ever claim to be,

Ummm, I'm going to have to go back through some posts of yours and check out that statement. I'm thinking you said that you were celebrated by other people here for your Biblical knowledge . . . but I'll wait and see.

. . . but that isn't the point of the story, and if you think it is, you are way off track.

No, rather I am right on the path Jesus said to be on. The narrow path. Not the wide "anything goes" road to political correctness.
I slip up occasionally, but I know how and where to get back on it.

And yet, you are Christian!

That's the rumor.

You mock Christ's forgiveness of her.

Wrong. Not surprising there. I highlight the fact that he forgave her while pointing out that she was a sinner and needed to stop. That is what is there.

You mock the fact that he didn't cast the first stone.

Luckily for Jesus He is God and can change the law that an adulterer can be stoned. But, if yoy think about the fact, that Israelites didn;t have the legal right under ROMAN law to execute someone (remember the sanhedrin couldn't execute Jesus), Jesus was saving more than just one life by what He did.

You mock that he humbled the men who were trying to entrap Christ, thinking themselves worthy to be a judge of her, only to be humbled.

They would have been in the right, according to the Law of Moses that GOD gave to Moses to implement on the people Israel. Jesus as God, can amend His own laws. And in the case of the mob, He saved their lives too. Romans do not mess around with unruly masses.

You mock Christ's mercy, compassion, and forgiveness, and reduce it to GO AND SIN NO MORE!

Since he saved this woman's life, scholarship that I hold to, shows the merciful position of what Jesus did. Teaching that people can sin, and encourage other people to sin, and celebrate that, that is mocking sir.

Want me to point you to the group that actually does this?

So, don't tell ME that I am twisting scripture, when you are basically mocking Christ, and his mercy and forgiveness!

I'm not telling you anything. The witness of scripture is. I'm just pointing out where you are mistaken about it. You're getting quite a track record there.

You are casting the stone, while thinking yourself worthy of forgiveness!

Everyone is worthy of forgiveness. According to Christ Jesus and His disciples.

I'm a Buddhist and I think you've crossed a line.

I have insulted Siddhartha? He seems a typical man leaving his wife and kids to me. It's an all too familiar story. If I've insulted you, then stop quoting scripture wrongly.

Imagine how you will explain to the Master how you were forgiven a huge debt, and try to justify not forgiving the small debt of your servant.

You have not asked for forgiveness for the times you have misreprented scripture even once that I recall. have you? I forgive anyone that asks me to forgive them. That is a command I must obey.

As many times as you wish Christ to forgive you. 7? Then seven it is.

It's seven times seventy B-B. It's either an analogy for forever, or its 490 times. That's still a lot of asking and getting.

My faith teaches to forgive endlessly, and I believe, I am forgiven endlessly.

Do we see a place where Siddhartha's wife and child forgave him for leaving them? I'm not familiar with that part of Buddha's story. Please enlighten me. If I am wrong about the Buddha, then I will ask your pardon.

Verse? I remember the sins of those who have transgressed against me. I simply don't bring them up once I have forgiven them.
But God "forgets"?

Jeremiah 31:

31 "The time is coming," declares the LORD,
"when I will make a new covenant
with the house of Israel
and with the house of Judah.
32 It will not be like the covenant
I made with their forefathers
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they broke my covenant,
though I was a husband to [d] them, [e] "
declares the LORD.

33 "This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel
after that time," declares the LORD.
"I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
34 No longer will a man teach his neighbor,
or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,'
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest,"
declares the LORD.
"For I will forgive their wickedness
and will remember their sins no more."

Judging people at all is blasphemuous. Do you know their heart? Their situation? Their soul?

Please show me the scripture that says this? Did you read Psalm 51 like I asked?

Are you God? Are you the one who sits on some throne in judgement of who is good or who is not? What arrogance!

Arrogant or confident? I am confident about what scripture says.

Luke 18
9He also told this parable to some people who trusted in themselves and were confident that they were righteous [that they were upright and in right standing with God] and scorned and made nothing of all the rest of men: 10Two men went up into the temple [[i]enclosure] to pray, the one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector.
11The Pharisee [j]took his stand ostentatiously and began to pray thus before and with himself: God, I thank You that I am not like the rest of men--extortioners (robbers), swindlers [unrighteous in heart and life], adulterers--or even like this tax collector here.
12I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I gain.
13But the tax collector, [merely] standing at a distance, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but kept striking his breast, saying, O God, be favorable (be gracious, be merciful) to me, the [k]especially wicked sinner that I am!
14I tell you, this man went down to his home justified (forgiven and made upright and in right standing with God), rather than the other man; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted.

Ever heard the word "PRIDE" these days? You didn't hear it at a Christian event. And you never will.

The Pharisee judged the tax collector. He wasn't doing anything the tax collector did. He simple thought himself better than the tax collector. He bragged about his righteousness, rather than acknowledge God's mercy. He loved his own perceived holiness, rather than was thankful for God's compassion and love for him.

You judge each situation differently. Let me show you:

"If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault,

just between the two of you.

If he listens to you, you have won your brother over.

But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.'

If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

Sounds liek a whole lot of judging going on. The quilty person is at fault.

Were I Christian, I wouldn't have said it this nicely. Christ didn't.

Were you a Christian, you would know who not to quote scripture to and who not to debate with by using scripture off-track. Hopefully.

I don't know how many times I can quote that Parable to you, to show you how clearly in conflict you are, and still have you not understand.

I have proven yet again, that I most assuredly understand scripture in context.

It is the HS's job at this point, because it is no more than pearls before swine.

I will not discuss any aspect of the Holy Spirit on internet debate sites with non believers.

 

[JediMobius]

Gay couples can have and raise families too, TheLowlyTortoise. Also, remember there are legal and economic benefits of being a spouse, e.g. inheritance, tax benefits, etc. Look into it more and perhaps you'll understand.

It's expensive to raise kids - tax benefits, and if one spouse dies young, the other would need help from his/her inheritance. Marriage used to mean raising a family (barring unanticipated infertility) and that's the main reason the legal and economic benefits existed in the first place.

To specifically address the original topic of this thread, I'd have to say that the root cause of hatred, slander, dislike, etc., against Christians is simply Christians themselves. Not all Christians, but the actions and/or words of a few can ruin things for the whole, as it were. Folks see people like Rev. Fred Phelps, for example, and immediately say 'wow, that Christianity stuff is pretty scary,' generally out of ignorance (whether of their own will, or otherwise), and fear. I think this happens with a lot of things. Muslims are another example, and no, I don't want to derail the thread by debating anything about that here.

A little yeast leavens the whole dough.

I know a lot of married couples that have no desire to have a child and have an abortion if they become pregnant yet they still get the benefits of a married couple, why the double standard?

I don't think they should benefit at all.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

Probably a nonsequitor, but at this point of the thread, it's not detracting much.

Another thing that rubs me the wrong way:
Christians who equate sickness, disaster, or misfortune as "God's Punishment." Robertson saw "God's punishment" when terrorists flew planes into the WTC. It wasn't a group doing a collectively heinous thing. It was the fault of the people it was being done to.

Would you, on finding out that someone's child was shot in school, say to them, "Well, maybe you should start coming to church more often, and God wouldn't haven't punished you"? Would you say to people in Katrina, who may have lost their family members and friends, "Well, you do have Mardi Gras, you know...", rather than feel compassion about the devastation.

Most of us watched, and felt something terrible inside. We saw people that were stranded on their rooftops. We saw people unsure where they were going to go or live. We saw people who didn't know where their kids were.

How can one be so hard hearted to not feel compassion for such things?

The same is true with AIDS/HIV, hurricanes, forest fires, and earthquakes.

I don't understand how anyone can dare call themself Christian, and be so hard hearted towards their neighbor, and offer judgement, rather than a helping hand.

Why is it that when Leftists say that we, "America" are to blame for Muslims attacking us, the same cry is not handed out to them, as is handed out to Robertson and Falwell?

 

[Polycarp_fan]

Before I sign off for the night, here's an interesting article on the Liberal perspective on Evangelical Christians I had saved for some reason or other:

Evangelicals a Liberal Can Love

By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/opinion/03kristof.html?ref=opinion

At a New York or Los Angeles cocktail party, few would dare make a pejorative comment about Barack Obama’s race or Hillary Clinton’s sex. Yet it would be easy to get away with deriding Mike Huckabee’s religious faith.

Liberals believe deeply in tolerance and over the last century have led the battles against prejudices of all kinds, but we have a blind spot about Christian evangelicals. They constitute one of the few minorities that, on the American coasts or university campuses, it remains fashionable to mock.

Scorning people for their faith is intrinsically repugnant, and in this case it also betrays a profound misunderstanding of how far evangelicals have moved over the last decade. Today, conservative Christian churches do superb work on poverty, AIDS, sex trafficking, climate change, prison abuses, malaria and genocide in Darfur.

Bleeding-heart liberals could accomplish far more if they reached out to build common cause with bleeding-heart conservatives. And the Democratic presidential candidate (particularly if it’s Mr. Obama, to whom evangelicals have been startlingly receptive) has a real chance this year of winning large numbers of evangelical voters.

“Evangelicals are going to vote this year in part on climate change, on Darfur, on poverty,” said Jim Wallis, the author of a new book, “The Great Awakening,” which argues that the age of the religious right has passed and that issues of social justice are rising to the top of the agenda. Mr. Wallis says that about half of white evangelical votes will be in play this year.

A recent CBS News poll found that the single issue that white evangelicals most believed they should be involved in was fighting poverty. The traditional issue of abortion was a distant second, and genocide was third.
Look, I don’t agree with evangelicals on theology or on their typically conservative views on taxes, health care or Iraq. Self-righteous zealots like Pat Robertson have been a plague upon our country, and their initial smugness about AIDS (which Jerry Falwell described as “God’s judgment against promiscuity”) constituted far grosser immorality than anything that ever happened in a bathhouse. Moralizing blowhards showed more compassion for embryonic stem cells than for the poor or the sick, and as recently as the 1990s, evangelicals were mostly a constituency against foreign aid.

Yet that has turned almost 180 degrees. Today, many evangelicals are powerful internationalists and humanitarians — and liberals haven’t awakened to the transformation. The new face of evangelicals is somebody like the Rev. Rick Warren, the California pastor who wrote “The Purpose Driven Life.”

Mr. Warren acknowledges that for most of his life he wasn’t much concerned with issues of poverty or disease. But on a visit to South Africa in 2003, he came across a tiny church operating from a dilapidated tent — yet sheltering 25 children orphaned by AIDS.

“I realized they were doing more for the poor than my entire megachurch,” Mr. Warren said, with cheerful exaggeration. “It was like a knife in the heart.” So Mr. Warren mobilized his vast Saddleback Church to fight AIDS, malaria and poverty in 68 countries. Since then, more than 7,500 members of his church have paid their own way to volunteer in poor countries — and once they see the poverty, they immediately want to do more.
“Almost all of my work is in the third world,” Mr. Warren said. “I couldn’t care less about politics, the culture wars. My only interest is to get people to care about Darfurs and Rwandas.”

Helene Gayle, the head of CARE, said evangelicals “have made some incredible contributions” in the struggle against global poverty. “We don’t give them credit for the changes they’ve made,” she added. Fred Krupp, the president of Environmental Defense, said, “Many evangelical leaders have been key to taking the climate issue across the cultural divide.”
It’s certainly fair to criticize Catholic leaders and other conservative Christians for their hostility toward condoms, a policy that has gravely undermined the fight against AIDS in Africa. But while robust criticism is fair, scorn is not.

In parts of Africa where bandits and warlords shoot or rape anything that moves, you often find that the only groups still operating are Doctors Without Borders and religious aid workers: crazy doctors and crazy Christians. In the town of Rutshuru in war-ravaged Congo, I found starving children, raped widows and shellshocked survivors. And there was a determined Catholic nun from Poland, serenely running a church clinic.
Unlike the religious right windbags, she was passionately “pro-life” even for those already born — and brave souls like her are increasingly representative of religious conservatives. We can disagree sharply with their politics, but to mock them underscores our own ignorance and prejudice.