Why is being Anti Christian so OK?

[Paulos23]

Allhart, at this point I am going to have to walk away since your not making any sense. We could post all day and we will be talking past each other.

 

[keith99]

Submarines are a little... puny next to having nuclear weapons deployed on Germany wouldn't ya say?

Then again i am perfectly fine with the U.S. entering World War 2, they clearly should have done so. I'm trying to figure out why KIYX thinks differently.

What nuclear weapons? The U.S. created 3 bombs by the end of the war, due to the Manhatten project which drew heavilly on resources from Europe and which was started because the U.S. was in the war.

No war involvement no Manhatten project, no bomb. No U.S. in the war and both Japan and Germany would have done much better. I would guess that at the least the war would have lasted long enough for Germany to have both the bomb and Jet fighters in significant numbers. Germany was in a war and their research would have continued full speed ahead.

 

[RETS]

What, then, is 'real' Christianity?

I think you've already been told what it is, at least once, yet you've rejected that. So...

...However, chances are their answer is different, so I'll hush now.

 

[MichaelHelp]

What nuclear weapons? The U.S. created 3 bombs by the end of the war, due to the Manhatten project which drew heavilly on resources from Europe and which was started because the U.S. was in the war.

No war involvement no Manhatten project, no bomb. No U.S. in the war and both Japan and Germany would have done much better. I would guess that at the least the war would have lasted long enough for Germany to have both the bomb and Jet fighters in significant numbers. Germany was in a war and their research would have continued full speed ahead.

I was handed a hypothetical scenario that the U.S. would enter a war with Japan and not Germany, and one of the goals of the Manhattan project was to acquire nuclear weapons before either Japan or Germany. The origins of the manhattan project began in 1939 and the U.S. began corresponding with Britain before they entered the war. The project officially began in 1942.

Now if you want to add another "if" to the hypothetical scenario and say "if" the Soviet Union didn't fight against Germany... well that opens up another can of worms. But to say Germany would have had sufficient resources to keep their research and army going "full speed ahead" is nonsense.

The bottom line is that the U.S. made the right choice to enter WWII against all the axis powers.

 

[keith99]

I was handed a hypothetical scenario that the U.S. would enter a war with Japan and not Germany, and one of the goals of the Manhattan project was to acquire nuclear weapons before either Japan or Germany. The origins of the manhattan project began in 1939 and the U.S. began corresponding with Britain before they entered the war. The project officially began in 1942.

Now if you want to add another "if" to the hypothetical scenario and say "if" the Soviet Union didn't fight against Germany... well that opens up another can of worms. But to say Germany would have had sufficient resources to keep their research and army going "full speed ahead" is nonsense.

The bottom line is that the U.S. made the right choice to enter WWII against all the axis powers.

Oops missed that part of the hypothetical handed to you. Of course that was not an option as it was not the U.S which declared war on Germany.

Their research was going full speed anyway. As I can easly guess you know Germany getting the bomb first (or even at all) was a real worry and even a small delay in waht actually happened may well have resulted in Germany having a bomb before the war was over. Considering just who was in control that would have been a very bad thing.

Since we are in the land of speculation, Germany, one bomb so one target. What would Hitler pick?

 

[Ar Cosc]

....

 

[KIYX]

I am just curious why he thinks we shouldn't have entered WWII. Instead he's just been saying "well we didn't enter until X event" .... which SURPRISE happens in 100% of wars. Countries don't enter until a certain event pushes them over the line.

Learn to read what people say not what you want them to have said.

I stated when we entered the war I never said we shouldn't have fought it.

 

[KIYX]

Why is being anti-Christian so OK?

Remember, we are all born enemies of God;
and don't forget, we're the ones who changed, not them.

There are only two types of people:
those who are examples of God's grace and mercy,
and those who are examples of God's patience with the objects of His wrath.

As examples of mercy and grace, let us join Him in His patience,
and love our enemies even as He loved us while we were yet His enemies.
Let's pray for those who persecute us, even as Jesus prayed for us while on the cross.

Why is being anti-Christian so OK?
Because that's how we were born, and they haven't moved much from square one. They're as selfish and oblivious as they were the day they were born. And there but for the grace of God go us.

What's it like to be up on that cloud so far above other men?

 

[KIYX]

Then again i am perfectly fine with the U.S. entering World War 2, they clearly should have done so. I'm trying to figure out why KIYX thinks differently.

I never said that....... either your trolling or you have severe problems with reading comprehension.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I think you've already been told what it is, at least once, yet you've rejected that. So...

...However, chances are their answer is different, so I'll hush now.

Indeed. Everyone has their own answer, and, by some amazing coincidence, the 'real' Christianity is always their particular flavour of Christianity - dyed-in-the-wood Creationists will insist that only fellow Creationists are real Christians, Mormons only accept other Mormons, Catholics other Catholics, etc.

 

[Spiegelman's Monster]

Re the OP: I'm a Christian, and I don't think any of the cited examples thus far are genuine cases of "anti-Christianity", but rather cases of disagreeing with certainb elements of certain dogmas.

New thread for the Second World War hypotheticals might be in order?

 

[MichaelHelp]

Learn to read what people say not what you want them to have said.

I stated when we entered the war I never said we shouldn't have fought it.

Well i have your original posts quoted, this way you can't go back to edit them to fit your new opinion

 

[DaisyDay]

Change.org is a cool site. Thanks for tip.

I don't see anything anti-Christian on it, though.

 

[RETS]

Indeed. Everyone has their own answer, and, by some amazing coincidence, the 'real' Christianity is always their particular flavour of Christianity - dyed-in-the-wood Creationists will insist that only fellow Creationists are real Christians, Mormons only accept other Mormons, Catholics other Catholics, etc.

Perhaps. You'll find most Christians will agree with what I've said once already- That "by their fruit ye shall know them."

Where the argument begins is what that fruit is- A lot of folks want to read into what the Bible actually says, as opposed to taking it at it's word. The fruit being spoken about is the fruit of the Spirit- And that HAS been spelled out.


But I'm done now. Got an appointment to keep, so I'll catch ya'll later.

 

[Spiegelman's Monster]

Change.org is a cool site. Thanks for tip.

I don't see anything anti-Christian on it, though.

Do remember that when people say "anti-Christian" what they actually mean is "daring to disagree with my personal brand of dogma".

This is easily proven by the fact that virtually all of the people who wail and bemoan the loss of "Christian values" or make similar noises, are, as often as not, being disagreed with by other Christians.

Many many many of the issues that the OP seems to regard as "anti-Christian" are issues that I support fully, and I'm Christian as they come. The sad truth is that many people lack the intelectual wherewithal to cope with challenges to their fundamental dogmas, and so try to respond as though its an unfair attack, demonising the challenger for daring to be "anti-Christian", rather than addressing the issues raised by the challenge.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Perhaps. You'll find most Christians will agree with what I've said once already- That "by their fruit ye shall know them."

Where the argument begins is what that fruit is- A lot of folks want to read into what the Bible actually says, as opposed to taking it at it's word. The fruit being spoken about is the fruit of the Spirit- And that HAS been spelled out.

Allegedly . There's still no consensus, and no denomination seems to have a more valid argument.

But I'm done now. Got an appointment to keep, so I'll catch ya'll later.

If it's medical, hope it's OK!
If it's business, hope you make lots of money!
If it's personal, well, my hat off to you sir.

 

[The Fourth Horseman]

Change Dot Org and other "Left-Wing" organizations find it so easy to insult and denigrate consistent, orthodox Christianity, and to charge Apostolic Gospel believing Christians as being no better than bullies, thugs, white supremists and/or klansman or worse . . ..

Why is it so OK to be anti Christian in 2010?

Seeing what is to be called art on display in publically funded places I ask:

Why do Progressive, Liberal and Left Wing organizations not see how anti Christian their positions and demands really are?

What causes that?

Yet many "Orthodox Christains" are miliatantly Anit-Muslim and Anti-Atheist.
Oh the sweet, sweet irony.

 

[Beanieboy]

I think Christians would get more sympathy if we owned our own dirty laundry. There is a cool site called where Christians apologized.

Someone would search their heart who was Christian, and then say, "I'm so sorry that I dared to look down on you and condemn you as a sinner. I've since remembered humbly that I am a sinner to. I'm sorry if you felt judged unfairly, cruelly, selfrighteously or hypocritically.

What was the result?

People would respond about how healed they felt from hearing those words.

I remember once I started a thread asking NonChristians what problems they have with Christians.
People were quick to list feeling pressured or even bullied to convert, the assumption that someone who isn't Christian has never read the bible when they often new more than the person trying to convert others, being judged or looked down upon, etc

I could have been the beginning of building bridges, learning how to be a better disciple, how to be more loving.

Sadly, it was mostly taken as a person attack, responding with mostly anger and resentment.

 

[KIYX]

Well i have your original posts quoted, this way you can't go back to edit them to fit your new opinion

And not one of them says we shouldn't have fought world war 2.

So have fun trolling.

 

[MountainCappuccino]

Change Dot Org and other "Left-Wing" organizations find it so easy to insult and denigrate consistent, orthodox Christianity, and to charge Apostolic Gospel believing Christians as being no better than bullies, thugs, white supremists and/or klansman or worse . . ..

Why is it so OK to be anti Christian in 2010?

Seeing what is to be called art on display in publically funded places I ask:

Why do Progressive, Liberal and Left Wing organizations not see how anti Christian their positions and demands really are?

What causes that?

Such a reaction is natural when a single entity which has maintained control for a long period of time over social and political customs begins to erode and weaken in power.