Bad Christians

Starette wrote: Oh Moo... Your'd think the long-lasting thread on ELP would be the end of religious discussion- but no. Well- I'm happy so long as Destiny Church don't take over NZ by force.

What is the problem with discussing religion?

IMO anyone not comfortable with the subject is unable to approach it from an intellectual standpoint.Whether one "believes" or not,no adult should be afraid of sticking their head above the parapet so-to-speak.

It's a good way of routing out the brainwashed fanatics anyway.........

Oh Moo...

Your'd think the long-lasting thread on ELP would be the end of religious discussion- but no.

Well- I'm happy so long as Destiny Church don't take over NZ by force.

Not from a Christian but still on-topic because it relates to the Old Testament:

Dr. Laura Schlessinger is a radio personality who dispenses advice to people who call in to her radio show. Recently, she said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22 and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The following is an open letter to Dr. Laura penned by a east coast resident, which was posted on the Internet. It's funny, as well as informative:

Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them:

When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15:19- 24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your devoted fan,
Jim

Edited by Tony R

There's millions of sh*t-heads that say that sort of thing. We choose to ignore these people. This makes me wonder: why do we listen to Roberson? Robertson has no actual political power. He doesn't have the power to assassinate/murder Hugo Chavez. People like him should simply be ignored. 

At the same time, however, if someone said these things about any of us, it would be slightly scary. Especially in the tone. He just talks about assassination in such a non-chalant way. It's a little scary.

When one is raised to be a religious fundamentalist, that particular person begins to bypass science, logic, and true morals (in favor of what the religion "says" is right or wrong). We should worry more about religious fundamentalists that have actual power (the ones that start the inquisitions/crusades, etc...).

I thought some of his statements were rather funny though (escpecially the one about feminists). It's funny how he thinks that people can "become lesbians." Who gives this guy media coverage anyway?

If this man claims to be a Christian, he should indeed be a Christian. Who would Jesus assassinate anyway?

Edited by Toob-Wurm

Here's his rebuttal:

Evangelist backs off Chavez assassination call
Aug 24 12:51 PM US/Eastern
   


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Conservative U.S. evangelist Pat Robertson, who called for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, said on Wednesday he was misinterpreted and there were a number of ways to "take him out" including kidnapping.

"I said our special forces could take him out. Take him out could be a number of things including kidnapping," Robertson said on his "The 700 Club" television program.

"There are a number of ways of taking out a dictator from power besides killing him. I was misinterpreted," Robertson added.

Robertson, the founder of the Christian Coalition and a presidential candidate in 1988, said on Monday of Chavez, one of Bush's most vocal critics: "If he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it."

"We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability." He made the comments during his "The 700 Club" television program.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on Tuesday dismissed Robertson's remarks, but the White House remained silent despite calls for repudiation from Venezuela and religious leaders including the Rev. Jesse Jackson. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack called "without fact and baseless" any ideas of hostile action against Chavez or Venezuela.

The leftist Chavez has often accused the United States of plotting his overthrow or assassination. Alongside Cuban President Fidel Castro in Havana on Sunday, Chavez scoffed at the idea that he and Castro were destabilizing troublemakers.

Chavez survived a short-lived coup in 2002 that he says was backed by the United States. Washington denies involvement.

Venezuelan officials said Robertson's remarks, while those of a private citizen, took on more significance given his ties to President George W. Bush's Christian-right supporters.

"Mr Robertson has been one of this president's staunchest allies. His statement demands the strongest condemnation by the White House," Venezuela's ambassador to the United States Bernardo Alvarez said.

Sean:

I would like to respond to your comments:

"Marx once said religion was the opium of the masses, and this is so...true!"

Marx was also a hypocrite, in that he stole the basic precept of the communist politico-economic state from the New Testament.  Marx 101: "From each according to his ability to give; to each according to his need."  Compare that with the following statement from Acts 4:32-35: "now the multitude of those who believed were of one heart and one soul; neither did anyone say that any of the things he possessed was his own, but they had all things in common...Nor was there anyone among them who lacked; for all who were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of the things that were sold and laid them at the apostles' feet; and they distributed to each as anyone had need."

It is the height of arrogance and hypocrisy to base one's philosophy on a stolen idea, and then call the system that created that idea "the opium of the masses."

"Brainwashing diddleheads incapable to believe in what is real! Religion is a tool of power, a way of doing politics and is used to have the upper moral superiority of those believers!"

As has been discussed in other threads, a belief in science and other "rational, empirical" things - i.e., "what is real" - and a belief in God and Christ are not mutually exclusive.  Also, religion can be a "tool of power" and a "way of doing politics," but it is not always, nor need be.  As for "moral superiority," I know plenty of atheists and agnostics (and peoples of faiths other than Christianity) who have better "moral groundings" than many Christians I know.

"Chavez supporters have now the right to eradicate Robertson from this planet!"

I am guessing this was said in jest.  Because if not, it is as absurd and inappropriate as Robertson's original statement, and you are simply lowering yourself to his level.

"Dickheads such as all televangelists are using God and religion to make a fortune! nothing more than that: Give me your dough , and I'll buy you a place in heaven."

Again, a totally incorrect and unnecessarily denigrating and demeaning "broad-brush" statement.  Not all televangelists are "using God and religion to make a fortune."  There are many televangelists who do not even ask for money, either from their congregations (except at regular services during the offering) or from the "home audience."  Indeed, many of today's televangelists are not (as in the 70s and 80s) running their own companies and thus truly "lining their pockets" a la Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Bakker, Pat Robertson, etc.  Rather, they are ministers of specific churches who make use of the broadcast media to expand their reach.  In these cases, the ministers earn salaries determined by the Board of Trustees of the specific church they are employed by, and are not permitted to accept anything other than their salary and, in some cases, "speaking fees" or honoraria for guest preaching in other places.  The "offering" made at a church does not belong to the minister - indeed, he is not even permitted to "touch" it even in the literal sense - but to the church, and is handled entirely by others.

As for "give me your dough, and I'll buy you a place in heaven," this is patently absurd.  The days of "buying absolution" via "indulgences" is long, long gone.  Even the most sheep-like Christian knows this.

You have every right to your cynical, even mean-spirited view of religion.  However, if you are going to make mean-spirited, broad-brush statements, at least get your facts right.

Peace.

JrKASperov wrote: May I chime in and comment that your beloved 'logic' and 'reason' is a belief in what is real too?

you talk in riddles!

The only solution to world peace is eradication of all religions.

Marx once said religion was the opium of the masses, and this is so f***ing true!

Brainwashing diddleheads incapable to believe in what is real! Religion is a tool of power, a way of doing politics and is used to have the upper moral superiority of those believers!

Chavez supporters have now the right to eradicate Robertson from this planet!

Dickheads such as all televangelists are using God and religion to make a fortune! nothing more than that: Give me your dough , and I'll buy you a place in heaven.

i have no problem with Christianity. i'm Christian, though i rarely attend church.
what i do have a problem with is people like pat robertson trying to make America
a overtly Christian authoritarian state. i think this is incarnated in his recent campaign
to get Judge Roberts,(whom i personally have no big problem with) electedto the
Supreme Court by making is a vote for God vs. a vote for Godless heathens.and with
every action by Evangelicals and fundamentalists to insert as many extremely
religious and what i would fanatical Christians into seats of power to serve their own
special interests, i believe these "devout" Christians are trying to appeal to good
Christians through manipulation and devious methods.

James Lee wrote: ^ Very true. The only group Robertson represents is a small cabal of greedy, media-hungry people with more similarity to suicide cult leaders and talk show hosts than to anyone who truly follows Christian teachings. Trying to get spirituality from his ilk is much like trying to get news from the Limbaugh/ Coulter faction (or life advice from Drs. Phil & Laura)...all exhibiting near-total perversion and abuse, with just enough trappings to hook the unwary. Boo!

You got a point James, but I look at people like Rush as more or less entertainers or commentaors and not really preachers. And I certainly don't look at them as journalists either. But the difference between people like them and Robertson and Falwell is that Robertson and his ilk uses a religious faith as a vehicle to push these kind of agendas. To me that's real abuse.