Forum Home Forum Home > Topics not related to music > General discussions
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Bad Christians
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedBad Christians

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12
Author
Message
Sean Trane View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Prog Folk

Joined: April 29 2004
Location: Heart of Europe
Status: Online
Points: 20390
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 24 2005 at 03:55

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.

let's just stay above the moral melee
prefer the sink to the gutter
keep our sand-castle virtues
content to be a doer
as well as a thinker,
prefer lifting our pen
rather than un-sheath our sword
Back to Top
JrKASperov View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: July 07 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 904
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 24 2005 at 05:49
May I chime in and comment that your beloved 'logic' and 'reason' is a belief in what is real too?
Epic.
Back to Top
spectral View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: May 04 2005
Location: Vatican City State
Status: Offline
Points: 1422
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 24 2005 at 05:54

Originally posted by JrKASperov 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!

"...misty halos made visible by the spectral illumination of moonshine."
Back to Top
spectral View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: May 04 2005
Location: Vatican City State
Status: Offline
Points: 1422
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 24 2005 at 08:53

This is an example of the measures being proposed by the UK govt.; comments like Robertson's would get included I imagine (if they were said in the UK), but of course these measures are aimed at muslims and not "others" who incite hatred!

HATE PREACHERS TARGETED
The Home Secretary has unveiled new measures to rid the country of radical Muslim clerics who could inspire attacks like the London bombings.

Charles Clarke published a list of "unacceptable behaviours" which would prompt immediate action - deportation or a ban on entry.

The type of conduct to be outlawed includes inflammatory preaching and publishing views which foster hatred or foment terrorism.

"They are not intended to stifle free speech or legitimate debate about religions or other issues," he said.

Earlier this month, the Home Office announced it was detaining 10 people and pledged to deport them.

"...misty halos made visible by the spectral illumination of moonshine."
Back to Top
maani View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Founding Moderator

Joined: January 30 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2632
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 24 2005 at 10:44

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.

Back to Top
Sean Trane View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Prog Folk

Joined: April 29 2004
Location: Heart of Europe
Status: Online
Points: 20390
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 24 2005 at 11:53
Originally posted by maani maani wrote:

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."

Again all of those religious principle of "living in peace together and treating your neighbour as your equal "existed long before monotheistic religions appeared on earth and are the basis of a society. They are not religious beliefs but simply common sense for a society to exist. Religions adapted it to fit their needs , apropriated them by saying that all that came before them was primary pagan beliefs -and burned you down if you dared say otherwise. The stolen idea thing, all religions practiced that long before Marx accomodated it to his philosophy.

"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.

Atheist do have a better right to be moral grounds (or reference as I understand you meant this) than religious , since they know better not to be believe into an un-natural and hypothetical supreme being. Sorry , but you set yourself up for that one!

"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.

Of course, I was (but I did forget to put a winking emoticon next to it). Chavez would never stoop  1/10th as low as Robertson does! The man so far has had more to deal with US interferance against his economy than actually deal with inside issues. Whatever our friend Mirco would have to say!

"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." News to me , Father! 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"  . The fact that you put this in italic yourself proves my point: if not asked , it is severely implied and since those people are gullible enough to attend those services .....

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. I really don't think that their search for fame (or should I say "new-found fame") will come without the comfort of a filled pocket or having people enslaved due to moral debts consecutive to their healings from an imaginary disease

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.

I may not be aware of a newer type of televangelist other than the Oral Roberts type, but the principle is the same even if the money scheme is less relevant or obvious. I did leave North America in the late 80's and have only gone back three times on holidays and I can assure you I had other things to do than check sunday morning TV.

 

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. Not in the 80's US TV it was not long gone. "Relieve your anguish, by relieve yor wallet from the extra weight , you shall become more at ease with god , buy yourself a new conduct/profile and you may even find a place on his right hand side"

You have every right to your cynical, even mean-spirited view of religion. The only mean spirits are the ones driving diverse religious currents hating each other for not praying along the rites they think is right. However, if you are going to make mean-spirited, broad-brush statements, at least get your facts right. My broad-brush statements are not anyless than the televangelist broad-brushing religious beliefs into the face of gullible persons. Furthermore your facts are not anymore correct than mine even if your are a minister of a given cult . I use that word in a generic manner and not as a sect - although all religions are sectarian but some are inclusive , a bigger congregation is more power . And very few are exclusive - unless being a danger to the faith!

Peace.
Peace, of course. Especially if I call for eradication of religions as the first step to global peace. Next step will be imperialism!!!!

It had been a while since we had a charming bout of feuding!!! I only realized I missed now!



Edited by Sean Trane
let's just stay above the moral melee
prefer the sink to the gutter
keep our sand-castle virtues
content to be a doer
as well as a thinker,
prefer lifting our pen
rather than un-sheath our sword
Back to Top
marktheshark View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: April 24 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1695
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 24 2005 at 13:12
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.


Back to Top
Paradox View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: October 07 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 1059
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 24 2005 at 14:29

Originally posted by King of Loss King of Loss wrote:

Robertson is such a dipsh*t, Christian Fundamentalists are so stupid.

Any form of religious fundamentalism is stupid.

Back to Top
Toob-Wurm View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 23 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 113
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 24 2005 at 15:52

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
Back to Top
maani View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Founding Moderator

Joined: January 30 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2632
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 24 2005 at 16:24

MtS:

He just puts his foot further down his throat, doesn't he?

Toob-Wurm:

You said, "If this man claims to be a Christian, he should indeed be a Christian. Who would Jesus assassinate anyway?"   Right on target!

As an aside, let's not let Donald Rumsfeld off the hook, either.  For him to state that the U.S. doesn't engage in political assassination is patently absurd.  The U.S. has indeed engaged in covert ops - including the assassination of world leaders and/or the sub rosa destabilizing of governments - when it suited our needs.  Any claim to the contrary is hogwash.

Peace.

Back to Top
Tony R View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin

Joined: July 16 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Points: 11979
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 24 2005 at 17:01

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
Back to Top
Trotsky View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 25 2004
Location: Malaysia
Status: Offline
Points: 2771
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 24 2005 at 23:47

 Tony R

Not much to add, except to repeat that I'm quite amused at how similar the thinking of most (but not all) Christian fundamentalists is in relation to the thinking of most (but not all) Islamic fundamentalists ...

If I didn't know better I'd say that Robertson just issued a fatwa!

I'd be more amused if I didn't think that some of them are capable of causing great harm ... albeit usually through indirect means



Edited by Trotsky
"Death to Utopia! Death to faith! Death to love! Death to hope?" thunders the 20th century. "Surrender, you pathetic dreamer.”

"No" replies the unhumbled optimist "You are only the present."
Back to Top
Starette View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: June 14 2005
Location: New Zealand
Status: Offline
Points: 502
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 25 2005 at 02:29

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.

50 tonne angel falls to the earth...
Back to Top
nousommedusolei View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: April 26 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 233
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 25 2005 at 03:09

It is not right to blame the religion, I say. It's how people interpret it.

There are plenty of Christians that are reasonable and honorable people.

This guy, on the other hand, is f**king nuts. This is the same hate-filled extremist crap that has people in the Middle East blowing themselves up.

I don't believe in demons
I don't believe in devils
I only believe in you
Back to Top
Tony R View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin

Joined: July 16 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Points: 11979
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 25 2005 at 07:04
Originally posted by Starette 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.........

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.172 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.