Why christians get a bad rap

2 07 2010

I'm Pat Robertson, and I hate the ACLU

 Have you ever wondered why christians get a bad rap? May be it’s because of people like Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, fred Phelps and  other false prophets.These jerks hide thier hatred under the mask of religion. The worst part is that people fall for this act. 

First lets talk about the lesser known Fred Phelps. Fred Phelps is the Founder of the westboro baptist church, as well as the websites godhatesfags.com  and godhatestheworld.com.
The Westboro baptist church is registered hate group. Phelps and his gang protest at funerals of gay people, carrying signs with slogans like God hates fags. They are spreaders of homophobia and Anti semitism. fred phelps once made a statment saying that the Holocaust was a good thing, and that the jews deserved it. What kind of shit is that? Oh, and who can forget the westboro church’s remake  of  we are the world, god hates the world. I saw this video on you tube and thought it was a joke, and was totall apalled when I found out that it was no joke.
    then we come to Pat Robertson, who’s ignorance never ceases to amaze. Shortly after september 11, Pat Robertson said that the atacks were gods punishment, that Gays, Feminists, Abortionists, and The ACLU shared part of the blame. The ACLU? Yes Pat, god hate’s civil rights. What a douche bag. In another incident Pat said that Feminists were incouraging women to leave thier husbands, become lesbians and kill thier children, What a crock of shit. and of course everyone knows about his infamous Haiti madde a pact with the devil comment. He also defended Israel’s deadly raid, saying that those people got what they deserve. Jerry Fallwell, one of pat’s closest friends  said back in the 60’s that segragation was god’s will. The reason Christians get a bad rap is because jackasses like these guys. So, of course people get the impression that Christians are assholes. But they don’t represent Christians. to say that these freaks represent Christianity is like saying Bin Laden represents Muslims. Religion is supposed to be about love, not hate. and no pat, god doesn’t talk to you , if he did he would tell you that you are a prick.
 
 
 
 
 

No this isnt the guy from poltergeist 2 it's fred phelps

Advertisements

Actions

Information

30 responses

13 07 2010
timvictor

Hey Nemo235,

I just looked up godhatestheworld.com. And my reaction … awesome, it’s a joke … Holy crap its not! … Wow … Oh my … embarrassed … disgusted … insulted … annoyed … and pretty much speechless.

13 07 2010
timvictor

You’re right, this is the reason why Christians get a bad rap.

Religion in general is marred by what people do in the name of Godde, from the subtleties of bigotism, extortion and sexism to the clearer issues of segregation and suicide bombing. The list goes on and it doesn’t help when non-Christians or a-religious people unfairly interpret, quote or speak on behalf of religion nor when, well, Christians are holier or more knowledgeable than thou in response … after all, its not salvation by theological entrance exam (the Pharisees and Sadducees may come to mind for some)!

What does help though is acknowledging that there are False Prophets – with a capital “F” and a capital “P.” And acknowledging that they’re false gives us the opportunity to discover Real Prophets.

And so we could also acknowledge that Jesus, as one example among many, wasn’t a prick. He tainted his reputation hanging out with people – and instead of becoming ritually unclean as expected His touch actually restored them. The problem I have with many Christians is their shear idiocy, but beside them there are more that simply lack the Spirit, who lack of the Presence of the Holy One in their lives.

14 07 2010
nemo235

that was the same reaction I had

2 07 2010
Joel

“As for the treatment of women, Genesis tells us that woman was created in order to provide comfort and companionship to men. We later learn that they are doomed to be even further subservient to men because of Eve’s sin. The Bible gets that out of the way pretty quickly.

The Bible’s attitude to slavery is immoral simply by virtue of failing to issue an uncompromising condemnation of it.”

Tell me, why should I discuss these things with you when you haven’t studied the Bible? Everything you’re saying completely ignores history and the Bible. So why should I waste my time with someone who is proudly ignorant of what Scripture says (hint: Scripture never says that women were created to serve men). You can’t even get the story of Job right, so why should I waste my time on you?

2 07 2010
mythicsushi

The one thing that you have rarely failed to do in all my discussions with you here and elsewhere, Joel, is issue a declaration that I am fundamentally wrong and that I have no idea what I’m talking about; and, of course, that you know better than I do. I’ve noticed that you do with this others as well. I find your attitude disrespectful and illogical; you have no idea what my knowledge of the Bible is, and insulting my intelligence is completely uncalled for.

3 07 2010
Joel

I do have an idea of what your knowledge of the Bible is. The fact that you’re saying things are in Scripture that aren’t, that you can’t quote where these are, and that you just appear ignorant of what Scripture says tells me you don’t know much about Scripture.

That’s not an insult, it’s an evaluation. If you don’t like it, then study Scripture and prove to me that you actually know something about it.

3 07 2010
mythicsushi

It does seem that I was mistaken about Job. It was Abraham who had slaves included as part of his blessing from God:

Genesis 24:35 “And the LORD hath blessed my master greatly; and he is become great: and he hath given him flocks, and herds, and silver, and gold, and menservants, and maidservants, and camels, and asses. ”

There are many instances of people who were considered good by God who owned and purchased slaves, including Abraham and his descendants. In Numbers 31 we find Moses and other “patriarchs” distributing slaves among themselves. Leviticus 25:44-46 gives the Israelites permission to take slaves from among conquered peoples.

As for the Bible’s treatment of women that I referenced:

Genesis 3:16: “Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. ”

1 Corinthians 11:9: “Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.”

3 07 2010
nemo235

Good one, Mythicsushi.

3 07 2010
Joel

Nice try, but again you failed (see why studying the Bible is important?). Abraham was blesse with servants. Now, even if we say that these were slaves, by using the term ‘ebed Genesis shows us that they were not treated as such.

See, the problem with website theology (where you look up websites that post scriptures rather than studying them for yourself) is you miss out on the nuances of Scripture and the history surrounding it. Did God allow and give slaves to Hebrew people? Yes. Was He justified in doing so? Absolutely. Now why is that?

For one, slavery back then was nothing like the slavery of the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries. Slaves were treated as extended family members, which is hardly the slavery we think of. Secondly, slavery was actually a humane thing to do. For instance, let’s say you were from Detroit and the people of Canada conquered Detroit. If you fled Detroit to Columbus, but everyone in Columbus knew you were came from a conquered nation, then guess what, the people of Columbus would take you as a slave. Let’s assume you fled and didn’t go to any city…then you could contact other people who had survived the sacking of Detroit and attempt to take it back.

Thus, God allowed the Hebrews to take such people as slaves because if He didn’t, those people would have ended up slaves elsewhere and potentially under worse conditions (some Canaanite cities sacrificed their slaves to their gods). Likewise, He allowed them to take slaves so that the cities wouldn’t be recaptured.

Finally, God worked with the people of the time. I can’t think of the passage reference, but in Hebrews the author talks about how the Law was imperfect. The Law was put in place temporarily and how God acted in patience with His people. In other words, He allowed certain practices that, though ultimately immoral, were things that He knew His people couldn’t follow at that moment.

Your handling of women is laughable…internet theology strikes again! I’m curious what website you visited to find these Scriptures.

Anyway…

Genesis 3 refers to the PUNISHMENT that women have to endure. This hardly proves that women were created to serve men, but instead that they have taken a lower role in the relationship between men and women due to sin. However, Galatians 3:28 shows that this curse has been lifted because of Christ’s action on the cross. Likewise, Ephesians 5 shows that husbands are to love their wives as Christ loves the Church. This means that husbands are supposed to sacrifice their own needs for the needs of their wives.

As for 1 Corinthians, congrats on taking it way out of context. Paul was pointing out that women were created after men, thus, they are “for men.” It is no different than the teaching that Christ is begotten for the Father. While Christ is begotten for the Father, both are equal in glory and nature. Likewise, though women were created from men, they are likewise in the image of God (which Paul states in that passage) and therefore equal to men in substance, glory, and nature. That’s the entire point of the passage!

This is what you get when you google your theology.

3 07 2010
mythicsushi

The passage I referenced about Abraham says that the servants were “given” to Abraham. Slaves are “given” as gifts, not free people.

I don’t agree that slavery was “serving the greater good” for the slaves of the Israelites. Slavery is wrong, disgusting, reprehensible–period. I’ve heard similar arguments made about African-American slaves in the pre-1865 South, and my response is no different.

I disagree with your “interpretation” of the verses I quoted regarding the treatment of women. I did not read this passage-or any of the others I quoted-in isolation to the surrounding text. The rest of 1 Corinthians deals with the proper conduct of women, concerning head covering, etc. and included among that is a reminder of what women are “created for”. The meaning seems clear to me. You see it differently; I acknowledge and respect that.

2 07 2010
nemo235

looks like I picked the wrong battle. Joel is the the winner by Knock out.
I raise the white flag

2 07 2010
Joel

I appreciate the humor, but understand that for me it’s not about “winning” or “losing” or being right and you being wrong. When I invite you to study these things for your benefit, I am not insulting you, but instead actually inviting you to study them.

Think of it this way. If your beliefs are correct, what do you have to lose by studying traditional Christianity? You gain a deeper understanding of the world’s largest religion and in so doing gain the credibility to speak against it when it oversteps its bounds.

If your beliefs are incorrect and you choose not to study it, then you face potential rejection by God.

So if you’re right and Christianity is wrong, then studying it brings about no negative consequences, so it’s stil worth the study. If Christianity is right and you’re wrong, then you owe it to yourself to study Christianity.

2 07 2010
Joel

Nemo,

All things in creation are mutable, correct? We know via the Big Bang that all things came into existence at a certain point. We further know through the laws of physics that in a closed system something cannot come from nothing.

This would indicate that we need an immutable mover who can create, but exists outside of time. This would be the scientific proof for God you’re looking for.

As for proving the Bible is God’s word, it certainly makes sense. It’s logically consistent, internally consistent, historically accurate, and teaches what we tend to innately know to be moral. There’s no reason to doubt that it’s God’s word unless we dive head-first into question begging.

Again, how am I a hater?

2 07 2010
mythicsushi

I see the logic in the “immutable mover” argument. Christianity, however, is not a consequence of it, since it could apply to any belief in God.

The Bible being logically consistent or historically accurate is not proof that it is the “Word of God”. I can go write a blog entry that is logically consistent and historically accurate, and I could make claims about God if I wanted to.

I take issue with your claim that the Bible teaches us what we innately know to be moral. True, actions such as murder, theft, deception, etc. are condemned by the Bible, and rightly so. However, I would invite you to go through the Old Testament laws and find out just how “innate” most of them are. In fact, some of them would be considered downright evil if they were considered anything but commands of God.

The ultimate issue with what you said, however, is that all of the conditions you put forward;
-logical consistency
-historical accuracy
-moral teaching that seems right

could easily be produced by a human being and bears absolutely no indication of supernatural inspiration. In fact, with modern knowledge of science and language and the less primitive system of morality that prevails today, I’m sure that something could easily be produced that fulfills these conditions better than the Bible does.

2 07 2010
Joel

It is correct that the unmoved mover doesn’t necessitate in the Christian God, but it does begin us down the correct path.

For instance, we can rule out all polytheistic and pantheistic beliefs. We’re left with essentially Judaism, Islam, Christianity, and its offshoots. From there, it becomes a matter of evidence.

In terms of what you suppose, you assume too much. You assume that the morals of the Bible are primitive. Yet, many of the morals we take for granted today were founded in Scripture, that is, humans didn’t invent them. The equality of women, the abolition of slavery, and the idea of equal rights are found within Scripture and are truly unique to Scripture. Outside of Scripture, such beliefs did not exist (prior to Scripture) and only in the Judeo-Christian atheism of the West are these beliefs held up (albeit in the most tenable of fashions).

So no, you couldn’t come up with a better product than the Bible.

2 07 2010
nemo235

in continuation of above article. Haters like Joel are another reason christians get a bad rap. he shows such hatred. which is not very christian.

2 07 2010
Joel

Nemo, what hatred have I shown? It’s your own inability to handle logical analysis and evidence that demonstrates the low-browed nature of our society. You’re thinking with your heart, which is never a good thing.

Actually STUDY these issues. That is, read books, read opposing sides, learn to think properly, and look at these issues. How such advice makes me a hater is beyond me.

To the ill-informed and ignorant who realize they are neither, logic and evidence always comes across as hate.

2 07 2010
nemo235

you speak of logis, and proof. there is no kind of proof that the bible is the word of god. It cannot be proved. show me Scientific evidence that cand be produced that proves or disproves any thing of a spiritual nature.

2 07 2010
mythicsushi

I will take the fact that you ignored my response to your previous post, Joel, as agreement that that argument was invalid.

There are indeed primitive morals in the Bible. In fact, there are downright evil ones, such as the command that “adulterers” be stoned to death, or that rape victims must marry their rapists, or that disobedient children should be physically abused, even murdered. I could name more.

Your claim that the equality of women is a doctrine originating in the Bible seems odd. Not only is that untrue-study the Vikings in Pre-Christian Scandinavia, for instance-but I fail to see how women being created by God to serve men necessitates your conclusion. I am also surprised by your claim that the Bible is anti-slavery; where are you getting that?

“Outside of Scripture, such beliefs did not exist (prior to Scripture) and only in the Judeo-Christian atheism of the West are these beliefs held up (albeit in the most tenable of fashions). ”
You claim far too much. You claim that you know the morals of every person who existed prior to the writing of the Bible. I would ask you to offer even the slightest bit of evidence in favor of this statement.

2 07 2010
Joel

I didn’t ignore anything. I responded to what you said by pointing out that you couldn’t make something more logically consistent, more consistent with reality, or more moral.

Your claims that some of the commands of Scripture are “downright evil” are absurd. Since God is all-good and all-knowing, He has a perfect understanding what is and is not just. If He calls for the death of an adulterer, then He is correct in doing so. Secondly, even the Bible says that such laws were not ideal, but instead were put into place in order to bring the Israelites away from a pagan culture.

As for the equality of women, again, how much of the Bible have you read? Quote for me where the Bible says that women were created to serve men. That’s taken out of the Islamic Hadith, not the Judeo-Christian Bible. Instead, it teaches that men and women were both created in the image of God (and are therefore equal). It teaches that in Christ there is neither male or female, that both are equal in His sight. As for the Vikings, female Vikings did not enjoy the same equality that Hebrew women enjoyed, or even what Christian women enjoyed.

The view of slavery is found in the Old Testament where slaves are to be treated as family and in the New Testament where slaves are to be freed (unless they risked capture). If the slaves were not freed, again, they were to be treated as family and not as slaves.

In terms of the morality of the time, look up the moral codes of the ancient near-east. That’s all the proof I need.

Again, how much of the Bible have you read? At this point, such a question is rhetorical because it’s blatantly obvious that you have not put a lot of study into this.

2 07 2010
mythicsushi

You did ignore the substance of my reasoning. I said that the three conditions you put forward could be met by a human being without “inspiration from God”. You evidently believe that the Bible meets the aforementioned criteria better than anything else does; ultimately, I respect your right to think that, but I don’t share your opinion. In addition, this is an irrational opinion to hold, since you cannot know the morality of even a small fraction of individuals in pre-Biblical times.

You’re saying that, since the God of the Bible is perfect and cannot be judged by humans, that any attempt the judge the Bible morally is irrelevant and has no bearing on whether it is true or not. I would point out that this invalidates much of your previous argument for the truth of the Bible, since you have been saying that the Bible’s morality is part of the reason that you believe it’s true.

As for the treatment of women, Genesis tells us that woman was created in order to provide comfort and companionship to men. We later learn that they are doomed to be even further subservient to men because of Eve’s sin. The Bible gets that out of the way pretty quickly.

The Bible’s attitude to slavery is immoral simply by virtue of failing to issue an uncompromising condemnation of it. Slavery is very much present in the Bible and in the time period that the Bible covers. The only statements the Bible makes about slavery are usually taken to be in support of it, rather than against it. I believe God rewarded Job after his trial by, among other things, blessing him with many slaves. If that’s not an endorsement, I don’t know what is.

2 07 2010
mythicsushi

Joel,

If the Bible does not allow for moral judgment of non-Christians, then that would extent to any “sin”, whether it be lying, stealing, or murder. How would you, from a fundamentalist standpoint, justify exempting certain sins, such as homosexuality?

It would seem that, from a fundamentalist perspective, you would be willfully ignoring a sin that the Bible calls an “abomination”.

2 07 2010
Joel

I didn’t clarify myself and for that I apologize.

What I mean is that the Bible says that Christians cannot disassociate with non-believers because of their moral sin. Thus, if someone claims to be a Christian but is a homosexual (and refuses to repent) or a CEO who gives unfair wages to his employees (and refuses to repent), then we have to disassociate ourselves with such a person. If such a person is not a Christian, then we can have fellowship with them all we want.

While what they are doing is still wrong and immoral, it is not up to us to punish them or beat them over the head. Biblically, we should be more concerned about those who claim Christ, but continue to sin than those who reject Christ and sin. Both are morally wrong, but action is only called for against those who claim Christ.

2 07 2010
nemo235

Joel,of course your speaking of Knowledge of the bible from the standpoint of What somone taught you about the bible. Are you trying to stick up for these guy’s. These guys Know exactly what they are doing. They Know its wrong but do it any way. No, I dont Know aything about tthe bible, I was only raised catholic. If any one has a view of the bible other than your own you say that they don’t know what they are talking about, sounds prettty Judgemental to me.

2 07 2010
Joel

Nemo,

How quick you are to judge. You realize that based upon just a short little blurb I made, you quickly deduced:

1) That I have never explored the Bible on my own
2) That someone taught me the Bible
3) That I automatically think anyone who disagrees with me is wrong

For all you know, I could have been raised an atheist, read the Bible myself and come to a different conclusion than what I was raised to believe, and that I’m open to all interpretations of the Bible and evaluate them without making snap judgments. But, instead, you jumped to the conclusion that I’m a fundy who was spoon-fed the Bible. Don’t you see how you have violated your own standard?

As it is, I actually have studied the Bible for myself and studied the history surrounding it. I’ve also studied it in Greek and once I’ve learned Hebrew I will study it in Hebrew. I do evaluate all translations of the Bible and don’t simply throw them aside, but this doesn’t mean I see all interpretations as equal or as truthful.

Now, aside from attacking me (violating your own commenting policy), do you have anything of substance to say about what I said?

2 07 2010
mythicsushi

Yeah, that’s right, but that’s not a solution for fundamentalists, since they believe in the truthful, God-inspired nature of the entire Bible.

Fundamentalism is a lie as well; the only true fundamentalists would be criminals, as we can see with verses such as the one commanding the death penalty for adulterers.

2 07 2010
nemo235

Oh, you meant from a fudamentalist prespective. then yeah, your right.
What is fundamental about fundamentalism anyways.

2 07 2010
nemo235

The only part of the bible that really is anti- gay are the writings of paul (who was probably gay himself). of course his writings do make up a majority of the New testament, so you do have a valid point, but jesus never once uttered a homophobic sentence. If christians would follow the teachings of jesus instead of paul, then what fred is doing is totaly unnacceptable

2 07 2010
mythicsushi

The problem with these disgusting “Westboro Baptist Church” people is that a fundamentalist view of the Bible provides little reason to contest what he’s doing. If the authors of the Bible advocated against homosexuality, it’s not much of a stretch to imagine the Bible’s followers doing it.

2 07 2010
Joel

I think your statement betrays a lack of understanding of the Bible. We can never take passages in isolation to other passages. For instance, while the Bible does condemn the act of homosexuality, it also gives numerous commands to approach everyone in love. In fact, if we turn to Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians, he specifically says that Christians are not to judge those who are not Christians because non-Christians don’t know any better.

So you’re wrong – adhering to the view that Scripture is inspired does not leave us little room to contest the antics of Pat Robertson or Fred Phelps. In fact, were it not for God we wouldn’t know such antics are wrong.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s




%d bloggers like this: