Post Reply
Page 15 of 15  •  Prev 1 ... 10 11 12 13 14 15
Switch to Forum Live View Religious Discrimination
6 years ago  ::  Feb 17, 2009 - 12:40AM #141
theprinterlady
Posts: 1,812
(RE: TPL's statement that when Lilley proclaims that someone has "left the teachings of Christ" that that person/organization is (assumably) no longer a Christian...

LILLEY: It may seem that way to you, but that doesn't make it so. The things I've written on this thread are there for all to read.

TPL: Yes, they are, and I'm not the only one who interpreted your statements to mean that you were deciding that these people were no longer Christians.

So answer the question.

Is it possible for someone who takes the scriptures and uses them to commit murders / persecutions / wars / killings and violence to be a Christian?

Yes or no?

If yes, then what responsibility does the church have for the actions of those Christians?

If not, then how do you decide who has the proper interpretation of Jesus' words, since his words INCLUDE violent overtones?

LILLEY: You don't have to go over every one out of context and give us all the proper interpretation as "it seems to you."

TPL: You accused me of LYING, Lilley.  This is not the first time either. In order to defend myself, I pulled up the posts I referred to - and that others interpreted the same way.

If you didn't mean it the way we interpreted it, then explain yourself, because every time I've had similar discussions with you, your defense has ALWAYS been that the church is not responsible for the actions of these people because they obviously weren't followers of Jesus. You make that judgement. You decide that the only valid scriptures of Jesus are the "peace and love" ones, and you completely ignore the violent ones... and there are plenty.  How else are we supposed to interpret what you say? Someone can leave the teachings of Jesus and STILL be a follower of Jesus?

LILLEY: I can speak for myself and everyone can read it for themselves, so please stop acting like you have some kind of insight into my thinking. You don't.

TPL:FIrst, I only know what you post. What you post indicates that you feel you get to judge who is a "real" Christian and who is not... and that you don't feel any responsibility for those who aren't following Jesus the way you see fit. If that's not how you feel, you need to change what you are posting.

Also, I'd appreciate it if you'd get off your high horse, Lilley. I have NEVER judged your walk with G-d, nor accused you of "lying", EVEN WHEN you have mis-represented what I've said.  You, OTOH, have judged me plenty.

Secondly, If you believe that someone is still a Christian after "leaving the teachings of Christ" and "misinterpreting" Jesus' words and  to mean they can pillage, kill, persecute, etc.... please state how this works, and why the church (which is supposedly ALL Jesus' followers) is NOT then responsible for their actions... especially when it is the organization that claims to be the "authorized" followers.... and what do you think the church should do about it? Where is the churches responsibility?

Why, on this thread, have you found instances of people twisting scripture/devotion to Jesus into authorization to plan murders "laughable"? If you find it "laughable", what do you view as your responsibility in the matter? I don't know about you, but I don't find abortion clinic bombings funny, nor do I think anti-gay protesters who deride, disrespect and threaten gays a hoot; I don't consider them harmless, and until someone stands up and tells these people that they don't represent Christinaity... how are they going to know they are no longer in the fold? These people think they represent Jesus, and they have the scriptures to prove it (to themselves at least). Where do we draw the line at the amount of authority someone's "interpretation" of scripture (and I'm talking ANY scripture here, from any religion) - or the messages they receive "from G-d" - give them to bring murder and mayhem to the world?

Who decides?

Who has the authority?
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Feb 17, 2009 - 6:44AM #142
angelictouches
Posts: 443
Alex,
"Christianity is the most dangerous, & insidious of all religions,....one of the most bigoted, & evil.....& has the bloody & violent history to prove it".

Holy GEEZ!! Will ya stop being nice, Alex. Those are ITS 'good' points! :)

HUGS
BACK! You semi-habilis sexual dimorphic derivative descendants of Yeti's Yahveh-ed PRIAPUS Wedge Document Pushers! BACK!
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Feb 17, 2009 - 6:50AM #143
angelictouches
Posts: 443
Hey Chiyo *belated Valentine kiss* for you, Love.

HUGS
BACK! You semi-habilis sexual dimorphic derivative descendants of Yeti's Yahveh-ed PRIAPUS Wedge Document Pushers! BACK!
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Feb 17, 2009 - 9:07AM #144
warlordofks
Posts: 3,646

angelictouches wrote:

Alex,
"Christianity is the most dangerous, & insidious of all religions,....one of the most bigoted, & evil.....& has the bloody & violent history to prove it".

Holy GEEZ!! Will ya stop being nice, Alex. Those are ITS 'good' points! :)

HUGS


I know. They don't want to see me when I get downright dirty about their religion. Of course every thing I learned about getting down & dirty over a religion I learned from the 55 years I was a Christian. I learned from them. And learned my lessons well. Besides, they can't hurt me anymore or commit anymore evil against me. Not those poor persecuted Christians.

Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Feb 17, 2009 - 1:10PM #145
arjun
Posts: 554

Kerplunk wrote:

Well, finally we get to the point. Maybe the common factor is people? Maybe for a lot of people religion is just something they inherited?

So, let me understand you. If Muslims and Christians distance themselves from those who claim the religion and do not practice it, claiming it as misinterpretation, and if you think this is not good enough, then what is your excuse for those genocidal monks in Sir Lanka at the moment (see links above of the news articles about the reality of that)?

Are you saying that are practicing the tenets of Buddhism???

I am confused. What way are you going to go on this?


Please look at this new thread (Range of interpretations) that I have opened to explain in more detail what I have been trying to say.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Mar 15, 2012 - 1:49PM #146
Elizabethmarkley
Posts: 9

Evangelical christianity is by definition, discrimintory. I realize that the word sounds harsh, but it sounds equally harsh when a total stranger shows up at your door and tells you that if you don't repent and follow Jesus then you will go to hell. I may feel that my religion (Hellenismos) is the only religion that seems right to me, but that does not mean that I feel that anyone else is wrong for believing what they do or that there will be some sort of punishment if they don't believe it.  That is where the discrimination comes in. No one is telling you that you are wrong for believing this, or at least I hope no one is. But the truth cannot be denied. It is a fact that you follow a religion that teaches that any who do not follow that religion are following falsehoods and will face an eternity in hell. But the reality is that many do not believe in the existence of hell. You may believe that as a Pagan that I am going to hell because I reject Jesus and christianity, but that is your opinion. It does not make it a fact for me.


The purpose of evangelical christianity, as opposed to other forms of christianity is that its focus is on converting others. That is when it becomes discrimintation. When you walk out of your home or your church and go in public and tell others what they SHOULD be believing, that is discrimination. Believe me, if that happened to you, you would consider it discrimination as well. And if anyone approached you and tried to tell you that you were required to change religions, I would back you up if you said it was discriminatory.


Here is an example of where you even gave an example of christian discrimination:


"Christianity teaches that all mankind is sinful and in need of salvation from that sin to become righteous and enter into the kingdom of God. That is a basic truth of the Christian understanding of God and our relationship to Him. God has provided man salvation through Jesus Christ. Each man has the opportunity to receive Christ or reject him. Gandhi may have been an admirable man and I am not his judge, but if he rejected Jesus Christ as his Savior then he rejected God's provision of salvation from the Christian viewpoint. Christianity is inclusive in the sense that all men are called to salvation. It is exclusive, however, in that only those who receive Christ receive God's salvation.  –Lilley"


Here is another example of a comment you made that was of a discriminatory nature:


"Jesus brought the true message of God to man and there is no other. He alone is the Word of God. He alone embodies truth. So from the Christian view, wherever Hinduism or Gandhi don't align with the revelation Jesus brought, they are untrue.  –Lilley"


 


Now I am not saying that this exclusivity is wrong or that christianity is wrong. This is a discrimination on a religious level, not on a state or civil level. Although relious discrimination does exist, that is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about a religion that discriminates against other religions, which to be honest is a religious right. There is no rule that says that all religions must agree with each other. It would be nice if they did, but when they don't, I don't think its a travesty as that is why there is so much religious diversity. I just think to deny that it exists would be to imply that it IS in fact wrong.


 


So are you saying Lilley that it's wrong for a religion to discriminate against other religions? And if so, then you may be in the wrong religion.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 15 of 15  •  Prev 1 ... 10 11 12 13 14 15
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook