I see a lot of Christian haters on this forum.

Post Reply New Topic

Just wondering what your reasons are. It makes me sad. I don't go around dissing atheists ever. And I don't know any genuine Christians who do.

There's a difference between hating a belief system and hating the believers. Regardless, I'd say the widespread dislike of Christianity on this forum is due in part for it's tendency to breed intellectually lazy or intellectually dishonest arguments, like the whole "whenever a violent or otherwise unkind act is done in the name of Christianity, it's ipso facto not done by a Christian" meme.

I don't hate the christian, i hate the game

Why do you hate "the game?"

Well, considering the fact that Christianity promotes non-violence, love most of all, it is pretty safe to assume someone doing something violent in the name of Christianity is in fact, not very Christian.

I like the Christ. I do not like most Christians, as they are unlike the Christ.

Most couldn't tell a Bible verse from a law in their local municipal code.

Last edited by Fnord on 29 Jul 2011, 8:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Why do so many Christians participate in wars, then?

ruveyn

i see the opposition to organized christianity (many other religions as well) as the only moral action one can take considering what it as an institution has done and keep doing.

perhaps if the so-called xtians didn't hate on others for the hell of it, maybe it would be different...

I don't like the Christ so much either.

I guess it is good as a symbolic figure like the Che Guevara.

But then you wouldn't really want Che to actually win his guerrilla war. You wouldn't want him to actually lead.

I do not think the "hate" (I dislike very much the way tjis word is being used nowadays - you cannot criticize anything without being called "hater" - I criticize a lot, but if I does not like something it does not mean I hate it) against Christians in particular. I have noticed a lot of people in this forum dislikes religions. Period. Any religion, not Christians in particular. I dislike religions myself. Their fundations lay on fear and ignorance, not love.

If Christians did not try to frighten children into believing their doctrines with threats of damnation and hellish imagery ("Join us or burn in Hell forever!"), then I might like them more.

Again, I have no objections to the Christ, it's the way that Christians distort and pervert His teachings for their own ends that I hate.

You know ... "Hate the sin; love the sinner", as they like to say.

from all reports this christ fellow was a generally good guy.

His self-proclaimed followers on the other hand have created complex systems through which they live their own lives - some of which are counterproductive or distasteful, especially if we combine observed behavior with prescribed behavior.

It becomes repugnant when the people who break eggs on the little end besmirch the good name of those who break eggs on the big end.

I don't hate Christians, I just hate how religion has been raped in accordance to agendas and how it still outlives its purpose to this day. I can't stand the dumbass types, but I suppose they are dumbasses with or without religion.

I quietly ignore the rankling "meme" Siugnificant points:

A. Historically Christian theology has in fact bred extremely sophisticated arguments.

B. As in several other areas [non-mainstream medicine springs to mind], the fact that the major organizations of thinkers have ruled theology out of bounds has allowed crank elements to flourish unchecked. Compare the situation in urban areas seen as impossible to police.

C. In my atheist days I would have agreed with the ethnicity based view of Christianity. I assumed I was a Christian on the same basis as sa Muslim would have assumed it. I was brought up in a family with Christian origins, even though I had no idea what Christianity involved and did not believe any of it. Consider applying the definition of Christian given us by Himself, The absurdity you complain of is then not an absurdity

---------

For a secular [more or less] parallel:

Consider this very parallel statement

A true scientist does not falsify data to support a failed hypothesis.

I think most serious people in the popular and other sciences would endorse that.

If a person who has a position - or is seeking a position - in a science department is observed to falsify data [which has happened more than I can stand to think about] - is that person a genuine scientist?

The scientist is the person, not the job.

Or - closer to home - are all those currently involved in the NDP genuine by your standards? Or did I mishear your remarks around election time?

Nor do you - no surprise - have the slightest I dea who is and who ain't.

Oh, come on. Do not just take advantage of trhe fact that most are not going to bother talking to dead ears [not a typo]