Evangelicals playing the "Bigotry" card

Page 3 of 3 [ 48 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3

Previous topic | Next topic

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

26 Aug 2011, 7:00 pm

Inuyasha wrote:

Kraichgauer wrote:

Inuyasha wrote:

Kraichgauer wrote:

Inuyasha wrote:

Fnord wrote:

Philologos wrote:

Fnord wrote:

How about "Christianazis" or "Fundanistas"?

How about figuring out what something IS before you coin a hate talk label for it?

How about taking that tin-plated crown off your head and stop dictating what other people should do, say, or think?

If Christians want to be admired, loved, and respected, then they might do well to first consider choosing to be admirable, loveable. and respectable in their own deeds, words, and thoughts - but that's a choice that I sincerely doubt that most Christians would make, even if they knew that they could make it.

I seriously doubt most of the evangelicals that are called nutty are actually nutty. Like the term "racist" this bashing people because they are Christian and Conservative has gotten to the point that more and more people just for what it is.

Christians wouldn't be respected or admired by you regardless of how they acted, I'm sorry for saying this but in my opinion I consider many atheists to be as bigoted or more bigoted than they claim Evangelicals are.

I am a Christian, but from a brand that most evangelicals would deny the name Christian to. Part of this is the reason why I so dislike them - they would have you think my little daughter's infant baptism isn't legitimate because she was too young to make a choice in choosing Christ - or mine, for that matter. Or because I don't put a whole lot of stock in Revelations, and don't believe in the rapture, I'm not really a Christian. And God forbid that I should reject their heartless prosperity gospel, which explains poverty as God's wrath, and prosperity as his blessing. Trust me, I could go on and on. And it's not just a matter of theological differences that makes me so hostile, as I have no problem with other Mainline Protestants and Catholics, even though I don't agree one hundred percent with them - these other faiths aren't damning me to hell like evangelicals are.
Trust me, it's not just atheists who have a problem with evangelicals.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

They are throwing you and mainline protestants into the Evangelical Category too you know.

If they are, there's nothing I can do about that. It's still not going to make me like evangelicals any more.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

If you are talking about Johvah witnesses, if they ever come to your door, just say you are a mormon and they probably will never come back.

No, I was not referring to them; if anything, they're little more than a petty annoyance, as they'll never have the political muscle to enforce their theology. No, the people I'm talking about are the born again evangelicals, who are seemingly either, or of a Baptist denomination, practicing Arminian theology, or are of the Pentecostal of Charismatic variety, which Perry's new friends in the New Apostolic Reformation connected to. And they've made it their life's goal to take political power to enforce what they believe, whether the rest of us want it or not. To be sure there are always exceptions to the rule - there are perfectly decent evangelical Christians, while I have met real a**holes who belong to my denomination.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

26 Aug 2011, 8:33 pm

Jehovah's Witnesses don't even vote. They are harmless.

Philologos
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Age: 83
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,987

26 Aug 2011, 8:57 pm

Fnord wrote:

Philologos wrote:

Fnord wrote:

How about "Christianazis" or "Fundanistas"?

How about figuring out what something IS before you coin a hate talk label for it?

What tin-plated crown, Motl-T? Do you suppose you are talking to me?

Did I say anything that even begins suggest I want admiration, love, and respect for me or Christians or Justin Merriwether?

What I said AND say is that as long as your kind [and I include the specimens of your kind who claim to be Christian] keep on looking at the picture instead of READING the ingredients and keep on tennising labels instead of discussing ideas and doing Bandar-Log banter instead of learning to be a mensch, we will keep the media and the parties VERY happy indeed.

For the record - as an arrogant atheists I kbew a slew of Christiand who were infinitely more admirable, loveable and respectable in their public and private behavior than - you can fill in the rest, Motl-T.

Ancalagon
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,302

26 Aug 2011, 11:16 pm

Fnord wrote:

How about "Christianazis" or "Fundanistas"?

Your attempt to create new words to bash Christians with has been noted.

Quote:

If Christians want to be admired, loved, and respected, then they might do well to first consider choosing to be admirable, loveable. and respectable in their own deeds, words, and thoughts - but that's a choice that I sincerely doubt that most Christians would make, even if they knew that they could make it.

Your put-down of Christians' moral character and intelligence is noted.

If you would like to be admired or respected, perhaps you should consider following your own advice.

_________________
"A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it." --G. K. Chesterton

Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,961
Location:

26 Aug 2011, 11:40 pm

Ancalagon wrote:

If you would like to be admired or respected, perhaps you should consider following your own advice.

Well, y'see ... that's just it; I don't give a rip if anyone who reads my posts respects me, especially Christians.

Also, I hope that you noticed that when I posted those words (I did not invent them, btw), I was not smote from above, nor was I afflicted with boils, locusts, leprosy, or any of the other curses that were allegedly inflicted upon those who opposed God.

So if God doesn't mind, then why should you, or anyone else, for that matter?

_________________
The mere fact that science may not yet adequately explain an object, event, or experience does not mean the immediate explanation should automatically default to a conspiratorial, extraterrestrial, paranormal, or supernatural cause.

Ancalagon
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,302

26 Aug 2011, 11:45 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:

I went to a lot of evangelical churches as a kid, and I can't imagine any of them saying that.

Quote:

Or because I don't put a whole lot of stock in Revelations, and don't believe in the rapture, I'm not really a Christian.

I can't imagine them saying you aren't a Christian because of that. I can imagine some of them being shocked that the idea was possible, though...

Quote:

And God forbid that I should reject their heartless prosperity gospel, which explains poverty as God's wrath, and prosperity as his blessing.

I can see why you'd disapprove, but I have no idea why you'd call it heartless.

And, again, I can't see any of them saying you aren't a Christian over it.

Quote:

And it's not just a matter of theological differences that makes me so hostile, as I have no problem with other Mainline Protestants and Catholics, even though I don't agree one hundred percent with them - these other faiths aren't damning me to hell like evangelicals are.

Well, actually I think Catholics technically are. Although I've never been one, so I may be wrong about that.

Quote:

Trust me, it's not just atheists who have a problem with evangelicals.

I think you should know (and keep in mind) that the vast majority of evangelicals that I've encountered have been nice people. I'm not telling you not to have a problem with them, just keep in mind that there are real, usually nice people behind the label, even if their theology is off.

_________________
"A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it." --G. K. Chesterton

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

27 Aug 2011, 12:02 am

Ancalagon wrote:

Kraichgauer wrote:

I went to a lot of evangelical churches as a kid, and I can't imagine any of them saying that.

Quote:

Or because I don't put a whole lot of stock in Revelations, and don't believe in the rapture, I'm not really a Christian.

I can't imagine them saying you aren't a Christian because of that. I can imagine some of them being shocked that the idea was possible, though...

Quote:

And God forbid that I should reject their heartless prosperity gospel, which explains poverty as God's wrath, and prosperity as his blessing.

I can see why you'd disapprove, but I have no idea why you'd call it heartless.

And, again, I can't see any of them saying you aren't a Christian over it.

Quote:

Well, actually I think Catholics technically are. Although I've never been one, so I may be wrong about that.

Quote:

Trust me, it's not just atheists who have a problem with evangelicals.

I did say in an earlier post that the rule isn't absolute, and that there are in fact decent evangelicals. But plenty of others would question my Christianity - their websites are all over the internet where they not only attack doctrinal positions I hold to, but explicitly name Lutherans, Episcopalians, Calvinists, etc. as going to hell (and no, I don't believe they're damned - just damn a**holes). As well, I can name a specific instance where a Lutheran program had been forced off of a Christian radio station by evangelical listeners, because the program had done an episode on infant baptism.
And as far as I'm concerned, the prosperity gospel has no connection to the real Christian message, because of the perception that the rich are rich because God is rewarding them for their faith and good works, while the poor have something morally wrong with them. That can be seen in Cal Thomas' b***h b***h, moan moan column, as he states that real Christians should be pulling themselves up by their own boot straps. So, I have to assume that there must have been something wrong with Jesus and his Apostles, as they not only were not wealthy, but embraced absolute poverty.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

27 Aug 2011, 9:13 am

Kraichgauer wrote:

I am a Christian, but from a brand that most evangelicals would deny the name Christian to. Part of this is the reason why I so dislike them - they would have you think my little daughter's infant baptism isn't legitimate because she was too young to make a decision choosing Christ - or mine, for that matter. Or because I don't put a whole lot of stock in Revelations, and don't believe in the rapture, I'm not really a Christian. And God forbid that I should reject their heartless prosperity gospel, which explains poverty as God's wrath, and prosperity as his blessing. Trust me, I could go on and on. And it's not just a matter of theological differences that makes me so hostile, as I have no problem with other Mainline Protestants and Catholics, even though I don't agree one hundred percent with them - these other faiths aren't damning me to hell like evangelicals are.
Trust me, it's not just atheists who have a problem with evangelicals.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

I used to "think" that I was a Christian (mainstream United Methodist), until I had a similar experience with some Evangelicals, who succeeded in convincing me that Christianity is stupid.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

27 Aug 2011, 9:32 am

pandabear wrote:

Jehovah's Witnesses don't even vote. They are harmless.

Wait until one of their kids need a blood transfusion. Then you will see just how "harmless" they are.

ruveyn

pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

27 Aug 2011, 10:13 am

They are harmless in the political sense--only harmful to themselves (and to their children).

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

27 Aug 2011, 12:51 pm

pandabear wrote:

Kraichgauer wrote:

I am a Christian, but from a brand that most evangelicals would deny the name Christian to. Part of this is the reason why I so dislike them - they would have you think my little daughter's infant baptism isn't legitimate because she was too young to make a decision choosing Christ - or mine, for that matter. Or because I don't put a whole lot of stock in Revelations, and don't believe in the rapture, I'm not really a Christian. And God forbid that I should reject their heartless prosperity gospel, which explains poverty as God's wrath, and prosperity as his blessing. Trust me, I could go on and on. And it's not just a matter of theological differences that makes me so hostile, as I have no problem with other Mainline Protestants and Catholics, even though I don't agree one hundred percent with them - these other faiths aren't damning me to hell like evangelicals are.
Trust me, it's not just atheists who have a problem with evangelicals.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

I used to "think" that I was a Christian (mainstream United Methodist), until I had a similar experience with some Evangelicals, who succeeded in convincing me that Christianity is stupid.

Nah, all they've convinced me about is how stupid they are.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Philologos
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Age: 83
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,987

27 Aug 2011, 3:01 pm

Ancalagon wrote:

Fnord wrote:

How about "Christianazis" or "Fundanistas"?

Your attempt to create new words to bash Christians with has been noted.

Quote:

Your put-down of Christians' moral character and intelligence is noted.

If you would like to be admired or respected, perhaps you should consider following your own advice.

Dashed again.

Is EVERYONE to be more succinct that I?

When I was younger I had the consolation of "knowing" that I was the most elegant.

Philologos
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Age: 83
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,987

27 Aug 2011, 3:11 pm

Fnord wrote:

But, said the disciple, wherever I went, I was watching.

Never you mind.

We will not discuss [PBS, after all] why God would not put boils on you, though the reasons are many and interesting. We will not discuss why Christians - who were called worse by people who had the power to torture them long before your first snotfest - have no reason to burn a cross in front of your house. That is also interesting, but redundant.

WHY should I mind? Simply because when one of your kind - be he Christian or Whalesaver or Arian or Aryan or Breathetarian or Rotarian or Commie or Swami - proliferates labile labeltalk at the expense of communicating data and concepts, it undermines any claim we have to be different from wolverines.

pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

27 Aug 2011, 3:22 pm

Philologos wrote:

it undermines any claim we have to be different from wolverines.

Philologos
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Age: 83
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,987

27 Aug 2011, 3:25 pm

pandabear wrote:

Philologos wrote:

it undermines any claim we have to be different from wolverines.

A Philologos point for you, motl. I KNEW as I typed it that somebody was going to make the connection.

My Michigan time was with the Spartans, but between bookstores and 1050 I put in much time in Ann Arbor.

pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

27 Aug 2011, 3:39 pm

Philologos wrote:

My Michigan time was with the Spartans, .

Ah, so you can claim to be different from wolverines.

Page 3 of 3 [ 48 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3

Jump to:

Evangelicals playing the "Bigotry" card Post Reply New Topic

Evangelicals playing the "Bigotry" card