The Most Hated Christian

Post Reply New Topic

Freddy Boy is the most hated poser. You can't call that guy a Christian to save your life.

Jesus was NOT a Christian. He was Jewish.

ruveyn

And George Washington was not an American citizen, he was a British subject.

Very interesting thread!! !

i never heard of Ray Comfort, Sye TenBruggencate or Cornelius Van Til and have only vaguley heard of Huckabee and Donahue from forums.

I voted for Calvin. I read 2 books once that tried to defend pre-destination and calvinism free will and they made my head explode. Plus he once burned to death a theologial rival with the cool name of Sevurus. The book defending Calvin says "but he was just of his time because everyone was burning each other back then" etc.

I agree Ken Ham (who i saw speak live) and Rick Warren are also annoying, what about Joyce Meyer, yuck!

How about Martin Luther? I know he was just standing up to corruption and lack of real faith, but he started the whole catholic and protestant split i think? and Augustine.

The most hated Christian varies. For the Catholics (Catholics are Catholics, not Christians), it is John Hagee from Texas and Martin Luther from Germany and Barack Obama from the Obama Democrat White House. For Christians, it is the child crime hiding Pope of Italy and politician James Dobson from Colorado and politician Pat Robertson from Virginia. For Homer Simpson, it is his neighbor, Ned Flanders. The answer varies.

Many Christian TV evangelists are hated by some Christians too.

Actually Homer Simpson has the capacity to forgive too, especially after a beer or sugar donut, so it's very likely somewhere in the heart of Homer Simpson there is love for his neighbor, Ned Flanders.

Sources for the above do not include:

Saturday Night Live (TV comedy show)
Mad magazine
The Onion magazine
Wittenburg Door magazine
The Theatre of the Absurb

---

http://www.beliefnet.com/

---

The most loved Christians are likely to be Santa Claus and his wife.

---

Actually, the most loved Christian can only be Jesus Christ it seems to me.

Religious science fiction (movie)

http://www.pilgrimsprogressthemovie.com/

Last edited by pgd on 19 Aug 2010, 12:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I don't believe all the US presidents who clamied to be have really been a christian, just said they were to impress voters. I read in a book about the "US christian right" that a group of famous fundamentalists had lunch with Jimmy Carter shortly after he was sworn in, grilled him on abortion etc, and afterwards wept at how liberal and un godly he was.

Abraham Lincoln was a deist as were many of the founding fathers.

Westboro Baptist church doesn't understand that their primative religious beliefs are incompatable with the modern socio-economic system or with modern technology. I don't agree with them, I'm just pointing out that they're on a wild goose chase.

"The conservatives are fools: They whine about the decay of traditional values, yet they enthusiastically support technological progress and economic growth. Apparently it never occurs to them that you can't make rapid, drastic changes in the technology and the economy of a society without causing rapid changes in all other aspects of the society as well, and that such rapid changes inevitably break down traditional values."
-Unabomber

You're going too far. You can't slander on this board. STOP.

You are gong to have to find a better way to phrase your disdain for those who have faith. Calling an entire and diverse group of people "idiots" is not allowed.

Does this mean that you consider Carter to not really be a Christian just because members of the far Christian right didn't like his views?

For the record, the Christian right does NOT hold exclusive rights to the definition of "Christian." There are many who would argue that THEY are the false Christians, and the liberal believers the "real" ones.

But, of course, only God gets to decide (and He's keeping his opinion to himself).

Last edited by DW_a_mom on 19 Aug 2010, 2:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I hope there is a lot of sarcasm in that statement because a significant percentage of the Catholic church follows a more liberal social justice theology, or variations thereof, and that "half" (actual percentage unknown, but it is large) voted for and fully supports Obama. Catholicism is a VERY large umbrella.

I'm not quite sure that would constitute slander.
For the past.... century at the least, it would be hard to conceive that the pope of the time didn't have at least a knowledge that there were in fact numerous priests abusing children.
To have that knowledge, while in a position of power to do something about it, and not immediately hand over all extant records and complaints to relevant authorities is in my opinion complicity, which is no better than the abuse itself.

In truth, every catholic who walks this earth is complicit in the abuse of children by attending, and worse yet donating funds to the church which are then used to defend and hide the pedophiles.
If you support and donate to an organization, then you are responsible for it's actions. It is this very reason that many charity acts of various countries (Canada, USA, UK, France I know for sure) have changed recently to make it a criminal offense to knowingly give to a charity or organization that supports terrorism.

Tell me, what is the difference between that and giving to the Catholic Church?

General comment:

I realize many of you feel I'm biased when it comes to what is an attack v. what is a valid argument when it comes to dissecting faith, but certain rules remain and MUST be followed. One is not to slander. Another is not to generalize. A third is to not use terms of attack.

I would much rather leave you all alone to debate as you wish, and only join in when it interests me, but there have been recent complaints about the deterioration of this board. As I find time, I'm trying to read a thread or two and try to figure out what is going on. There is too much garbage, and I suspect you all actually know it. So ... reign in the garbage; it's getting out of hand. Next time I open a thread, I want to feel compelled to argue a debate point, but not compelled to moderate.

He called every Pope a pedophile. There is NO proof of that, and you aren't claiming to have any. You are claiming complicity. THAT argument can NOT be summed up as "all of them."

Use a few more mitigating and explanatory words, and the sentiment can be made t o fall within parameters.

I'm sick of Christians accusing other Christians of not being "true" Christians. "Christian" is highly subjective. As far as I'm concerned anyone can call themself a Christian and I won't correct them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_scotsman

I just don't trust anyone who says they believe every word of the bible. People who say they do are just being arrogant and they are ignoring large chunks of the bible that would get you arrested if you followed them.