Why are Christians under attack ?

Originally posted by RJHinds
However, I am the one with the dust speck. 😏

Your smug icon says it all.

Originally posted by moonbus
I think there is a good deal of wisdom in what you say. Ultimately it does not matter to which party one belongs; hatred is the enemy, not this or that sect. I do not, however, see why diversity per se should lead to conflict; it does so only when someone, on some path, thinks that his path is the only one (or the only legitimate one).

Do you think "hatred is the enemy" in this community? If you do, which members of the community do you think comprise this "enemy"?

Originally posted by RJHinds
There you go badgering again. 😀

Suzianne made very specific accusations. Her inability to substantiate them would suggest that her tirade on page 1 is born of paranoia rather than a considered answer to the OP question Why are Christians under attack?

Originally posted by FMF
Do you think "hatred is the enemy" in this community? If you do, which members of the community do you think comprise this "enemy"?

I did not have any particular correspondent to this thread or SF in mind. I was thinking more along the lines of Islamic State. They appear to thrive on fomenting hatred.

Originally posted by Suzianne
All I know is when I first showed up here I was fairly rabid about atheists and yeah, I was a newbie and yeah, I taunted them with visions of end times and I got roundly schooled for doing that, by atheists and others.

Well, you want to talk about best behavior? How do you feel about Googlefudge's stance that I outlined?

You didn't 'outline' my stance... you misrepresented it... yet again.

So I will clarify... yet again.

I do not, and will not, respect YOUR BELIEFS or the method Reveal Hidden Content by which
you form your beliefs.

And I will not respect them because they are wrong, irrational, harmful, and even dangerous.

However that is not the same, as I have said time and time-again, as not respecting you or
your right to hold such beliefs.


You demonstrate the point I was making clearly over and over again.

It's not possible to discuss religions without "giving offence"*** because religious beliefs are often
very deeply felt personal beliefs and people get very upset when they are challenged by people of
other religions or atheists.

People identify their beliefs a being a part of themselves, of their identity. To attack these beliefs is
thus in their mind to attack them.

However to say that we should thus never criticise or question or attack these beliefs is to impose
other peoples religious taboos upon ourselves.

In just the same way that it's one thing for those of the Islamic faith to refrain from drawing images
of their prophet. It's quite another to try to impose that same taboo and restriction on EVERYONE else.


I see your beliefs as being wrong, dangerous, and irrational. OF COURSE I don't respect them.

What kind of thought process says "yes I believe that your beliefs are making your life and the lives of
others worse, and that those beliefs are stupid and irrational and most importantly wrong... but I respect
those beliefs...." wtf?

Given that I know this, and I said this at the time, I do not expect you to respect me or my beliefs.

Because my beliefs UTTERLY contradict yours, and your beliefs are a fundamental part of your self image of
who you are... which is part of the problem.


This doesn't [necessarily] mean that i don't/wont respect you.

But I will never respect your beliefs.

Only your right to hold them [although not without criticism, especially on a forum for that very purpose]



EDIT: Sorry forgot to add the caveat at the end... 😕

***Unless that conversation is all between people who all believe roughly the same things... and not always even then.



EDIT 2: And to keep this all nice and referenced... here is a link to that original conversation.

http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=162623&page=&page=11

Nicely laid out 6 posts down, with links to the original thread.

I think persecution has become a misused word in this forum however there are some interesting behaviours exhibited.

It seems some people find this forum a place of persecution, I think it's ok here and I certainly wouldn't call the arguments that occur here "persecution" as I know the JWs like to.

I could claim I have been "persecuted" by other Christians here but I don't. I will however call out the behaviour when I see it.

Example:
I have been told publically by the professed Christian RJHinds that I "deserve to burn in hell" because I don't believe in something he believes in. Despite reading this statement not one single so-called Christian defended me against this horrible statement including Grampy Bobby, KellyJay, Susianne, whodey, josephw...even sonship declined to support me.

I have been accused by other Religionists of "undermining the faith of others" of "slithering like a serpent into this forum" and an of being an "antichrist". Several Christians here seem to ignore my posts because they presumably think I'm evil or something similar. At least I'm sure that's how they justify their behaviour.

I am a Christian a believer in the redemptive work of Jesus Christ and yet the above happens to me here by other Christians simply because I argue with them. I'm cool with it though, I see this as neither persecution nor hate, just mostly ignorance and partisan line-drawing.

As someone who has stepped outside of the traditional organised religious architecture, it is water off of a duck's to me and simply underlines my belief that Christ has left the traditional denominational constructs a long time ago.

Originally posted by googlefudge

It's not possible to discuss religions without "giving offence"*** because religious beliefs are often very deeply felt personal beliefs and people get very upset when they are challenged by people of other religions or atheists.

People identify their beliefs a being a part of themselves, of their identity. To attack these beliefs is
thus in their mind to attack them.
[/b]

I think I see gf's point here. Challenging someone's belief in God has a personal dimension which challenging someone's belief in, say, Darwin or Einstein does not have. One's belief in God is tied to hopes for and faith in personal salvation; whereas no one puts that kind of 'investment' into Darwin or Einstein.

I think we have a third thesis in the making here.

Originally posted by moonbus
I think I see gf's point here. Challenging someone's belief in God has a personal dimension which challenging someone's belief in, say, Darwin or Einstein does not have. One's belief in God is tied to hopes for and faith in personal salvation; whereas no one puts that kind of 'investment' into Darwin or Einstein.

I think we have a third thesis in the making here.

People say "I AM a Christian", "I AM a BELIEVER", "I HAVE BEEN REBORN",
"THIS is who I AM"....

Not too many people say "I AM a person who believes in evolution".

It's why so many theists get it wrong, and try to work out how to build a
world view FROM atheism [the lack of beliefs in gods]... And wonder how
it is you build up a moral system, or anything else with that foundation...

Because THEIR mental foundation is [in their minds] their religion.

But atheism is the result [generally speaking] of a belief system or belief systems.

And people being people, THOSE beliefs might well be at the core of who a
particular atheist sees themselves. And you can get very similar reactions if
you hit those beliefs...

Just look at the reactions of people who have "I AM a Democrat" or "I AM a Republican"
as personal identifiers.


The trick [and it's not easy] is to make "I AM the kind of person who will re-evaluate my
beliefs when presented with new evidence or arguments and I AM the kind of person who
will change their mind if they find out that they are wrong about something" one of your
core personal identifiers. Because our brains have been wired by evolution to REALLY dislike
being shifted off of opinions we deeply hold [or have just said out loud].


Contrary to what Suzianne thinks, I do know and understand how hard she believes what she
believes, and why she gets so upset at those beliefs being challenged.

That is part of why they [her beliefs] are so dangerous.


EDIT: Some afterthoughts...

Everyone has [to greater or lesser degrees] beliefs about who they are, and can get very
upset/angry if they are challenged.

These beliefs may not even be articulated.

Things like "I am NOT a child molester/rapist/murderer" or "I am NOT sexist/racist/bigoted"

That second one being quite problematic, because many studies have shown that we all
have discriminatory reactions and subconscious belief in stereotypes which colour our interactions
even without us being aware of them... But try to point out to someone that they are acting in
ways that are racist/sexist/ect and you run smack into their self image that says "I am NOT sexist/ect"
And so they react angrily and dismiss the accusation.

This doesn't mean that all accusations are true, and certainly if you get falsely accused of something
bad it's entirely understandable that you get angry about it...

However the fact that "I am NOT sexist" is part of your self identity, doesn't in any way mean or guarantee
that you are in fact 'Not Sexist', in your behaviour if not beliefs.

Originally posted by moonbus
I think we have a third thesis in the making here.

A tentative fourth one is that, on what is - after all - a dedicated debate forum, complaints of being "persecuted" ~ and these being offered instead of debate and discussion points ~ are just deflection, pure and simple. It belongs on a list...

Religionist: I am not going to engage your observation/question because...

1. you are persecuting me
2. your post is spam
3. you are misdirecting
4. you're emotional
5. you are obfuscating
6. you are deflecting
7. your life has no meaning
8. you are just being abusive
9. you have an agenda
10. you are intellectually dishonest
11. you are a troll
12. you are hijacking the thread
13. you exhibit no teachability
14. you are simply attacking Christians
15. you are rejecting authority
16. you are just a hater, hateful, full of hatred

...and there are others too.

So the fourth thesis is that the question 'Why are we Christians being persecuted here?' is part and parcel of a desire to avoid debate, reject scrutiny, poison the discourse, dodge the points and responses on the table, and all in all it demonstrates a widespread inability to cope with dissent and disagreement. It is my observation that religious beliefs often cause this inability to come to the fore.

Originally posted by moonbus
I think there is a good deal of wisdom in what you say. Ultimately it does not matter to which party one belongs; hatred is the enemy, not this or that sect. I do not, however, see why diversity per se should lead to conflict; it does so only when someone, on some path, thinks that his path is the only one (or the only legitimate one).

Diversity doesn't have to lead to conflict, but you'll find it difficult to find
humans that are not in it one way or another. There is either infighting,
or us against them, or we are better than them, whoever we are, and them
is! It is human nature which according to my Christian beliefs is broken due
to sin and needs transformed by God! We are not equip to fix ourselves
since we even find it difficult to even see the logs in our own eyes even
when the full light of day is showing it to us and everyone else!

For me I do not suggest anyone leave anything, but what they do need to
do is find God in Christ Jesus, beyond that it is all human effort, at least
in my opinion!

Originally posted by moonbus
I did not have any particular correspondent to this thread or SF in mind. I was thinking more along the lines of Islamic State. They appear to thrive on fomenting hatred.

“Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; and children will rise up against parents and cause them to be put to death. You will be hated by all because of My name..." (Matthew 10:21-22) The entire Islamic Religion is ipso facto antithetical to Christianity: All religion seeks to gain the approbation of God by human effort; Christianity is a relationship with God for time and eternity. How? By accepting God's Grace Gift through the simple act of faith alone in Christ alone.

Originally posted by divegeester
I think persecution has become a misused word in this forum however there are some interesting behaviours exhibited.

It seems some people find this forum a place of persecution, I think it's ok here and I certainly wouldn't call the arguments that occur here "persecution" as I know the JWs like to.

I could claim I have been "persecuted" by other C ...[text shortened]... rlines my belief that Christ has left the traditional denominational constructs a long time ago.

No maturing believer in Christ requires a human crutch. Do I pray for you and other Christians and atheists here? Yes.

Originally posted by moonbus
I did not have any particular correspondent to this thread or SF in mind. I was thinking more along the lines of Islamic State. They appear to thrive on fomenting hatred.

Given that you kicked off your OP with this: "One frequent and vociferous correspondent to SF has said that she feels she and fellow Christians are often under attack here. I propose a thread to discuss this", isn't the kind of hatred fomented by Islamic State rather off topic?

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Do I pray for you and other Christians and atheists here? Yes.

I'd sooner see you actually do something, for example stand up against the hateful comment Hinds made against me. You are complicit in your silence and your other words therefore mean nothing.

Originally posted by divegeester
I sooner see you actually do something, for example stand up against the hateful comment Hinds made against me. You are complicit in your silence and your other words therefore mean nothing.

Grampy Bobby has offered you the "human crutch" of his prayers. 😉