" Persecuted" Christians Post Their Prime Lodgings Online

[Antlerman]

People being cruel and unloving in the world is no excuse for them to remain behind self-created fortresses of ignorance using other people as an excuse. There are also vast seas of loving humans from all walks of life "out there" as well. But their walls of defense condemn them as well. And how is that mature?

 

I think the key words here are excuse and ignorance. You have placed the word excuse on the process with bias. Ignorace may sure be valid, but excuse seems a little harsh.

What you're saying is "forgive them, for they know not what they do?" That I can do that is beside the point that I'm stating that offering a justification for them doing something is because of how bad others are, is an excuse, a rationalization, a justification for it by finger pointing. Pointing to others for our behavior is no excuse for our behavior. And furthermore, everyone is faced with the same world. Their response to it is not the fault of the world. You see my point?

 

Don't you think the walls of defence can be just a real as your experience?

What does that mean? You mean, the world through their lens of reality was as real to me then as it is to them now? Yes, I recognize that. It still doesn't change my pointing out, and rightly so, that it is unhealthy ultimately for them and everyone. Recognizing the illness is the first step toward trying to heal it.

 

Condemnation abouds equally it appears.

As I said before, being intolerant of intolerance is not a contradiction, but a valid moral truth. Being intolerant of others who simply have different beliefs held with tolerance towards others is a moral wrong. That is a contradiction of higher moral truth.

 

I care for the individuals stuck in the pathology, and wish them growth and health. I condemn the ideology as justifiable, excusable by pointing fingers at others.

 

To the maturity thing.....looking at the Bible and structure of the Tabernacle, there is more than one group and economy at hand......levels in God if you wish, levels of "maturity".....the outer court, inner court, holy place, holy of holies. You were saying?

This is where it could get quite deep, and I would enjoy going there with you. What I will do instead however is save this part of the discussion for another topic I'm planning to start in the Ex-Christian Spirituality forum. The topic will be, "Peak Experiences and Stages of Moral Growth". You can see where this will fit in better there. Plus it's a topic I think will be a particular interest to you. You are free to participate in the discussion there as only those of the "apologist" group can't. You are not part of that group, but of just the believers group. You enjoy discussion and aren't about sticking Bible verses in place of your own thoughts with only a single track mind.

 

For now, I'll say again, be this as you say above, fundamentalism is still pathological, no matter what stage of development one may be at.

[Guest end3]

I don't have you on ignore Ruby.....and I apologize if I was not on track with the theme of the thread.....it happens alot with me. I think the point would be that we each potentially possess a vote in the freedoms we enjoy. The line between our individual truths and adament belief in those truths is contentious and ill-defined on occasion....so I would guess improved communication, empathy, and less whining would be a good start.

 

Yes, it would be a good start. You get evangelicals to stop whining that they are being persecuted for not being allowed to rule the government and schools and everyone's lives with their chosen brand of christianity, and we will have nothing to discuss in this thread at all. Fair?

 

Do you think that if the situation were reversed by history, that the status quo/flavor of the day would be any less adament about the other group substantiating a place in their system of belief? I will answer for the idealists here. The answer is no.

[Guest end3]

Such as drug abuse and alcoholism? And my point is as I said, those really aren't relief but hiding from the necessary pain of growth to find relief through that - growth.

 

So now you are placing conditions on others and their "growth" path....conditions that you yourself admonish????

 

Let me explain something I touched on earlier at the end of my last post. Fundamentalism is an entity, and that entity is defined by reactionary behaviors. Individuals may participate in it as part of their individual process of growth, but fundamentalism will always be fundamentalism regardless of who is participating in it. Therefore I would not consider fundamentalism per se' as a growth process. I would consider it a pathology, an unhealthy sidetrack that hopefully as one finds themselves within it, something existential inside will awaken and say "Enough with this sickness!", and leave it.

 

You are certainly within your right to do so, but we could label most anything that we personally don't agree as healthy with the pathogen label.

 

In that sense, it becomes part of that individuals process. Sometimes, people need to get worse before they can get better. But I wouldn't consider fundamentalism part of a healthy process. If it were, then everyone should go that route. You see the difference? It may become part of an individuals process, but for others it is their disease like alcoholism. And all the behaviors, irrationalities, denials, etc - those I consider the pathological symptoms of fundamentalism itself.

 

There is a difference in general fundamentalism vs. Christian fundamentalism....and I assume we are talking the latter. So please explain to me the necessity of denying the belief vs. excusing ones self from the exercise of fundamentalism. I mean does an individual have no tolerance for any type of fundamentalism, or is it just Christianity as an entity that "feeds" the disease?

 

You believe shutting yourself off from others is the road to peace? I'd call that escape. Your idea of relief and peace in these contexts are what I'd call in hiding and escape. Those are neither relief nor peace, but a sad, unfulfilled illusion of them, like drowning yourself in booze. That's not facing the day. That's not integrating with life. It's escaping it in unhealthy ways.

 

Look, don't put yourself so far down the path that you can't empathize with people in a position that you yourself once visited. You yourself said to me concerning an individual common to us that they and the process have to run it's course....you yourself reminded me of this. Now, if fundamentalism,regardless of context, had no viability, then it wouldn't exist as an entity......so what's the beef?

[Guest end3]

Really? Do you consider paths that lead to respect and peace with others that are different than you to be a pathology? Fundamentalism is a pathology, a symptom of a problem, and "by their fruits you shall know them".

 

There is no way that you nor I can accurately discern the outcome of a particular path. We certainly can characterize and label and speculate, but what does that lead to.

 

And I mine. This is completely consistent with what I said. I think you just didn't follow it which is why I tried explaining it a little more in depth above. I can go much deeper if you'd like.

 

Just because you tell someone something is potentially bad for them doesn't guarantee anything....oh the irony.

 

But again, the fundamentalism as a movement is defined by its being an us-versus-them mentality. Individuals who that appeals to will always come. It is an immature mentality nonetheless, and when I was in it "I thought as a child, I spake as a child, etc".

 

Nonetheless....meaningless.

 

Like any developing organism (or system), hopefully sickness will become healed and mended and the individual will become stronger for it. If you must pray for others, then do so for those who mistake escape for rest and never begin to access and realize their fuller potentials as a vibrant, vital human being.

 

You have heard of winter, right?

 

A note on rest: I would say that rest is only for a time, as we are ever changing, ever growing. To be non-changing is to go against life and is for all intents and purpose the definition of death. Fundamentalism seeks to resist change. Fundamentalism for all intents and purposes seeks death. And that is but one reason why it is a pathology.

 

 

It's an economy that will always exist for the purpose it serves.....why not view it as a node.

[Guest end3]

Thanks for clearing that up.

 

Actually, it's good to see you post Ruby...has been awhile.

 

This sounds fairly decent. However, I would like to see the admission that Christians as a group are not persecuted by any other group per se in Canada or the United States.

 

I don't have any data on that to make any sort of statement.

 

I realize there may be isolated individual cases in which a person converts against the wishes of friends and family. But that person must, of course, be very careful to note whether he/she is trying to convert said friends and family. If so, the "persecution" may be for a reason; those around the new convert do NOT want to be force-fed your religion. They have the right to be free from religion. You can have your religion, but have keep it to yourself.

 

Is that love? Truthfully, if I owned something that I wanted to share out of love, would that be wrong? I think the answer to your statement lies in our failures as humans to share love in a perfect capacity.

 

If the Christian is obnoxious (by constantly talking about his or her beliefs to uninterested parties, a.k.a. "pushing religion"), he/she can expect less than friendly responses. That, however, is NOT persecution.

 

I think that is what I am getting at, but I think it hard to define persecution for an individual.

[lunaticheathen]

I don't have you on ignore Ruby.....and I apologize if I was not on track with the theme of the thread.....it happens alot with me. I think the point would be that we each potentially possess a vote in the freedoms we enjoy. The line between our individual truths and adament belief in those truths is contentious and ill-defined on occasion....so I would guess improved communication, empathy, and less whining would be a good start.

 

Yes, it would be a good start. You get evangelicals to stop whining that they are being persecuted for not being allowed to rule the government and schools and everyone's lives with their chosen brand of christianity, and we will have nothing to discuss in this thread at all. Fair?

 

Do you think that if the situation were reversed by history, that the status quo/flavor of the day would be any less adament about the other group substantiating a place in their system of belief? I will answer for the idealists here. The answer is no.

 

The situation isn't reversed. Christianity is the "flavor of the day", even in a "secular democracy", such as we have, where every opinion is respected - and that is where these fundamentalists claim persecution! The very fact that all opinions are valid, not theirs over everyone else's, is what makes them scream persecution! Can you not see the very basic flaw of logic in this?

This isn't a disparaging of christianity as it is a correction of basic flaws in factual worldviews of these people who claim that liberals are treating them as jews were treated in CONCENTRATION CAMPS, while they open universities, public churches, and list hotels where they stay! If they are so underground, WHY ARE THEY SO LOUD?

They are not persecuted. Period. End of story.

[Guest end3]

What you're saying is "forgive them, for they know not what they do?" That I can do that is beside the point that I'm stating that offering a justification for them doing something is because of how bad others are, is an excuse, a rationalization, a justification for it by finger pointing. Pointing to others for our behavior is no excuse for our behavior. And furthermore, everyone is faced with the same world. Their response to it is not the fault of the world. You see my point?

 

Crap, by your rules even, who do we have to blame, Satan? At least Christianity attempts to place the burden of fault not on the individual. What do you think brings people to church in the first place.....happiness?

 

What does that mean? You mean, the world through their lens of reality was as real to me then as it is to them now? Yes, I recognize that. It still doesn't change my pointing out, and rightly so, that it is unhealthy ultimately for them and everyone. Recognizing the illness is the first step toward trying to heal it.

 

I think you just need to rethink your position on the phase of growth that is fundamentalism. I will admit for your sake and displaying grace on my part that people have opportunity to camp there and develop less that sterling qualities.

 

As I said before, being intolerant of intolerance is not a contradiction, but a valid moral truth. Being intolerant of others who simply have different beliefs held with tolerance towards others is a moral wrong. That is a contradiction of higher moral truth.

 

I actually agree with you here, but can we adaquately practise such.....I sincerely doubt so.

 

For now, I'll say again, be this as you say above, fundamentalism is still pathological, no matter what stage of development one may be at.

 

I will agree that it can be, but not always.

[Guest end3]

The situation isn't reversed. Christianity is the "flavor of the day", even in a "secular democracy", such as we have, where every opinion is respected - and that is where these fundamentalists claim persecution! The very fact that all opinions are valid, not theirs over everyone else's, is what makes them scream persecution! Can you not see the very basic flaw of logic in this?

 

Have you not read the other posts I have written in this thread? It has it's place and it's own maturity level in my opinion....but don't we all?

 

This isn't a disparaging of christianity as it is a correction of basic flaws in factual worldviews of these people who claim that liberals are treating them as jews were treated in CONCENTRATION CAMPS, while they open universities, public churches, and list hotels where they stay! If they are so underground, WHY ARE THEY SO LOUD?

They are not persecuted. Period. End of story.

 

Perhaps they adamently believe in what they are doing? Is that ok? If they cast a cloud in front of your sunshine, where's the grace for your fellow human?

[Antlerman]

Such as drug abuse and alcoholism? And my point is as I said, those really aren't relief but hiding from the necessary pain of growth to find relief through that - growth.

 

So now you are placing conditions on others and their "growth" path....conditions that you yourself admonish????

I don't follow your reasoning here in light of my response. You should re-read it. I addressed all this in great, careful detail.

 

Again briefly this time, some people need to go down a path of unhealthy pursuits in order to let what is in them realize it ain't working! That I recognize. In the meantime however, being displeased with the fruits that manifest in them following that unhealthy path is not a moral shortcoming. If uncle Fred hitting the bottle hard every night led him to be an obnoxious SOB, is it a moral shortcoming of you to object and say so about it?

 

I think what you're really wanting to hear me say is that there are some positive aspects to it as well. Yes, just like any rigid rules-oriented community has some positive aspects to it. My point is ultimately freedom is the greater good. But I do recognize for the individual, the boot camp may be what they need for that stage. That's what it was for me and it did me some good. But it is not the Absolute it lays claim to. And its to that point I balk, and rightly so.

 

Let me explain something I touched on earlier at the end of my last post. Fundamentalism is an entity, and that entity is defined by reactionary behaviors. Individuals may participate in it as part of their individual process of growth, but fundamentalism will always be fundamentalism regardless of who is participating in it. Therefore I would not consider fundamentalism per se' as a growth process. I would consider it a pathology, an unhealthy sidetrack that hopefully as one finds themselves within it, something existential inside will awaken and say "Enough with this sickness!", and leave it.

 

You are certainly within your right to do so, but we could label most anything that we personally don't agree as healthy with the pathogen label.

We could if we didn't mind be exposed as speaking hollow words. I gave very clear justifications for the validity of calling it that. You can't just swipe that away. And no, we can't just call something we don't agree with unhealthy. I wouldn't do that, and that's my point. They do that because they are irrational idealists, adamant in their religious zealotry. You can try to cast that at me if you wish, but it would ring hollow. Point to specifics if you think that's what I do.

 

In that sense, it becomes part of that individuals process. Sometimes, people need to get worse before they can get better. But I wouldn't consider fundamentalism part of a healthy process. If it were, then everyone should go that route. You see the difference? It may become part of an individuals process, but for others it is their disease like alcoholism. And all the behaviors, irrationalities, denials, etc - those I consider the pathological symptoms of fundamentalism itself.

 

There is a difference in general fundamentalism vs. Christian fundamentalism....and I assume we are talking the latter. So please explain to me the necessity of denying the belief vs. excusing ones self from the exercise of fundamentalism. I mean does an individual have no tolerance for any type of fundamentalism, or is it just Christianity as an entity that "feeds" the disease?

As always, my word choices are meticulously specific in what I say. You never saw me differential Christian fundamentalism from fundamentalism in general. It's all the same to me, whether it's the Christian, Atheist, Muslim, what have you. I get the feeling you don't understand what I mean by fundamentalism to see me picking on religious faith. I'm not anti-religion, nor anti-Christian, nor anti-Atheism, nor anti-Islam, etc. I'm anti-Intolerance. Period.

 

You believe shutting yourself off from others is the road to peace? I'd call that escape. Your idea of relief and peace in these contexts are what I'd call in hiding and escape. Those are neither relief nor peace, but a sad, unfulfilled illusion of them, like drowning yourself in booze. That's not facing the day. That's not integrating with life. It's escaping it in unhealthy ways.

 

Look, don't put yourself so far down the path that you can't empathize with people in a position that you yourself once visited.

Do you just skim over the surface of my words? You really should re-read them, and then one more time on top of that before posting stuff like this. Of course I empathize with them. I've said this, and you glossed right over it on your way to criticize what you don't grasp. Yes, I understand, I empathize, but at the same time it needs to be said. I am passionate about it for a reason. Because I would wish for them to realize there is more for them. And for that reason, you seem to seem me as 'adamant' in the sense of inflexible. Nothing could be further from the truth.

 

You yourself said to me concerning an individual common to us that they and the process have to run it's course....you yourself reminded me of this. Now, if fundamentalism,regardless of context, had no viability, then it wouldn't exist as an entity......so what's the beef?

I addressed this above, yes it is there because of a reason. It is symptomatic of a greater problem, but as such it is reaction. A reaction, is not a positive growth forward. It is not about a new vision, it's about turning back the hands of time in some illusion of a previous Absolute in some romanticized, nostalgic past. But does that have it's place in the overall growth of things? Yes. In how I see it as we realize how unworkable it ultimately is, we evolve to a new level of healthy integration.

 

All this dialog, my voicing these things are in fact very much part of that overall process towards a higher realization. And in the same sense, I am just as much pushing against things in the hard-core atheist philosophies. I have no more objection to religious thought than I do to an atheist perspective. I see both as have valid perspectives, and I believe both are important to us as a whole. But I do see that fundamentalism no matter what the belief is not balanced, realistic, or healthy. But are they part of that process? Yes. Are they healthy place to end up permanently? No. This is everything I have been saying.

[Guest end3]

I addressed this above, yes it is there because of a reason. It is symptomatic of a greater problem, but as such it is reaction. A reaction, is not a positive growth forward. It is not about a new vision, it's about turning back the hands of time in some illusion of a previous Absolute in some romanticized, nostalgic past. But does that have it's place in the overall growth of things? Yes. In how I see it as we realize how unworkable it ultimately is, we evolve to a new level of healthy integration.

 

Certainly it's a reaction.....there are very few that can circumvent a reaction, yet you take the specifically immature stage of fundamentalism and paint it with a broad brush of pathology......not always K.

 

All this dialog, my voicing these things are in fact very much part of that overall process towards a higher realization. And in the same sense, I am just as much pushing against things in the hard-core atheist philosophies. I have no more objection to religious thought than I do to an atheist perspective. I see both as have valid perspectives, and I believe both are important to us as a whole. But I do see that fundamentalism no matter what the belief is not balanced, realistic, or healthy. But are they part of that process? Yes. Are they healthy place to end up permanently? No. This is everything I have been saying.

 

I think we agree....but people in sports must learn the fundamentals.....and some don't move past being a good fundamentalist. Again, how can you condemn their love for the game?

[Antlerman]

All this dialog, my voicing these things are in fact very much part of that overall process towards a higher realization. And in the same sense, I am just as much pushing against things in the hard-core atheist philosophies. I have no more objection to religious thought than I do to an atheist perspective. I see both as have valid perspectives, and I believe both are important to us as a whole. But I do see that fundamentalism no matter what the belief is not balanced, realistic, or healthy. But are they part of that process? Yes. Are they healthy place to end up permanently? No. This is everything I have been saying.

 

I think we agree....but people in sports must learn the fundamentals.....and some don't move past being a good fundamentalist. Again, how can you condemn their love for the game?

I'm really sleepy and probably shouldn't post with only a tenth my mind at my disposal. But her it goes...

 

I think you take the definition of "fundamental"... ist, too far. It's their self-proclaimed idea of the fundamentals, coming from an immature, undeveloped perspective. It isn't the "actual" fundamentals. It's the unenlightened, reactionary notion of how things should be coming from ignorance. In other words, it's not the fundamentals, but the distorted perceptions called the truth with a capital T. It's marketing propaganda.

 

And now I must sleep...

[lunaticheathen]

Perhaps they adamently believe in what they are doing? Is that ok? If they cast a cloud in front of your sunshine, where's the grace for your fellow human?

 

"They" threw rocks at me. Little more than a cloud, excuse me for not blowing sunshine out my ass at them when "they" yelp persecution.

If they have to scream about fake persecution and hurl rocks at me to believe as they do, no, it most certainly is NOT OK.

[Antlerman]

What you're saying is "forgive them, for they know not what they do?" That I can do that is beside the point that I'm stating that offering a justification for them doing something is because of how bad others are, is an excuse, a rationalization, a justification for it by finger pointing. Pointing to others for our behavior is no excuse for our behavior. And furthermore, everyone is faced with the same world. Their response to it is not the fault of the world. You see my point?

 

Crap, by your rules even, who do we have to blame, Satan? At least Christianity attempts to place the burden of fault not on the individual. What do you think brings people to church in the first place.....happiness?

Bingo!!

 

And that is precisely the point. By your own admission you recognize the core flaw in that sort of belief system. A lack of taking responsibility. "It's the Devil", "It's them damned liberals". "It's the homosexuals". "If we purify our land of the wrongdoers, then we shall have a bountiful harvest!" Where is self-responsibility in this?

 

So you are say what attracts people to church is it gives them the hope to find a scapegoat to blame for their own misery? That's what it looks like you're saying in these words, "At least Christianity attempts to place the burden of fault not on the individual. What do you think brings people to church in the first place.....happiness?" That's a remarkable admission.

 

For me, seeking any sort of spiritual meaning, looking to a church or otherwise show be about find a higher level of meaning and experience to ones life, building to be something more. It shouldn't be about shifting blame for personal feelings of guilt. And that's what you're saying it is. "I don't like the guilt, and I need to find someone else to blame. I'll go to church and they'll help me find the right party to blame." Is that what you really want to say here?

 

So you ask, "who do we have to blame". No one. Ourselves. But not others. Yes others do wrong, yes others are unfair, but our actions, our attitudes, our beliefs are our responsibility and ours alone. If you have to blame someone, or put a finger on the fault, it is yours alone. I thought the whole purpose for asking forgiveness was taking responsibility, isn't it? (Really the asking forgiveness part is about forgiving yourself. It's a system to get you to that place if that's needed).

 

What does that mean? You mean, the world through their lens of reality was as real to me then as it is to them now? Yes, I recognize that. It still doesn't change my pointing out, and rightly so, that it is unhealthy ultimately for them and everyone. Recognizing the illness is the first step toward trying to heal it.

 

I think you just need to rethink your position on the phase of growth that is fundamentalism. I will admit for your sake and displaying grace on my part that people have opportunity to camp there and develop less that sterling qualities.

Again I don't consider fundamentalism a stage, or phase of growth. If it was then everyone would at some point be a fundamentalist, of one sort or another. And that simply is not the case. Therefore it's not normal or healthy stage of development. That people may go that path for whatever reason has valid reasons in their lives, but I don't see it as necessary or essential, or for that matter a healthy direction. Again, it's nature is reactionary. Being reactionary is not healthy, is not part of normal healthy development.

 

It's fruits are as you say "Less than sterling qualities". We agree. Therefore, it is a disease in the body. Right? And some people need to get sick first in order to develop immunities against that sickness. Say, we are the antibodies, right here!

 

As I said before, being intolerant of intolerance is not a contradiction, but a valid moral truth. Being intolerant of others who simply have different beliefs held with tolerance towards others is a moral wrong. That is a contradiction of higher moral truth.

 

I actually agree with you here, but can we adaquately practise such.....I sincerely doubt so.

In the words of Yoda, "And that is why you fail". I don't doubt it. It is an inevitably should we wish to continue survival through growth. It is a natural development, should we choose to continue life.

 

For now, I'll say again, be this as you say above, fundamentalism is still pathological, no matter what stage of development one may be at.

 

I will agree that it can be, but not always.

For some individuals within it, maybe so. But as a position, it's a cancer.

[Phanta]

Is that love? Truthfully, if I owned something that I wanted to share out of love, would that be wrong?

 

I have said this before: it is not love if it is not received by the other person as love. It is incomplete, then. It is about self-love, enmeshment, and disrespect--loving what you yourself love and wanting to see it on others regardless of their preferences, desires, or what works for them, etc. This is paternalistic behavior and paternalistic attitude. I understand that paternalism is a core value of most Christianity. The reality is, most adults resent that behavior. I have seen seeds of that resentment and bristling even in you, though not against your religious system.

 

Consider the privileged William E. Barrows, General Manager of the Willimantic Linen Company (the precursor to American Thread) in the 1800s. Conditions for mill workers had gotten quite bad, as we know from Dickens' famous tales. Barrows was quite progressive in the face of the abuse, putting in place many social programs for workers, including extended coffee breaks, a library and school to teach the immigrants English, and a model mill housing community that has been written about extensively, called "The Oaks". Unlike typical mill housing, these homes are charming and bucolic, with varied architecture. Barrows lived alongside these workers, in the very same neighborhood.

 

I've lived in many mill towns over the years, and this neighborhood is quite different from anything I've seen before. The houses are quite charming, and I could easily imagine myself living in them. Barrows truly used his position, money, and power to bring reform to the system.

 

And he was an asshole.

 

Barrow's built for himself in the neighborhood, but it was a mansion, and it was set on top of the hill overlooking his charges, whose lives were controlled down to the quality of the garden they were required to tend. The superior worker housing was also used as leverage to prevent union participation.

 

"In 1877 America’s industrial communities burned with radical political ideas imported from Europe. The foreign creed of socialism took root in some of the country’s industrial communities, alarming America’s capitalist establishment. Barrows was part of the establishment, but he had no wish to shoot or bayonet the revolting or striking workers. He believed he could win them over with kindness and training, grooming them to his own sophistication and abstemiousness. Thus, as general manager he displayed a great deal of paternalistic benevolence towards Willimantic’s “uneducated and primitive” French Canadian and Irish workforce. But Barrows was no egalitarian. He didn’t believe in worker empowerment – he just created more subtle ways to control them. " (Source)

 

"...while the workers might have appreciated the nice homes and coffee breaks, they resented being treated like children." (Source)

 

Pressing a gift on someone who doesn't want it "for their own good" is extremely patronizing and condescending. Remembering it comes from love might help me tolerate it to a point, but ultimately, the behavior creates division. Such is the nature of the human psyche.

 

Phanta

[R. S. Martin]

I realize there may be isolated individual cases in which a person converts against the wishes of friends and family. But that person must, of course, be very careful to note whether he/she is trying to convert said friends and family. If so, the "persecution" may be for a reason; those around the new convert do NOT want to be force-fed your religion. They have the right to be free from religion. You can have your religion, but have keep it to yourself.

Is that love? Truthfully, if I owned something that I wanted to share out of love, would that be wrong? I think the answer to your statement lies in our failures as humans to share love in a perfect capacity.

 

Yes, sir, respecting another person's right not to want that which you wish to share is love.

 

At one time I went to church with a person who had a glider--the kind of light air craft that flies from a home pad. He offered me a ride in it. It seems he wanted to share it with me. I did not want a ride in it and he did not force me. He respected my right not to want that which he wished to share.

 

Another example. You may love a certain kind of beer and you may love to share it with a good friend. Let's suppose I happen to be that friend.

 

I, however, don't drink. In my opinion, drinking alcoholic beverages may be okay morally, but I don't like what it does to my body so I personally do not drink. If you love me you will respect my right not to drink.

 

The same applies to belief in Jesus.

 

It seems you did not read more than the first paragraph of my Post 19. For your convenience I will repost several paragraphs here:

 

One thing you do not need is the sanction of public law to pray in secret to your Father who seeth in secret and rewardeth thee openly (Matt. 6:6). If prayer, the Bible, and religious instruction are taken out of public schools, you have a number of options among which are to pray in secret (while at school) and attend religious instruction and Bible study outside of school hours.

 

As a secular humanist, I must violate my conscience to subject myself to gods, Sacred Texts, and prayer when learning about life and making important decisions. Can't you see how grossly unfair it is of you as a Christian to force me to undergo such inhumane treatment on a daily basis for no other reason than that it makes you feel comfortable?

 

So I won't post the Ten Principles of Humanism and you won't post the Ten Commandments. I won't have readings from Robert Ingersol or Bertrand Russel and you won't have readings from the Bible. I won't meditate audibly on the great achievements of humanity and you won't audibly repeat the Lord's Prayer. Does this seem fair to you?

 

So you see (if you open your eyes and look) that imposing your so-called love is not so simple.

 

If the Christian is obnoxious (by constantly talking about his or her beliefs to uninterested parties, a.k.a. "pushing religion"), he/she can expect less than friendly responses. That, however, is NOT persecution.

 

I think that is what I am getting at, but I think it hard to define persecution for an individual.

 

Why, exactly, is it "hard to define persecution for an individual"?

 

When the Christians threw rocks at lunaticheathen because of her pagan beliefs, how was that not persecution for an individual?

 

When my siblings and their Christian church did not let me eat with them at my mother's funeral because of my atheism, how was that not persecution for an individual?

 

When parents kick their teen-aged son or daughter out of the house because he or she is gay and cannot believe in a God who condemns people for the way he made them, how is that not persecution for an individual?

 

If you as a Christian go about your daily life living your beliefs but keeping them to yourself, offending no one while at the same time being true to your conscience (barring the sharing of beliefs, etc.), and people do the things to you that I mentioned above, how is that not persecution for an individual?

 

Of course, if your conscience tells you to impose your beliefs on others and/or evangelize them, you will have to reprogram your conscience because imposing/sharing beliefs, evangelizing, etc. is offensive in and of itself, and you cannot justifiably claim persecution if people disagree with such treatment from you.

[Abiyoyo]

I see in the end I forgot something. Re 2Tim. 3:12. I just said what it appears to me to be saying--that Christians are told they will be persecuted if they live godly lives, i.e. if they are not persecuted they are not living godly lives. I am routinely told that as an atheist I cannot possibly know what the scriptures really mean. Hopefully, that also applies to this verse. It might stop all this pretend-persecution syndrome from these people.

 

Lunatic, I see your post. Thank you for understanding it the way I meant it and for not taking offense that I post as an atheist. It's just easier to post as my real self.

 

Having rocks thrown at you because of your beliefs certainly counts as persecution. Do you live in the American South? Possibly it's on your avatar. If you returned the favor and threw rocks at the Christian mob, I suppose you'd be tarred and feathered?

 

 

Lunatic, I see your post. Thank you for understanding it the way I meant it and for not taking offense that I post as an atheist. It's just easier to post as my real self.

 

We're both ex-christians. I think we're the same here, in that capacity.

 

Having rocks thrown at you because of your beliefs certainly counts as persecution. Do you live in the American South? Possibly it's on your avatar. If you returned the favor and threw rocks at the Christian mob, I suppose you'd be tarred and feathered?

 

It happened in Alabama. I hate that place. I hate most of the people there. I still live in the South, but New Orleans is different, thank the goddess. People don't care what I believe in this city, and I love it that way. Christian, atheist, pagan, Hare Krishna, Zen, we have those and more, and no one cares. One of the many reasons I moved here, other than this being an awesome city.

 

 

At the heart of the fundamentalist message is the "us-versus-them" mentality. To claim persecution reinforces that. So it's no wonder they seek to manufacture reasons in an otherwise pluralistic society to view themselves as some special group that no one can tolerate or want around, even to the point of creating a spirit of animosity towards themselves through their self-declared wars against culture and others who choose other points of view to live by.

 

The claim of persecution (when none exists), is a form of self preservation and self promotion. The meaning of their existence lives behind the view of "we-oppose-this" or a "we're-not-them" mentality. To simply live peaceably with others denies them the very thing that defines the reason for their existing in the first place.

 

I think the underline note in these situations comes down to resistance. Wherever there is resistance, there will be a persecution of some sort. It would be the same argument if it were NRA members spreading gun propaganda, and anti-NRA groups wanting it stopped. The ocean is the same, but the waves are different. The "Christian persecution" part just happens to be what you, as individuals, are discussing right now.

 

If a humanist, or any other group outside another group, that also contradicts that group speaks against the group; this like friction of metals, causes resistance. But, if one says they feel persecuted, Who am I to say they aren't? That would be like an African-American being called racial names by whites, that African-American would feel persecuted in a sense. This example has actually been played out with much inhumanity and violence toward a group in history.

 

My point is this. Though things may seem harmless, and though things may be said without discretion; that doesn't mean the individual doesn't feel persecuted, nor does it mean persecution will be nonexistent in violent ways.

[R. S. Martin]

I think the underline note in these situations comes down to resistance. Wherever there is resistance, there will be a persecution of some sort.

 

No there won't. Resistance does not necessarily bring persecution. The word has an objective meaning. I illustrated this with three clear examples in the OP.

 

You talk about a "feeling of persecution." That sounds like self-pity for not being allowed to have your own way. You seem to suggest that not being allowed to repeat the Lord's Prayer in class, or not being allowed to post the Ten Commandments on the court steps, feels the same to a Christian as it felt to lunaticheathen to have rocks thrown at her. Do I correctly understand your meaning?

 

Lunatic probably had scratches, bruises, or even deep cuts from those rocks. Possibly she had to see a doctor and get stitches. Or perhaps she had a concussion of the brain and was unconscious (knocked out) and had to go to the hospital. I would like to see a documented list for the cases that Christians needed to see a doctor because of the persecution they suffered for their beliefs at the hands of self-professed secular humanists.

 

It would be the same argument if it were NRA members spreading gun propaganda, and anti-NRA groups wanting it stopped. The ocean is the same, but the waves are different. The "Christian persecution" part just happens to be what you, as individuals, are discussing right now.

 

No it wouldn't. The difference is kind of like the difference between a puddle on a sidewalk and the ocean. Both are made of water; there the similarities stop. Likewise NRA groups vs Christianity. I don't even know what NRA is but pretty much anyone in the world knows what Christianity is. (In case NRA stands for National Rifle Association, please be informed that--unlike a global phenomenon like Christianity--"national anything" in your country has little meaning outside your borders.)

 

If a humanist, or any other group outside another group, that also contradicts that group speaks against the group; this like friction of metals, causes resistance. But, if one says they feel persecuted, Who am I to say they aren't?

 

If you were a logical and rational thinker you would pull out a dictionary and figure out what the word actually means. If you were a fair-minded, empathetic and moral person, you would listen to the person's situation and figure out what was actually going on. If you are all of these, the situation being what it is, you will go back over this thread and acknowledge that the word "persecution" has a definite definition. You will acknowledge that Christianity comprises too large a proportion of the American population for any sane person to imagine that Christians as a group are being persecuted by any outside group.

 

That would be like an African-American being called racial names by whites, that African-American would feel persecuted in a sense. This example has actually been played out with much inhumanity and violence toward a group in history.

 

That example doesn't work.

 

My point is this. Though things may seem harmless, and though things may be said without discretion; that doesn't mean the individual doesn't feel persecuted, nor does it mean persecution will be nonexistent in violent ways.

 

Please get back on the track of this thread. Christians are not a persecuted minority in the lands described in the OP.

[Guest end3]

Bingo!!

 

And that is precisely the point. By your own admission you recognize the core flaw in that sort of belief system. A lack of taking responsibility. "It's the Devil", "It's them damned liberals". "It's the homosexuals". "If we purify our land of the wrongdoers, then we shall have a bountiful harvest!" Where is self-responsibility in this?

 

So you are say what attracts people to church is it gives them the hope to find a scapegoat to blame for their own misery? That's what it looks like you're saying in these words, "At least Christianity attempts to place the burden of fault not on the individual. What do you think brings people to church in the first place.....happiness?" That's a remarkable admission.

 

You misinterpreted what I was saying. One reason that brings people to church is brokenness/hurt, no alternatives, as a result of society. Putting the blame on Satan is not looking for a place to substitute blaming humanity, as the Bible states that each indivdual is uniquely made and has a role to play via devine gift(s). Of course you are making the representation that there shouldn't even exist church, because if we all were theoretically self-responsible, then.....

 

For me, seeking any sort of spiritual meaning, looking to a church or otherwise show be about find a higher level of meaning and experience to ones life, building to be something more. It shouldn't be about shifting blame for personal feelings of guilt. And that's what you're saying it is. "I don't like the guilt, and I need to find someone else to blame. I'll go to church and they'll help me find the right party to blame." Is that what you really want to say here?

 

Repentance is "shifting" guilt?

 

So you ask, "who do we have to blame". No one. Ourselves. But not others. Yes others do wrong, yes others are unfair, but our actions, our attitudes, our beliefs are our responsibility and ours alone. If you have to blame someone, or put a finger on the fault, it is yours alone. I thought the whole purpose for asking forgiveness was taking responsibility, isn't it? (Really the asking forgiveness part is about forgiving yourself. It's a system to get you to that place if that's needed).

 

Gheeze....from what standard are you deriving forgiving yourself.....relative societal?

 

It's fruits are as you say "Less than sterling qualities". We agree. Therefore, it is a disease in the body. Right? And some people need to get sick first in order to develop immunities against that sickness. Say, we are the antibodies, right here!

 

Need I point out Hebrews....desire meat and not milk. Hello, McFly!!! (you need to understand the last couple of days I have been picking on you for sport in good spirit. Please don't take the tone of my conversation any other way K)

 

 

In the words of Yoda, "And that is why you fail". I don't doubt it. It is an inevitably should we wish to continue survival through growth. It is a natural development, should we choose to continue life.

 

Well, that's interesting to me....how long must the branch be attached by grafting before you can't tell it from the vine?

 

For some individuals within it, maybe so. But as a position, it's a cancer.

 

Point noted.....again, my whole reason for involving myself in this conversation was your lack of empathy for those that it might be a legitimate phase and not a permanent position.

[Guest end3]

Is that love? Truthfully, if I owned something that I wanted to share out of love, would that be wrong?

 

I have said this before: it is not love if it is not received by the other person as love. It is incomplete, then. It is about self-love, enmeshment, and disrespect--loving what you yourself love and wanting to see it on others regardless of their preferences, desires, or what works for them, etc. This is paternalistic behavior and paternalistic attitude. I understand that paternalism is a core value of most Christianity. The reality is, most adults resent that behavior. I have seen seeds of that resentment and bristling even in you, though not against your religious system.

 

Consider the privileged William E. Barrows, General Manager of the Willimantic Linen Company (the precursor to American Thread) in the 1800s. Conditions for mill workers had gotten quite bad, as we know from Dickens' famous tales. Barrows was quite progressive in the face of the abuse, putting in place many social programs for workers, including extended coffee breaks, a library and school to teach the immigrants English, and a model mill housing community that has been written about extensively, called "The Oaks". Unlike typical mill housing, these homes are charming and bucolic, with varied architecture. Barrows lived alongside these workers, in the very same neighborhood.

 

I've lived in many mill towns over the years, and this neighborhood is quite different from anything I've seen before. The houses are quite charming, and I could easily imagine myself living in them. Barrows truly used his position, money, and power to bring reform to the system.

 

And he was an asshole.

 

Barrow's built for himself in the neighborhood, but it was a mansion, and it was set on top of the hill overlooking his charges, whose lives were controlled down to the quality of the garden they were required to tend. The superior worker housing was also used as leverage to prevent union participation.

 

"In 1877 America’s industrial communities burned with radical political ideas imported from Europe. The foreign creed of socialism took root in some of the country’s industrial communities, alarming America’s capitalist establishment. Barrows was part of the establishment, but he had no wish to shoot or bayonet the revolting or striking workers. He believed he could win them over with kindness and training, grooming them to his own sophistication and abstemiousness. Thus, as general manager he displayed a great deal of paternalistic benevolence towards Willimantic’s “uneducated and primitive” French Canadian and Irish workforce. But Barrows was no egalitarian. He didn’t believe in worker empowerment – he just created more subtle ways to control them. " (Source)

 

"...while the workers might have appreciated the nice homes and coffee breaks, they resented being treated like children." (Source)

 

Pressing a gift on someone who doesn't want it "for their own good" is extremely patronizing and condescending. Remembering it comes from love might help me tolerate it to a point, but ultimately, the behavior creates division. Such is the nature of the human psyche.

 

Phanta

 

I see your point and actually agree. I don't thing most people have a hard time distinguishing between a selfish work vs. a sincere work of love. Certainly disingenuine stuff is just that. Again, I personally believe that we all fall short of the Ideal....it's not a possibility that we can consistantly "perfect"......perhaps getting it right on occasion is a truth.

[Guest end3]

Of course, if your conscience tells you to impose your beliefs on others and/or evangelize them, you will have to reprogram your conscience because imposing/sharing beliefs, evangelizing, etc. is offensive in and of itself, and you cannot justifiably claim persecution if people disagree with such treatment from you.

 

 

I agree that love and grace is a sometimes difficult dynamic. We like to be asked because that reflects feeling cared for, and we occasionally accept invitation through trust. Again, the fact that we impose ourselves, our beliefs, does not necessarily make us always offensive. It's not a simple as defining evangelism as simply offensive.

 

And yes, any act less than grace could be considered persecution. The point is you cannot get it exactly right for me, and I can't get it exactly right for you.

[Phanta]

I see your point and actually agree. I don't thing most people have a hard time distinguishing between a selfish work vs. a sincere work of love.

 

I thought this was a sense of things we shared.

 

To refine my view, it is my experience that a sincere work of love is humble and generally only steps in where it is wanted. Most everything else, no matter how it is wrapped, as the article said of Barrows' efforts, is

...more subtle ways to control them. "

Sincere works of love, in my experience, most of the time look a lot like not getting involved.

 

Phanta

[R. S. Martin]

Of course, if your conscience tells you to impose your beliefs on others and/or evangelize them, you will have to reprogram your conscience because imposing/sharing beliefs, evangelizing, etc. is offensive in and of itself, and you cannot justifiably claim persecution if people disagree with such treatment from you.

 

 

I agree that love and grace is a sometimes difficult dynamic. We like to be asked because that reflects feeling cared for, and we occasionally accept invitation through trust.

 

You want to be asked about what? Your beliefs? Please don't include me in your statement because I don't like to be asked about my beliefs by strangers on the street.

 

Again, the fact that we impose ourselves, our beliefs, does not necessarily make us always offensive. It's not a simple as defining evangelism as simply offensive.

 

As an evangelizer, you are hardly in a position to make that statement.

 

And yes, any act less than grace could be considered persecution. The point is you cannot get it exactly right for me, and I can't get it exactly right for you.

 

No "any act less than grace" could NOT "be considered persecution." I'm done with you--at least for now. You're twisting everything I say. I have no patience for that kind of behaviour.

[Guest end3]

Of course, if your conscience tells you to impose your beliefs on others and/or evangelize them, you will have to reprogram your conscience because imposing/sharing beliefs, evangelizing, etc. is offensive in and of itself, and you cannot justifiably claim persecution if people disagree with such treatment from you.

 

 

I agree that love and grace is a sometimes difficult dynamic. We like to be asked because that reflects feeling cared for, and we occasionally accept invitation through trust.

 

You want to be asked about what? Your beliefs? Please don't include me in your statement because I don't like to be asked about my beliefs by strangers on the street.

 

Again, the fact that we impose ourselves, our beliefs, does not necessarily make us always offensive. It's not a simple as defining evangelism as simply offensive.

 

As an evangelizer, you are hardly in a position to make that statement.

 

And yes, any act less than grace could be considered persecution. The point is you cannot get it exactly right for me, and I can't get it exactly right for you.

 

No "any act less than grace" could NOT "be considered persecution." I'm done with you--at least for now. You're twisting everything I say. I have no patience for that kind of behaviour.

 

Shit, get real Ruby. Quit whining already.

[Legion]

Shit, get real Ruby. Quit whining already.

[Guest end3]

Shit, get real Ruby. Quit whining already.

 

 

I am being persecuted!!!!