The 'hate speech' double standard

[spamandham]

Do you agree that language that threatens to kill people based on their religious convictions counts as hate speech? What if you don't threaten to do the killing yourself, but instead claim a third party is going to carry it out, and you embrace such an action. Isn't that also hate speech?

 

What if the third party is Jesus, and the context is the apocalypse - why is not considered hate speech for the delusional to tell us that Jesus is coming to kill all the non-Christians and wipe out his 'enemies', when it's said with glee and anticipation?

[Mythra]

Good point, s&h. If someone wrote a book today in which there was a mass killing of blacks, or mexicans, or muslims, or jews, that writer would be hung up by the nards.

 

And, christians love to scream persecution when a protester outside of an abortion clinic is arrested.

 

Meanwhile, they read about the seven bowls of God's wrath which are poured out on unbelievers, and they lick their chops, and say "That'll teach em". "Shoulda listened". "Damned unrepentent sinners"

 

Bring on the bowls, god. I ain't skeared.

[Taphophilia]

I think the Left Behind series is a form of hate speech.

 

Could you imagine what Americans would do if Muslims wrote a book describing a Holy War with only the most faithful of their religion spared, and all of humanity though out history will be slaughtered and thrown into everlasting torment for eternity?

 

Taph

[EdwardAbbey]

Do you agree that language that threatens to kill people based on their religious convictions counts as hate speech? What if you don't threaten to do the killing yourself, but instead claim a third party is going to carry it out, and you embrace such an action. Isn't that also hate speech?

 

What if the third party is Jesus, and the context is the apocalypse - why is not considered hate speech for the delusional to tell us that Jesus is coming to kill all the non-Christians and wipe out his 'enemies', when it's said with glee and anticipation?

 

Maybe it's because fundamentalist/born-again right wing Christianity has most of the political clout in this country.

[loves_learning]

I think the Left Behind series is a form of hate speech.

 

Could you imagine what Americans would do if Muslims wrote a book describing a Holy War with only the most faithful of their religion spared, and all of humanity though out history will be slaughtered and thrown into everlasting torment for eternity?

 

Taph

 

You know, i read the first few books in that series...ughhhh. I was curious...and they stunk...but I wanted to know what the big deal was. What happened at the end in the "white" book? Was there a hell scene? Anyone know?

 

You have a good point...I can't imagine what would happen if a Muslim group wrote a similar series...probably book burnings and boycotting of any store that would dare carry it.

 

*sigh*

[Dianka]

I think the Left Behind series is a form of hate speech.

 

 

I rather like the series. The words are not big.

 

I do agree though

 

Essentially, we are Hell bound, and I think that is the appeal for me.

 

I can't imagine what would happen if a Muslim group wrote a similar series...

 

Ooooh, now there's an idea....I would read that too. I would especially pay attention to the part were the guys get on all the virgins in Islamic Heaven....

 

 

[Jose]

Virgins are overrated. I want a woman with some fucking experience.

 

Literally.

[Dianka]

Virgins are overrated. I want a woman with some fucking experience.

 

Literally.

 

I think I have a kink for corruption.

 

Hmmmm, I don't see any Christians jumping in to defend their "morality"

[Purple]

Hmmmm, I don't see any Christians jumping in to defend their "morality"

 

Christians have morals?

[Dianka]

Hmmmm, I don't see any Christians jumping in to defend their "morality"

 

Christians have morals?

 

 

Well of course! I could never be as moral as a Christian. I am a self-absorbed Atheist. They are willing to kill and torture people of different faiths and witches out of love for God.

 

They are covered by the blood of Jesus - whatever that means

 

*saw that on someone's bumper sticker*

[Jose]

Speaking from vast experience, blood is hard as hell to get out of clothes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What?

 

I used to work at a dry cleaners... what did you think I meant?

 

You sick bastards!

[spamandham]

Speaking from vast experience, blood is hard as hell to get out of clothes.

 

What?

 

I used to work at a dry cleaners... what did you think I meant?

 

You sick bastards!

 

I thought you meant you were into Santaria.

[Taphophilia]

Speaking from vast experience, blood is hard as hell to get out of clothes.

 

What?

 

I used to work at a dry cleaners... what did you think I meant?

 

You sick bastards!

 

Actually, Hydrogen Peroxide will take blood out of clothes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(I watch a lot of True Crime TV.)

[BigToe]

Actually if you tell someone you are going to kill them it goes beyond hate speech and into one of the types of speech that is actually illegal in the US (clear and present danger baby). So maybe those that think the world will end and Jesus will kill you are getting by because there really isn't any clear and present danger and it really isn't that different from saying "ha ha you aren't gonna live forever, being human is gonna kill you." Mostly because, well, we all die. Plus, Jesus isn't the one gonna do the killin come the end of the world. Aren't you up with the current thoughts? You all kill each other you silly heathens or the devil does.

 

But hell, if you're on a school campus or in a company's office go and see if they have a Speech Code and if hate speech includes religious discrimination in the code, go to town with them.

[Taphophilia]

Plus, Jesus isn't the one gonna do the killin come the end of the world. Aren't you up with the current thoughts? You all kill each other you silly heathens or the devil does.

 

 

I did not know that.

I was just going according with "Glorious Appearing" where the heathens on horse back will be struck down by God. Their flesh will burn off and their bones will fall to the ground in a dry heap. (Both the horses and the people) I guess Tim LaHaye thinks God is not an animal lover.

[BigToe]

Oh crap, I forgot, Jesus and God are one and the same. But I don't think he is the one, the uh form of god, that will be doing the killing.

[spamandham]

So maybe those that think the world will end and Jesus will kill you are getting by because there really isn't any clear and present danger and it really isn't that different from saying "ha ha you aren't gonna live forever, being human is gonna kill you."

 

I think this is different. It isn't like saying "you're eventually going to die", or "smoking will kill you" - which are just observations. It is a prediction of something that has never been observed, but even more than that, it really is a threat (athough clearly not a credible threat from my perspective).

 

Jesus is going to murder you! Is not an observation, nor is it the same as saying, "FYI, the bible claims Jesus is going to murder you". It's no different from saying "my invisible friend is going to kill you!", or putting a hex on someone (which has been ruled to be assault).

 

I think there could be a basis for class action against those who say such things in public, where it is rightfully understood to be the threat that it actually is.

[Ssel]

Do you agree that language that threatens to kill people based on their religious convictions counts as hate speech? What if you don't threaten to do the killing yourself, but instead claim a third party is going to carry it out, and you embrace such an action. Isn't that also hate speech?

 

What if the third party is Jesus, and the context is the apocalypse - why is not considered hate speech for the delusional to tell us that Jesus is coming to kill all the non-Christians and wipe out his 'enemies', when it's said with glee and anticipation?

No, I do not agree.

 

Since no one is standing in for the other side of this issue..

 

Hate is the emotion involved in losing consideration of details and normal concerns which a less emotional person would have considered before taking a corrective action.

 

When anyone says "you are going to die because the King, God, your neighbor, my dog, or whatever is going to kill you if you do not behave, they are not expressing any form of hate at all. Issuing a warning is NOT hatred. Expressing that something is not a good thing and should be avoided is also not a hate thing. Hate is specifically associated with excluding normal considerations when making an attack.

 

Even the "cold blooded murderer" is not expressing hate if he has carefully plotted out his crime in a calm calculated manner.

 

Typically one is driven by hate in order to decide to kill. During that time, they are expressing hate in that they are not considering all of the reasons to not kill but are blinded by their desire.

 

But then the question becomes, "If one causes another person to be driven to hate, is he also guilty?" If a person pays another to kill, then he is considered guilty. If a person participates in a killing, then he is considered guilty. So it would seem that if a person helps to create hate, then he is guilty of the hate.

 

Hatred is created by any extreme oppression against a person who is not prone to be oppressed into submission or depression (the fight or flight thing). Thus anyone causing oppression against another by any means is running the risk of being guilty of creating hatred and whatever killing might come from such.

 

Make sense so far?

[greasemonkey]

Hi Ssel! (good to see you!)

 

I gotta go with Ssel to a certain extent here... but only in the spirit he is saying it.

 

I need to jump back to the other side of the fence to bring up that "in theory," and how things actually work out are two kinda different animals.

 

I don't know how many folks here have ever read the "hate mail" on normalbobsmith.com's website before (and I know that a great deal of this isn't "typical" behavior by the GREAT majority of Christians...), but when even a minority of people use thier "hell-protected status" as Christians to gleefully tell someone they will enjoy watching them burn in hell, it's kind of scary! Some of the responses really come a hell of a lot closer to "hate" than merely a "warning." Having spent so much of my life here in the south, it's not really as rare as one might think. I grew up in a small West Texas area that said the same thing about inter-racial marraige as I hear now about gay marraige. (I don't want my kid to see a n****r kissing a white woman in public!) I'm not kidding!!! I heard this line OFTEN!!!

 

I kind of like what Bob Smith does to a certain extent, at least in the part of being an "evangelical atheist," although I think he spends too much time making a mockery of Christianity, rather than pointing out its flaws in a concise manner. The fact that he draws so much publicity concerning free speech is great, but his methodology doesn't really help advance our cause much.

 

Sometimes the motivations for the "warnings" are merely cleverly concealed hate (although I'm not saying it is with malicious intent by the believer). We saw it in the times before the civil rights movement, and I believe we are still seeing it today. The emotion involved is the key, and Ssel was perfectly correct in pointing this out, but if we were to go back 75 years to the plight of the colored folks, the Christians who were against civil rights for the black people might have truly believed that they were being in a merely "warning" spirit to themselves, but history shows a different story. It seems to me that anytime someone feels they have a "superior status" to another group of individuals (which is certainly implied by believing they are going to an eternity in paradise while the others are suddenly going to become charcoal briquettes in the afterlife), then there is a certain amount of disdain (if not outright hate) inherrent in the thought process.

 

As an ex-christian, I can still see the other side of the arguement fairly well. I just can't accept that it is done merely in the spirit of a "warning;" only that the Christians may well percieve it to be so. I would think that anytime there is a feeling of "superiority" over another group, there would certainly be an implied bigotry. Isn't bigotry a kind of hate?

 

Hey, I'm an auto mechanic, not a philosopher... but does this make sense to anyone but me?!

[Ssel]

... (and I know that a great deal of this isn't "typical" behavior by the GREAT majority of Christians...), but when even a minority of people use thier "hell-protected status" as Christians to gleefully tell someone they will enjoy watching them burn in hell, it's kind of scary!

I agree that many fundamentalists wind up promoting both prejudice and even hatred. I think that prejudice is the greater issue, but both occur.

 

 

I believe that this is the effect of having any fundamentalist class of people regardless of the doctrines. It should be obvious that Jesus Himself stood solidly against hatred. He was rejected by the Jews largely because he refused such things in favor of "love thy enemy", which they considered to be absurd. He did warn that if people did not do as he was saying was needed, then they would suffer. But I see no sign at all that he meant that in a hateful way, but rather a warning of what must take place if His solution was not accepted.

 

It may have been presumption on His part that His solution was the right one. This isn't the issue on this thread. But if a man believes that he is right concerning a danger and issues a warning to any who do not attend to the danger in what he believes to be the proper way, do you call that hatred? Doesn't the government do the same when they issue a warning about a hurricane?

 

When the less educated use a doctrine to promote their prejudice or bent understandings, then they are not following their doctrine but rather merely skewing them to support what they feel and think (using the word loosely).

 

In a country where very many fundamental class people reside, this is an inevitability regardless of which doctrine are being followed. Every large country, regardless of the religion has the same problem. Buddhism probably handles this problem best. Islam probably handles it the worst.

 

I assert that the problem with Christianity is that it is missing its more highly understanding group who would circumvent this hatred spur. The body of Christianity has become a headless (non-understanding) body in this country. The result is that many so called Christians end up on the opposite side of the fence without anyone to correct them.

Sometimes the motivations for the "warnings" are merely cleverly concealed hate (although I'm not saying it is with malicious intent by the believer).

This is more the actions of the KKK. Those who use intimidation to control. The Nazis did this and in America a great many government officials use it in the exact same way today. It has nothing to do with Christianity itself or even Christians. It is used by those who can get away with it.

 

.. if we were to go back 75 years to the plight of the colored folks, the Christians who were against civil rights for the black people might have truly believed that they were being in a merely "warning" spirit to themselves,

True Christianity has nothing to do with racism at all. Those who truly understood the religion knew this, but they have been silenced leaving only the fundamentalists version which, at times allows them to conclude some racist concern which wasn't valid, but there is no one to correct them.

 

Again, this is an issue of losing the higher understanding and the same applies to every religion or doctrine. The Jews have taken this to an extreme far beyond that of the Christian. Again, without their "head" correcting them, they related all of their laws to the propagation of only the Jews - "God loves the Jews alone and none other, all others are destine to the Abyss". This is bigotry. Jesus attempted to point out that they were not understanding Abraham and the like, but merely trying to follow laws which allowed them to distort things to their liking. Every time a set of doctrines are left to a group of followers, this occurs.

 

Science is no exception. Once science has a load of followers merely following written doctrine, they will lose their understanding of it all and the same effects will occur.

 

The greater problem is the loss of the understanding of a doctrine which can then be twisted into a hate or cursing usage. Any written warning can, over time, be used to create a fear of not following. That fear, then creates hatred both for and against.

 

The warning was not the cause. The loss of understanding was the cause.

[NotBlinded]

It seems to me that anytime someone feels they have a "superior status" to another group of individuals (which is certainly implied by believing they are going to an eternity in paradise while the others are suddenly going to become charcoal briquettes in the afterlife), then there is a certain amount of disdain (if not outright hate) inherrent in the thought process.

I agree with this. This 'thinking' is what allows one to carry out the process of killing because in their minds, they have already killed them by setting them below themselves. They have killed their humanity.

[greasemonkey]

Hi again Ssel, and thanks for the great reply! You really don't leave me with much to dispute (I personally don't believe that Jesus existed in the sense portrayed in the gospels ...no offense to your beliefs, you appear to be the type of X-ian I would be good friends with, but that isn't the topic here... ), I sort of take this thread along the lines of "democracy can withstand anything but democrats" in its essence.

 

It should be obvious that Jesus Himself stood solidly against hatred. He was rejected by the Jews largely because he refused such things in favor of "love thy enemy", which they considered to be absurd. He did warn that if people did not do as he was saying was needed, then they would suffer.

 

Yes, things will happen; like Christmas being stolen by the liberals... LOL! I understand what you are saying completely though. I find it ironic that a lot of our fundementalist variety overlook this entire concept. I was at an electronics store the other day, and saw a logo on a pickup that sort of amused me; it was a picture of the world trade centers and ringed with the words "vengeance is mine, saith the lord." Don't take me as condoning terrorism (this is just an extreme example); but what I see with a lot with the fundy crowd is that when they don't like what they are being told in the new testament, then they will automatically try to find something in the old testament to justify thier feelings. Historically, I see quite a bit of Christianity trying to find things to justify thier actions (rather than guide them). I'm not blaming the religion, but as I said before; that thought process is going to be inherrent anytime someone is under the guise of superiority (being "saved" while others aren't). It's this quality that makes the thought of the bible being "perfect," fall on its face in my opinion. But for your end, its not the words that cause the problem, it's the people. I group this with the "its not the fall that kills you" line of reasoning. Unfortunately for the bible, most other religions can say the same thing about thier scriptures as well.

 

It may have been presumption on His part that His solution was the right one. This isn't the issue on this thread. But if a man believes that he is right concerning a danger and issues a warning to any who do not attend to the danger in what he believes to be the proper way, do you call that hatred? Doesn't the government do the same when they issue a warning about a hurricane?

 

Well, I see where you are coming from, but I don't like your analogy. One can check the weather and have concrete evidence that a hurricane is coming. I view a christian telling me about hell in about the same light as chicken little saying the sky is falling. I think a better analogy might be along the lines of someone truly believing they see smoke in a crowded theatre (hell, maybe some jerk even lit up a cigarette). The people getting trampled on the way out after he screams "FIRE!" aren't going to particularly care that he really believed it was a fire. I'm not sure if a judge would either.

 

I assert that the problem with Christianity is that it is missing its more highly understanding group who would circumvent this hatred spur. The body of Christianity has become a headless (non-understanding) body in this country. The result is that many so called Christians end up on the opposite side of the fence without anyone to correct them.

 

yup. Go check out World Magazine's blog page and you will see a prime example of this. Any attempt made to call them, and that person is labeled a leftist athiest commie...

 

True Christianity has nothing to do with racism at all.

 

Once again, I'm in agreement with the spirit of your words, but sometimes the "church" has everything to do with rascism. Case in point: The Southern Baptist Church. Quite a few churches divided back during the civil war over slavery, but as far as I know, the southern baptist's were the only ones who retained the separation 100+ years later. I find it ironic that the precurser anabaptists were all for separation of church & state in the beginning while they were a minority and feared persecution by the quakers (I think it was the quakers, I'm going by memory which is pretty faulty sometimes), but now they are one of the big leaders in trying to put more church back in the state. I know many Catholics that say teaching anti-semetism is still alive and well in many catholic churches & schools. I'm certainly not disputing the spirit of your words though, only that the inherrent prejudice on the part of people kind of lead in that direction merely by human nature. It's kind of inevitable.

 

Science is no exception. Once science has a load of followers merely following written doctrine, they will lose their understanding of it all and the same effects will occur.

 

Heheh... now I get to flip-flop a little. I agree with this statement in practice, but I believe it will certainly pass given some time. Evolutionary theory has changed drasticly in just the last 10 years, and it will continue to change drasticly probably in the next 10 as well. In science, nothing is carved in stone, and nothing is above question. I think your statement is one of the few good things to come out of the "ID debate." Some of the scientists (and especially "armchair quarterbacks" like me) certainly are taking the things as "engraved in stone," when everything needs to still be questioned in order for progress to be made. The big but is that science by its very nature is fluid, and isn't going to stagnate, because questioning is crucial to the process. It might or might not happen in the next 10 years, but it WILL happen. GODDIDIT implies an end to the questioning, but in science, there is seldom a lot proved, only theories made by observable natural data.

 

The greater problem is the loss of the understanding of a doctrine which can then be twisted into a hate or cursing usage. Any written warning can, over time, be used to create a fear of not following. That fear, then creates hatred both for and against.

 

yeahbut... fear of hell is one of the major selling points for christianity. I just kinda feel that anything that bases part of its belief on fear is going to breed it in other areas merely by the nature of fear itself. I conceed we are talking about human nature, not the nature of the document. But I can also say that nobody has ever died by a gunshot, it's generally the bleeding and ripped up internal organs that does the job.

 

Gotta run for now! Great talking to you again Ssel, I really enjoy our "discourses!"

[Ssel]

Historically, I see quite a bit of Christianity trying to find things to justify thier actions (rather than guide them). I'm not blaming the religion, ...

I was intending to point out the exact process within intelligence that is responsible for this kind of thing on the Black Box thread. It is extremely prevalent today throughout society.

 

One of the unjust things presented on this site in general is how often the same error is made by someone other than a Christian. The tendency is to imply that it is only the Christian who has caused all of this or that by speaking only of the Christian's error without comparisons.

[Cerise]

Is this a variation of "why do you guys only pick on Christians"?

 

*sigh* This is EX-CHRISTIAN.NET. Not Ex-Islam.net, not Ex-pagan.net, not Ex-Science.net, and not Ex-politicans.net. Of course most of our focus is going to be on Christianity.

 

Does that neccessarily mean that we are blaming all the earth's problems on Christians? No.

 

It just means that this is a forum where we get to talk specifically about problems in Christianity. Period.

 

Why do I feel like this should be posted in big red letters at the top of the forum page?

[SkepticOfBible]

I agree that many fundamentalists wind up promoting both prejudice and even hatred. I think that prejudice is the greater issue, but both occur.

 

But if a man believes that he is right concerning a danger and issues a warning to any who do not attend to the danger in what he believes to be the proper way, do you call that hatred? Doesn't the government do the same when they issue a warning about a hurricane?

 

 

I totally agree with you on this. For many christians, they believe that that sin and unbelief leads to hell/eternal torture. Which is why they feel it is there duty warn others of the imminent danger of the afterlife? Off course the matters are made worse if the person you are warning is a loved one.

 

However it is important to note, that although the bible says "To hate the sin, not the sinner", for many christians that is quite difficult to follow this command because according to them, the person is the one who is the cause of the sin, so inevitably they start hating sinner too.

 

I am pretty sure you can empathise this aspect as you must have experianced it yourself, since ideally people on this forum should oppose your views and not you personally. But like christians, they say the onus of the thoughts lies to on the thinker, hence the thinker should be opposed.

 

Over time I think the reason why govt ban certain form of speeches, is because the history has shown that certain intolerant ideas has lead to intolerant actions, eg the Nazis and KKK. In a ideal world, nobody should have problem with intolerant ideas. But ideals is quite different from reality.

 

On the other hand the restriction of a certain speeches also has negative consequences,eg Soviet Union and China

 

When the less educated use a doctrine to promote their prejudice or bent understandings, then they are not following their doctrine but rather merely skewing them to support what they feel and think (using the word loosely).

 

In a country where very many fundamental class people reside, this is an inevitability regardless of which doctrine are being followed. Every large country, regardless of the religion has the same problem. Buddhism probably handles this problem best. Islam probably handles it the worst.

 

I would agree to some extent. If we compare the theocratic system of judaism (and it's off shoot christianity), Islam is probably better, cause I have read that in the Sharia laws, people of the minority religion are allowed to practice their religion, but that is restricted to their homes. And neither are Muslims are supposed to kill the infidels for their beliefs. They are however bound to tell the infidels about Islam and leave it to that. The infidels do have to pay their Muslim rulers more money for the services of the "protection"

 

In Judaism, and Christianity, this sort of tolerance doesn't exist. In the OT, people of other religion and competitive idealogy are supposed to be killed. Which why the church history has been so bloody.

 

Sometimes the motivations for the "warnings" are merely cleverly concealed hate (although I'm not saying it is with malicious intent by the believer).

 

This is more the actions of the KKK. Those who use intimidation to control. The Nazis did this and in America a great many government officials use it in the exact same way today. It has nothing to do with Christianity itself or even Christians. It is used by those who can get away with it.

 

I do agree that such actions are done by people who get away, however the christian bible does provide a fine fodder for such "hate" related crimes. Christianity is intolerant of other beliefs, and even Jesus further fueled it by making absolute statment such as "if you are not with me, you are against me"

 

True Christianity has nothing to do with racism at all. Those who truly understood the religion knew this, but they have been silenced leaving only the fundamentalists version which, at times allows them to conclude some racist concern which wasn't valid, but there is no one to correct them.

 

I would however point that you are actually put forward no true scotsman fallacy here. The explanation for this can be found here

 

No True Scotsman

 

God is not like that anymore

 

Violence and racism is a major part of OT . Violence may have been downplayed in the NT but never the less it is not withdrawn. The book of revelation is pretty graphic in detail

 

Peaceful Message of the NT

 

It should be obvious that Jesus Himself stood solidly against hatred. He was rejected by the Jews largely because he refused such things in favor of "love thy enemy", which they considered to be absurd.He did warn that if people did not do as he was saying was needed, then they would suffer. But I see no sign at all that he meant that in a hateful way, but rather a warning of what must take place if His solution was not accepted.

 

If we put aside the divinity and messiahship aspects, in that respect, yes you are right. Jesus was against hatred and in true sense he was a liberal.

 

Jesus: A Notable Liberal of His Time

 

Although his popularity was factor in his execution, however that was not the main reason why he was rejected by the jews

 

1)First of all the very hatred that Jesus stood against was actually a product of hatred that came from the bible god. It was the bible god who chose a certain set of people over others. It was the bible god who told Moses and his successors to commit genocide on the neighbouring states. Love and marriage was strictly forbidden for the soldiers who were commiting the holy war. At many times the Jews were punished by the bible god for having relationship with their enemies or sparing the life of a enemy. In a true sense the hatred for the enemy actually came from the Bible God himself. The God of the OT himself at many times employs weapons of Mass destruction on his enemies

 

Cosmic Ant Farm of Jesus

 

Sticks and stones

 

So from the POV of the Jewish people living in that time, they had a word of a man "Jesus" vs the the word of God they already knew. Off course the word of god took more precedence than the word of a man. This sort of attitude is prevalent in the christian world too.

 

2)At many times he considered himself equal to God himself(and christians believe that he is god), which was considered blasmeny. He was also killed by the Romans because he considered himself above Ceasar himself.

 

Who Killed Jesus

 

3)Although he did put forward some nice ideas, he also exhibited many traits of a cult leader

 

Cult leader Jesus

 

I had also made some more points as to why I feel the jews reject christianity and christ as a whole on another thread. Please consider them as part of the discussion too.

 

Why Jews Reject Christ

 

The Jews have taken this to an extreme far beyond that of the Christian. Again, without their "head" correcting them, they related all of their laws to the propagation of only the Jews - "God loves the Jews alone and none other, all others are destine to the Abyss". This is bigotry. Jesus attempted to point out that they were not understanding Abraham and the like, but merely trying to follow laws which allowed them to distort things to their liking. Every time a set of doctrines are left to a group of followers, this occurs.

I would like to point out that not all Jews consider themselves superior to others. However some of them do consider themselves chosen because, the God of the bible says so. One cannot deny that fact.

 

The superior attitude is necessary restricted to fundamentalist Jew, but many Christians, Muslims and other followers of elitist religion also portray this attitude.

 

Science is no exception. Once science has a load of followers merely following written doctrine, they will lose their understanding of it all and the same effects will occur.

 

No that's not completely true. Science does give way to better and new ideas. The theory of gravity and theory of relativity is a good example. New theories/doctrines are encouraged but they have to be scrutinised by the scientific community and compared to existing systems before they have to gain general acceptance. Even the theory of Evolution had to go through this stage.

 

In my opinion that is positive thing, otherwise if the scrutiny is not there, then we are leaving our self succeptable to accepting every theory out there like Dianitics(whatever the Scientalogist follow), ID, astrology and theory of Universal Law.

 

Is this current system of evaluation perfect? No. It may seem a bit rigid but it does have a good track record.

 

Most Religious system on the other hand does not change it's doctines with new information. Which is why new ideas have to break off from the old and have to start on a fresh start eg Judaism vs Christianity ,Christianity vs Mormonism, protestant vs Catholism

 

The greater problem is the loss of the understanding of a doctrine which can then be twisted into a hate or cursing usage. Any written warning can, over time, be used to create a fear of not following. That fear, then creates hatred both for and against.

What about the fact that the writing itself employs fear to coerce the readers into believing it's idealogy. One theme that is certainly consistent throughout the bible(and other religions) is the constant use of fear.

 

So in effect, the religious leaders are effectively using the fuel that is already present there. If any believer comes with doubt, he is pointed straight to the bible by saying "You don't believe, but atleast you will believe what god says. And god says you must fear him and believe him otherwise the consequences will be dire".

 

fear tactics in christianity