Re: Should one Christian be reponsible for Christianity?

[Gawen]

This reply comes from the discussion in this thread:
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6482
Should one Christian be responsible for Christianity?
Yes. "I was only following orders" doesn't hold in world court crimes against humanity cases these days. As long as one person propagates whatever version of Christianity, he is responsible for it...and is responsible for his personal views of Christianity, however they may differ from other Christian views as well....no matter if there is direct or indirect involvement of the dogma or other denominations...AND responsible for those Christians that differ from his own.

Consider Westboro Baptist - the "God hates fags" Christian group. It is my opinion that every Christian is responsible for this lunatic fringe group until all Christians stand up and do something about them. Westboro is in a US Supreme Court free speech case at this time and I think the court will side with Westboro. They have no choice really. What Westboro does may be immoral or unethical, but is not illegal. Recently Westboro won a case started by a family of a fallen soldier - they picketed the funeral. The family also has to pay the $90,000+ Westboro legal fees. Twist the knife in a  bit further to add that the Westboro main family are all attorneys and it didn't cost them a cent.

Granted, Westboro is an extreme view of Christianity. They are responsible for their 'world view'. But as long as Christians can be lumped together not unlike ice cream; ice cream comes in many flavours, they are responsible for each others world views.....all the way down to the last believer.

So, when an atheist on this board makes a comment that Christians, Jews or Muslims spout "nonsensical drivel"...well, to be fair, they do; every one of them does it. After all, some liberal Christians say the minimum requirement for a Christian is to believe that Jesus was crucified and resurrected to "save" everyone. To most of us, this is nonsensical drivel.

I have more to say and no time to say it.

Later.

[Sophus]

My view is this:

If most Christians spent half as much time speaking out against homophobia promoted by groups like Westboro Baptists as they did talking about the sins of homosexuality then they would have a better case for themselves. The problem is that a lot of Christians don't speak up against homophobia until it starts to give them too sinister an image. Are they responsible for it? Well, they've contributed to an atmosphere where hate and hostility can grow. If they are for what they say they're for they need to start preaching against the real sins.

[The Magic Pudding]

This reply comes from the discussion in this thread:
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6482
Should one Christian be responsible for Christianity?
Yes. "I was only following orders" doesn't hold in world court crimes against humanity cases these days. As long as one person propagates whatever version of Christianity, he is responsible for it...and is responsible for his personal views of Christianity, however they may differ from other Christian views as well....no matter if there is direct or indirect involvement of the dogma or other denominations...AND responsible for those Christians that differ from his own.

Consider Westboro Baptist - the "God hates fags" Christian group. It is my opinion that every Christian is responsible for this lunatic fringe group until all Christians stand up and do something about them. Westboro is in a US Supreme Court free speech case at this time and I think the court will side with Westboro. They have no choice really. What Westboro does may be immoral or unethical, but is not illegal. Recently Westboro won a case started by a family of a fallen soldier - they picketed the funeral. The family also has to pay the $90,000+ Westboro legal fees. Twist the knife in a  bit further to add that the Westboro main family are all attorneys and it didn't cost them a cent.

Granted, Westboro is an extreme view of Christianity. They are responsible for their 'world view'. But as long as Christians can be lumped together not unlike ice cream; ice cream comes in many flavours, they are responsible for each others world views.....all the way down to the last believer.

So, when an atheist on this board makes a comment that Christians, Jews or Muslims spout "nonsensical drivel"...well, to be fair, they do; every one of them does it. After all, some liberal Christians say the minimum requirement for a Christian is to believe that Jesus was crucified and resurrected to "save" everyone. To most of us, this is nonsensical drivel.

I have more to say and no time to say it.

Later.

One Christian group has often tried to impose there will on another group.
It's not easy, however many you burn or behead another batch will spring up elsewhere.
Nonsensical drivel, how do you approach that?  Ask dog for patience?
Down here leaders don't have to declare their devotion to dog,
I really don't know how I would cope with a land where this was the norm.

Yes. "I was only following orders" doesn't hold in world court crimes against humanity cases these days.

I believe males who are sent to jail are likely to be sodomised.
It's accepted in popular culture that this happens
I've heard of programs where old cons talk to the young and warn them this is the case.
I feel it is wrong the state condones/ignores rape, but I haven't done a thing about it.

[Voter]

1. You're ignoring the role of the secular media. A moderate church's condemnation of Westboro Baptist makes it to the moderate church's newsletter and no further. Anyone, theist or atheist, can write to media urging them to stop publicizing Westboro.

2. Most people understand that Westboro and the like don't speak for Christianity as a whole, so there's not a real need for moderate Christians to try to shut them up (not sure how we could do that anyway - see point 1). Remember, atheists who lump us all together are extremists among the secular, just like Westboro is extreme within Christianity.

[Tank]

1. You're ignoring the role of the secular media. A moderate church's condemnation of Westboro Baptist makes it to the moderate church's newsletter and no further. Anyone, theist or atheist, can write to media urging them to stop publicizing Westboro.

2. Most people understand that Westboro and the like don't speak for Christianity as a whole, so there's not a real need for moderate Christians to try to shut them up (not sure how we could do that anyway - see point 1). Remember, atheists who lump us all together are extremists among the secular, just like Westboro is extreme within Christianity.

They could also be thoughtless but that's far too nice a word to use isn't it?

[Voter]

I don't see that "thoughtless" is nice. Substitute it if you like.

[Tank]

I don't see that "thoughtless" is nice. Substitute it if you like.

The sin of omission rather than commission. The result can be the same but the intent is different.

[Voter]

OK, make it thoughtless or extremist....

[Sophus]

2. Most people understand that Westboro and the like don't speak for Christianity as a whole, so there's not a real need for moderate Christians to try to shut them up (not sure how we could do that anyway - see point 1). Remember, atheists who lump us all together are extremists among the secular, just like Westboro is extreme within Christianity.

Of course not, which is why I avoid using the word "all" and instead use phrases like "many" or "some". However, as I also said, a great deal of Christians in the US, and even televangelists like Pat Robertson who is more mainstream than Westboro, frequently bash gays for simply being gay. There is no excuse for investing so much time and energy in badmouthing innocent gay people, but only groaning about Westboro when it starts to give all of Christianity a bad image and otherwise doing nothing positive for gay folks.

[Voter]

Of course not, which is why I avoid using the word "all" and instead use phrases like "many" or "some". However, as I also said, a great deal of Christians in the US, and even televangelists like Pat Robertson who is more mainstream than Westboro, frequently bash gays for simply being gay.

I don't watch televangelists, so I can't speak to that. Otherwise, it's not my experience that Christians "frequently bash gays for simply being gay." Can you support that? In my experience, homosexuality typically comes up in the context of rights, whether in the church or in society. If there wasn't a push for gay marriage rights, gay church membership/clergy, etc., I doubt many Christians would say much about gays at all.

[Asmodean]

If there wasn't a push for gay marriage rights, gay church membership/clergy, etc., I doubt many Christians would say much about gays at all.

...So why am I not allowed to discriminate against oh, I don't know... Jews, for example, and yet Christians seem to get away with discriminating against gays..?  

[AnimatedDirt]

If there wasn't a push for gay marriage rights, gay church membership/clergy, etc., I doubt many Christians would say much about gays at all.

...So why am I not allowed to discriminate against oh, I don't know... Jews, for example, and yet Christians seem to get away with discriminating against gays..?  

Oh, you'll find a lot of discrimination against Jews by Christians.  Ironic.  The truth is, Christians shouldn't discriminate against the homosexuals as they do.  What they are doing is making sin into a heirarchy system where one sin is worse than another.  It goes 100% against the biblical teaching of there being only ONE sin that cannot be pardoned.  But we are humans and as humans do, we discriminate against that which we do not agree with.  Similar to Atheists against Christians...as some do.

[Voter]

...So why am I not allowed to discriminate against oh, I don't know... Jews, for example, and yet Christians seem to get away with discriminating against gays..?  

Because the people behind the civil rights laws didn't include sexual orientation as a protected status. Actually, some places have local laws which do ban certain discrimination against gays.

[Asmodean]

Oh, you'll find a lot of discrimination against Jews by Christians.  Ironic.  The truth is, Christians shouldn't discriminate against the homosexuals as they do.  What they are doing is making sin into a heirarchy system where one sin is worse than another.  It goes 100% against the biblical teaching of there being only ONE sin that cannot be pardoned.  But we are humans and as humans do, we discriminate against that which we do not agree with.  Similar to Atheists against Christians...as some do.

A fair answer. Still, it seems to be easier to get away with discriminating against gays or atheists than it is with discriminating against jews or women.

[Sophus]

If there wasn't a push for gay marriage rights, gay church membership/clergy, etc., I doubt many Christians would say much about gays at all.

What does that mean? If the gays learn their place and stop demanding equal rights the Christians wouldn't have to fight for their "right" to bigotry discrimination?