Lies and False Narratives of Christianity

Time for me to take a break. Its tough enough, being outnumbered by hostile, anti-christian bigots, without having to deal with biased mods. If i explain to a poster why i am avoiding them.. because of needling, provocation, constant ad hom & straw men, and they report me and my posts are deleted or myself infracted, why should i contribute in such a forum?

It shows the depths of bias and hostility we have descended to, in the public discourse. Common sense, reason, and civility take a back seat to agenda driven propaganda.

If the mods here do not want or appreciate my perspective, i can pick up my toys and leave. I know this is a predominantly progressive forum, just like most human institutions now. But if minority opinions are censored, or minority posters hindered, all that will be left is a progressive echo chamber.

I have offered thoughtful, intelligent, provocative threads and themes, and most of my threads continue for years. But if they upset the desired narrative, you can censor me, and become an exclusive propaganda voice for the religion of Progressivism.

 

He was raised as an Orthodox Christian. Later he said he did not consider himself to be an orthodox believer and said that "what we call 'soul' or 'spirit,' is nothing more than the sum of the functionings of the body. When this functioning ceases, the 'soul' or the 'spirit' ceases likewise".

 

All of these examples are strawmen created to establish your own narrative while damning others for theirs.

Time didn’t begin with Christianity, and likely won’t end with it. Mountains of art, philosophy and law existed before it, and the secular rationalization is how we’ve come to be today. Today is much better than when we were under the umbrella of Christian monarchy.

This notion of taking all things good as Christian and all things bad as something else is no different than saying facism and communism aren’t bad ideas because they weren’t done right.

At this time I feel we are holding onto the worst ideas of Christianity. Obedience under authority, denial of human individuality, submission to the apocalypse, and projected victimization. This is why Christianity is falling, the missionaries are wrong. Christianity is to find Revelation in yourself to save you from your own destruction.

 

What mods are censoring your opinions.. what a complete load of twaddle. Forum infractions have nothing to do with your opinion unless that opinion is simply a personal attack on others.

Just because someone has an opinion that conflicts with your opinion and/or religious beliefs - and you have no ability to coherently refute the logic behind that opinion - is no excuse to go on a personal attack parade - which is what you have been doing.

 

.... and - positive events in the world are not examples of God's divine intervention. It has always baffled me when I see folks like "Tim Tebow" (NFL Football QB) giving the big salute to God - and making a big show if it - after making some good play - as if God has something to do with a football game.

Does Timmy curse God when he makes a bad play ?

 

As a progressive with a half-decent network of progressive friends, I do know maybe two or three I'd call intolerant, but the vast majority has never come across as such. Most mentions of intolerant progressives I have come across have been people arguing against progressivism who bring up ideas that I don't recognise. That being said, I'm willing to admit that those who I would call intolerant progressives are quite loud about it, and are (I would guess) much more likely to engage in (a certain kind of) debate with non-progressives, so I'm not surprised over your observation.

I'm not suggesting that you should pretend that the ones you see don't exist, I'm suggesting that you phrase your arguments to account for the diversity. Be clear about who you address and acknowledge who it is that you don't address.

I agree that definitions are a major problem, however, you seem to imply that these are deliberately used to deflect arguments, instead of considering that the definitions suggested are the definitions that they and many others genuinely use (your definition of Christianity seems to be one example of this).

Why would it be meaningless? I have no problem successfully communicating to others about my understanding of Christianity, and to the best of my knowledge, the vast majority of people, including most Christians, will have a fully functional understanding of what I mean. It seems to me fully meaningful.

However, if we use your definition, then members of the LDS, WBC, RCC, etc. would have different semantic bounds, because they will interpret Jesus' teachings (as well as teachings of other Christian groups) differently and draw different lines around whether a certain doctrine can be said to have been founded by Jesus. That in my opinion becomes meaningless.

That is a good thing, indeed, I think you should do it even more. I imagine many will not have picked up your definition of Christianity, yet it is quite important to understand your points in the OP.

Maybe so, but language is not a function of historical (arguably) factual descriptions, it is a function of making oneself understood, and that in turn is (in part) a function of what you call contemporary opinion. English replaced "thou" with "you", not because it "you" had some more accurate historical etymology, but because people were using it to mean that, to the point that using it another way risks failure of communication.

Given that I don't believe them, I see no need for you to try to expose them. I'm more interested in an account of why you believe these narratives are believed, how common you think they are, and what your justification for thinking that is.

 

What did the Plague have to do with Christianity?
While there were autos de fe under the Inquisition during which heretics were burned, witches were not burned. They were either hung, or in rare cases pressed to death.
The killing of Cathars or Albigensians was more a political act and an act of vengeance than anything else. It would not have happened had the Cathars not killed the Papal legate sent to convert them.
The Crusades were a response to the rise of the Seljuk Turks in the Outremer. Prior to their conversion to Islam and conquest of the area there was accommodation by Muslims and Christians. Christians were allowed safe passage to their holy sites. Once the Seljuks took control of the area Christians were persecuted and forbidden entrance to their holy sites. This was the cause of the Crusades.
While the Conquistadors rode under the mandate of the three Gs (Gold, Glory, and the Gospel, they were actually freebooters, disenfranchised younger sons of minor noble families who raised private armies in their quest for riches. The only ameliorating force was the Roman Catholic Church. People like Bartoloméo de las Casas did all in their power to ease the burdens placed on the native peoples.

 

The bible is full of several major errors. For example, the bible says that Jesus was born during the 15th year of the reign of Roman Emperor Tiberius, but aslso during the Reign of Herod the Great. Herod the Great died in the 5th year of Tiberius' reign, 10 years prior.

Them there is the fact that the only Roman census that happened anywhere near the time jesus was supposedly born happened in 7 AD, several years after the bible claims his birth took.place.

 

The Malleus Maleficarum, usually translated as the Hammer of Witches was sanctioned by the church to burn witches.

 

This is opinion, and speculation. There are no facts to prove this smear on the bible. It is anti-christian bigotry, not historical scholarship.

You provide no sourced facts, just accusations and smears. This is just anti-christian propaganda.

 

Really, so you are saying that anyone who says the bible is not 100% accurate, or brings up the fact that historical facts do not match some biblical accounts have an anti-Christian agenda. People like you are the reason I no longer practice Christianity, because it's full of people who attack anyone who the smallest criticism of the religion. Hell, I'm not even criticizing the religion here, I am just pointing out that the biblical accounts of historical events don't match up to the known historical accounts of the events, and you call me a bigot.

 

I responded to your false and spurious accusation. You provided no evidence, just narratives from anti-christian activist sites.

So now you accuse me of something i did not say.. a straw man of my post, which was a defense of your unbased charges.

Believe whatever you want. I don't care. But to promote slanderous lies as 'facts!' is an act of anti-christian, religious bigotry.

I will debate the facts. But i will not tolerate slanderous distortions of Christian theology.

'People like you?' Really?

 

Who cares? the Bible completely ignores 99% of humanity and 95% of the Earth''s land mass. It is a typical religion, geo-centric in nature. It borrows from far older religions and philosophies. The Golden Rule existed in Buddhism long before Christ came to preach it. Most of what you claim is Christianity's good existed as rules for commerce and co-existance long before it was written in a book.

 

Believe whatever you wish. But you are mistaken.

 

Prove it.

 

You gave your unevidenced opinion, i returned the favor.

 

<dupe>

 

Where did Jesus say to do that? You don't judge a philosophy by its misuse. And you don't have to go that far back to find a 100,000,000 body count, done by your fellow atheists.

 

They were wrong, and ignored the Bible in that regard, just as some do today in regard to abortion and homosexuality.

Where does it say that in the constitution? The separation is between the government and a state church, not faith itself.

 

They clearly believed YOU aren't correctly interpreting the Bible properly.

The problem here is that you want the government to be the final arbiter of religion.

That is just not the function of government. That is the job of religion.

And, one must note that religion can not do that either - as the massive number of denominations of the various religions demonstrates.

In fact, Christians do not all agree with you even on your top list of hot topics!

But, you want to enlist government to force YOUR views on those fellow Christians!!

That is crazy, even if you thought that was a proper role of government.

 

Really? The 'Christians want to force their beliefs on everyone!' fear tactic?

..from the OP:

That is the agenda of Marxism and Islam. Historical Christianity is not involved with the secular state, and has always been contrary to the mandates from despots. Since the reformation, separation of church and state has been a constant theme.

 

You misread my post (again).

I stated that one individual wanted to use government in that way.

And, I pointed out that Christians are not of one mind.

Your getting extremely touchy here - even a hint triggers ridiculous and illogical responses from you.

Maybe you shouldn't read my posts if my secular point of view is just too much for you.

 

How did i misread anything? You said,

That sounds EXACTLY like,

'Christians want to force their beliefs on everyone!'

I wish we were in a purely secular state, as the founders envisioned. But we are not. We are in an increasingly intolerant progressive religion, established by the state, and hostile to the former majority view of biblical Christianity.

Touchy? Me? this is a polemical thread, about a critical direction for America. I exposed this particular false narrative earlier, but you ignore my rebuttal and just re-assert the same, tired old narratives.

You could, theoretically, find a 'Christian!' labeled group that actually does hate science, education, loves slavery, wants a theocracy, or any number of the narratives listed. My point is that is a 'not Christianity' group, as they abandon the principles from the Founder. Merely co-opting the label, 'Christian!', does not make them followers of Jesus. These hypothetical aberrants are mostly caricatures, created by progressives to smear Christianity. They are straw men, not representative of actual Christian beliefs.

 

No. Let me boil it down:

We have court cases related to this issue of same sex couples being denied marriage.

And, the only argument that could be produced to defend laws against same sex marriage has been religious.

You can decide what is sinful - sloth, envy, whatever. But, being sinful is not a justification for law.

 

Not really, from Genesis to Jesus God expresses his concern for all people.

In Genesis 18, Abraham receives three visitors, one of whom gives Abraham the good news that his wife, Sarah, will bear a son in a year’s time. “Abraham shall become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him.” (Genesis 18:18b NRSV) Beginning in Genesis, the vision includes all nations.

Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. And when they saw him they worshiped him, but some doubted. And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” Matt. 28:16-20

That biblical vision is happening, Christianity is exploding in much of the world. On the Day of Pentecost in the NT, 3,000 believers were added to the church. Today, globally that many people convert to Christianity every hour.