While I believe any religion is truly a good thing, it normally brings forth more violence than it should.
Clearly every single Christian on the face of the planet is a perfect human being with no emotional reactions like other people. Clearly they don’t get upset when people mock their beliefs. Clearly they’re not allowed to occassionally act out in rage or anger like any other human being. Clearly because they make a few mistakes or maybe don’t think over every one of their actions that makes them inferior to you. Clearly violence in this case was not justified, but maybe, just maybe, your boyfriend was even more unjustified in provoking him, and maybe you are even more unjustified in judging his worth in a complex faith you don’t understand that is often at odds with the values of our society, and maybe, just maybe, you and your boyfriend should learn a little respect for other people’s beliefs before you become just as dogmatic in your cynicism.
You only think so because you believe religion to be an objective matter. However, plenty of people can naturally think subjectively and outside the scope of oneself such that they also see the points of view of other people, and recognize their similar devotion to a religion. In fact, not merely recognize their devotion, but also recognize how they perceive their religion, and respect that. Thus, they may think recognize that they think their religion to be the absolute truth, but at the same time recognize that another person also has an equally sound “absolute truth” which they hold dear. It is the difference, I suppose, between “this is the truth to everyone and everyone contrary to it must be wrong” and “this is the truth, but other people may be equally unshaking in their ideas of the truth”.
Maybe just maybe my boyfriend is not religious and feels that arrogant slogans like that tear people apart. Where is the respect when incidents like that, occur? Do you honestly think that a person is entitled to respecting a religious person when they openly condemn anyone else?
Christian and human or not, they basically threw their morales out the window. When it comes down to crunch time in Christianity, clearly threatening to assault someone is the way to defend your beliefs. I was never making an insult on why people should react, I was pointing out HOW they reacted, and the irony of it. I consider myself Christian, so maybe just maybe I looked past that for once, and just recognized the flaws of my belief system. it’s not easy to do…as I’ve noted in my first post?
Why is it not a provocation to proclaim that every non-believer is going to hell?
She is right…I’ll admit it and I’m rather Christian, but like I said in the Soren Kierkegaard way. “Only love for Jesus will get you into heaven” is a little exclusionary of a statement, kinda like one I see "I you’re living like there is no God, you’d better be right! (the last part of the sentence in fiery font for laughs I guess). When people put that on their bumper sticker, I think they mean well, but they don’t quite understand how that could offend non-believers. Remember, most of we’ve established as a religion is human, which by nature is imperfect, so to question one’s own religion is natural of humans. Jesus, or Allah, or God, or Vishnu, or most other deities are seen as perfect, and though they preach perfectly legit things on how to live good lives, we as humans can’t take just one teaching and try to shove it down the rest of the world’s throat.
Ok, there are Christians and then there are Christians. Or at least thats how I seperate them. For the most part Christians are harmless but every once in a while one of us manifests the concept that all non-Christian religions, people etc. are vermin and that they must save them from their wrongs. You think what happened to your boyfriend was bad? Recently the Dhalai Lama was in my city, Vancouver BC, and a bunch of bible pushers were at all of his speeches, conferences and appearances with signs saying that he was evil, wrong and that listening to his message of world peace and tolerance for all would send us to hell. They did this to the Dhalai Lama! One of the greatest men in the world!
Stop it Im getting depressed ;_;
Wow…these people must win the “Biggest Pricks in Canada” Award every year.
I am from now on a fan of your BF for what he did, though he took some risk in doing it. He got the guy this time but who knows if the next one will be a black belt…
Dude my boyfriend has been studying Aikodo Shotokan and Iajitsu for 14 years Im not too worried about that 
We put the Fun in fundamentalist dogma.
I had a somewhat similar expierence.
Last weekend I atteneded a 3 day music festival here in Atlanta. Some where along the walk down to the festival there were these christian rite people parked outside with signs and loud speakers individually asking people whether they felt that they themselves were good people - and then asking them if they’d ever lied, and that if they had lied, where they truley good people? One of them approached me and I told them that lieing in many situations was acceptable, life or death situations or other such outrageous scenarios, and the man just looked at me and told me that good people are never put in such situations. To which I laughed, chugged down my free Sierra Mist and walked away. He kept on barking at me but I had stopped listening. This kept happening, and eventually the police told him to not bother individual people.
Living in a big city, we get shit like this all the time, and at every concert I go too there is always some group protesting the music as being ungodly, and that godly people who listen to it are hypocrites. It goes on and on, but the point I’m making is that things like window clingers and bumper stickers do nothing to forward the movement, but are intended to express the views of the owner of the car/whatever. If someone comments on it to themselves, like Eva’s boyfriend did, then it is their right to do so, so long as no direct comments are made towards the other individual. The man in the car had no right to threaten anyone, and should have maintained the respect that this country ensures him of his right to religion.
If everyone would allow everyone else to choose their own religious beliefs, and only share their own when asked to, and then politely, then this world would be much easier to live in. But then if wishes were horses, beggars would ride.
Well, I would say both comments in the quotation marks could be right, couldn’t they? I would say both, personally. I do hold to my beliefs as being absolute truth, but do very much understand that others have their own faith which they believe every bit as fervently. Though I think them to be wrong, I respect them for their devotion. Though it might seem to bring unity, the acceptance of other religions as truth would not; neither is it a new thing. In antiquity the Greeks thought that the gods of the Egyptians were but other guises of their own gods. This is very prevalent in the ancient world, and is a common thing when there exists a pantheon of gods that hold power over certain elements of the universe. It became decidedly more difficult, however, around 2000BC when the Jewish religion was founded, it being monotheistic with an all powerful god. The Jews, to their credit, have never been very compromising in their view of their God; in my view it is this that allowed their civilization to continue. Because for all accounts, from a historical perspecive, they never should have lasted even 1000 years. They were a bronze age people surrounded by iron age empires, and were conquered innumerble times. Yet their religious cohesion allowed them to prevail even when conquered, and in the end they’re outlasted Assyria, Babylon, Rome…everything, to become what I think could be considered the oldest culteral group in the world. You see, this ardent view of their religion bonded the people together in such a way that allowed them to continue. Even as, 2000 years ago, the unwavering devotion of the Christans held them firm in the face of terrible persicutions by the might of Rome; and then, 300 years later, theirs becomes the religion of Rome. It pays off, really, to be uncompromising. But in the secular world that we live in, from that view point from which we usually live, I respect all people equally.
True enough; it is almost always the case that when something is enforced on people they reject it simply for the matter that it was unwilling. But what I really wanted to comment on here is the matter of being offended. Is that really such a bad thing? Are people that touchy nowadays that we must walk circles about them with everything we say, so that we do not mistakenly offend somewhat? Honestly, I find that whole idea of being offended by something quite obsurd. I’m not offended by people making fun of Germans, but I’ve got German heritage. Why should I care? Really, it’s a sad state of affairs if we have to go around worrying about treading on other people’s toes. Have we as a human race become so sensitized? Actually, I deem it to be rather another matter, one of a wonderful ideal run amok, and that is that of individual rights. It is a great idea, but has gone to extreme. It used to be that individuals were exploited for the sake of society; now society is exploited for the sake of the individual. Which is worse? I would wager the second. Because if society falls, everything will, and the rights of the individual will amount to nothing. We have become so fixated on rights that we dare not say certain things lest people take offence. And the worst of it is this: there are certain things that are truly horrid that are passed off as “art” and “freedom of expression”, yet to say to someone that they are wrong in matters of religion is almost a taboo. How did we get to this? Everyone does what is right in their own eyes, and there is no social cohesion. What then will happen if the society we live in falls? If we have no faith to fall back upon, what consolation will we have? It is a frightening state of affairs.
Finally yes, it is true that “Only love for Jesus will get you into heaven” is exclusionary. But why should it not be? Faith has always, through all the history of the human race been exclusive! Why should religion be dictated by what is popular in the secular realm? How can political correctness have any say on such matters, especially considering the fact that the Christian religion has existed for 4,000 years (including the period when it coincided with Judaism). I find it odd that it should be seen as an evil thing that heaven is exclusive to those who believe in God. After all, God is not very nice from a human perspective. He is a harsh judge who expects nothing less than perfection, and that has not ever changed, not since the very origins of the faith back in the days of Abram, when he left the old sun worship in the city of Ur. The purpose in the sacrifices of goats and such was an exchange, so that the death of the goat or whatever stood in the place of the death that the sinner deserved. Because before the law every single person is doomed forever, even by the very nature of their birth as a human child (and this is the matter of original sin). However, as Christians believe, that is no longer neccessary, because of Jesus. Rather than having the lamb or goat or whatever die in the place of the sinner, Jesus took all the guilt onto himself, and died the death in our place, very much like the lambs did in the old tradition. Now in this sense Christ is like a great prince who stands before his father and begs for mercy on our behalf. Though we stand condemned, he takes the wrath of the Father upon himself, standing between us and the fury of a very angry God. It is by this that we are saved. Moreover, this requires nothing on our part, beyond the belief that Christ has indeed saved us; good works are excluded, and do not contribute to salvation. For when the sin weighs us down with an infinite judgement, no amount of work can atone for it, save for that which is infinite and has already been done on our behalf. It is a salvation that relies fully on the grace of Jesus. Thus things have been made so free to us, the gates of heaven being thrown wide by the death of Christ himself, which reconciled our relationship with the Father. But now I ask…why should that grace extend to those who refuse it? By not believing in God the Christian belief is that the salvation is basically rejected, and that person has chosen to stand alone as his own defender before the face of God. Well, that is a choice, I suppose…but unless they are flawless in both birth and life, God will be very angry indeed. (All this, by the way, is the Lutheran belief; it does not represent all Christians, as I am certain that Roman Catholics would greatly debate the matter of works and as they relate to righeousness). But what I am trying to say with this is that there is every reason for it to be exclusive; there is nothing at all that compells it or requires it to be inclusive. In the same way that there is no reason for, say, me to be allowed to join the Royal Family of Britain just because I’d want to. It is an exclusive thing. Should I then be offended then if I am told I can’t live in Buckingham hall, then?
Oh, just a quick note on a post that I didn’t see before, regarding the concerts and stuff. That is so very true. Those are the people that give the traditionalist Christians a bad name. What I would say to them is that, as they should know, from a Christian perspective there are no good people, and even if there were… well, they obviously didn’t know their Bible well enough, for all their preaching. I’d tell them to glance at the story of Job. He is the most godly man that lives, but is struck down with misfortune and misery even so. The very Bible says that even if you’re good, bad things happen (also I would tell them to take a look at the plight of the early Christians under the hand of Rome). Secondly in regards to the “ungodly” music… there is always the passage that says “it is not what goes into a man that makes him sin, but what comes out”, or something like that. Rock music and such does not neccessarily cause one to sin. Actually, my Dad is a pastor and all, very traditional I might add, yet still loves watching AC/DC and Ozzie Osbourne and all that. There is some sepration between the secular and ecclesiastical world.
1-What else would you expect?
2-Esp at Walmart?
No, simply because one has an intolerant tone about it while the other accepts other religions. The Greek example you have shown does not apply here because the Greeks believed that the Egyptians interpreted different versions of the same thing, while that is not necessarily true here. Really, I don’t see how blind trust in anything can pay off. What does it do you to believe in one power and reject all other possible explanations? One would be limiting one’s perspective down that one channel. Sure, it creates unity, but simply being of the same skin colour, nationality, culture and sometimes simply being human also creates the same kind of unity. The Christians held off in the face of Rome, yes, but what good did it do them that the Romans later became Christian? It didn’t revive those who were murdered; it simply showed them to be stubborn, resolute, and their minds to be of one track (which I suppose is a good thing?)
By the way, I did not say your latter quote.
[QUOTE=Cless Alvein]The Christians held off in the face of Rome, yes, but what good did it do them that the Romans later became Christian? It didn’t revive those who were murdered; it simply showed them to be stubborn, resolute, and their minds to be of one track (which I suppose is a good thing?).[\QUOTE]
Well, that’s a very fair question. And I would have two answers for that that I have always believed. The first is that I have often heard it said from studies and such that people who go to church and have fervent beliefs live longer than others. The second is that if you believe something so fully, you die in peace and contentment. You are sure of where you are going.
Now, even if I am wrong, I’ll at least die happy, eh? Live longer, die better either way. Really, it’s a win/win situation.
Oh, and to say “my way is right” is actually not intolerant in any way. What, praytell, is intolerant therein? If one were to say “you cannot have your beliefs”, that would be intolerant. But to say that one’s faith is the only way to salvation is actually not intolerant. It’s only steadfast.
Ok I’m officially out of this…I can’t handle too much more of this. I had to deal with satanic microeconomics and a horrible group project on U.S. environmental policy w/global warming, so to actually start thinking intelligently again after I’ve blown my mind with college work is fruitless. And yes, though I have stopped talking about this…the second quote was mine. I’m passing out… :thud:
It is…but it’s a bumper sticker. Just get over it already, when I see a person with a bumper sticker I don’t agree with, I have the tact not to laugh to myself where they can see. I never defended what the guy did, I was just trying to object to the way people (not just around here) just at every possible instance when a Christian seems to transgress and then to somehow make vague generalities about the hypocrisy of the religion in general. I’m sorry if I read more between the lines here than what is being said, but when the description of the even goes “a little back and forth exchanged ensues” I have to assume for myself what happened. What I assumed happened was this:
Boyfriend sees bumper sticker, laughs to himself
Woman asks if it’s offensive
Boyfriend opens his big mouth in a situation he probably shouldn’t to say how arrogant the people are for having that bumper sticker.
Other man gets mad, perhaps justifiedly, perhaps not, who knows
Man attacks boyfriend
Boyfriend attacks back
First of all, why open your mouth anyway? Someone has a bumper sticker you don’t agree with, big deal, it’s their car, if they want to put something offensive on it, just shrug and get on with your life.
Second, just because he attacks first doesn’t villify the actions of your boyfriend. It’s 5th grade fight logic to say “well since he started it it’s okay” I know that evangelion didn’t necessarily argue this, but others did. The fact that your boyfriend said something like “go home or I’ll fuck you up” goes a little outside the bounds of self-defence.
Third, I don’t even know what I’m arguing here anymore. I guess what I objected to in your account of this story was that I felt you your boyfriend was the one really making the provocations here, not the other party. Perhaps I assumed too much in your mocking of christianity as a whole, but hey, sometimes I’m quick to assume also. But seriously, it’s just a bumper sticker. If I were you, I’d tell your boyfriend to swallow his pride next time.