New Extremist Threat Alert.... - Page 3

BS - I have consistently supported real Christianity and the teachings of Jesus.

Unfortunately some people exist who claim to be Christians who are perverting that teaching into hate. I am merely pointing that out.

If you focus on my comments on the haters and fake-Christians and see the need to defend them then all that says is that you feel the hate-Christianity is the real deal.

I will continue pointing out and continue supporting the teaching of Christ.

And you and Cuilla can continue defending the distortion.

Thank you. I haven't read the link because I never do with yours but let's assume it is something about Islamic extremists.

That gives me the chance to say this:

The nutter fundie Islamic literalists discussed in that post are pushing a sick perversion of Islam contrary to the teachings of Muhammad and the spirit of spirituality.

I take it there will be no argument from you.

Now let me CONTINUE to say this:

The nutter fundie Christian literalists discussed in this thread are portraying a sick perversion of Christianity contrary to the teachings of Jesus and the spirit of spirituality.

Now tell me why you are supporting them.

No. My purpose is to oppose extremism.

All the Christians posting here - with one honourable and notable exception - feel the need to avoid condemning the extremists and see an attack on Christian extremism as an attack on their own beliefs.

Most probably because they are their own beliefs.

Got to be over 70%. So what?

What's your point? Some people have a 90% rating on 'tablet mac'.

Are you saying that there is no such thing as an extremist? Or perhaps you think there is no threat from extremism? Maybe, even, you don;t consider it a topic worthy of discussion if your measure is a word-count.

Seems strange to me - this is a Political forum (of sorts) and global politics has been redefined in the light of extremism to the extent some people call it an ongoing war - and you think it is somehow a topic that can be talked about to excess?

Only you don't mean that do you? Another glaring example of someone else here being dishonest.

Admit it - you mean something quite different than the quantity of posts about this issue.

The homophobic aspect of the Bible seems a peculiarly Old Testament fixation and the psychological reasons behind it are quite interesting. They are still present today in the right-wing Christian paradigm (we need a not here don't we: NOT the only, or even genuine, Christian manifestation - just the most simplistic) and invariably - as with all prejudice - have a symbiotic relationship with war, punishment, xenophobia and iterations of revenge.

Conversely, the New Testament is very different in tone and a lot of people see a homo-erotic element in it in numerous places - although the OT has its moments in this regard.

Certainly Jesus himself made precisely zero comments on the issue - imagine today's anti-gay Christians (those that are I mean jeesh) actually buttoning up on this issue. Surely if he was as rabid as they are he would have let something slip?

And what about this little gem:


And of course there is the infamous incident in the Garden of Gethsemane just prior to Jesus' arrest:


This is from the traditional Gospel of Mark (ie a heavily edited amalgam of several earlier separate versions) however we now possess some of these versions and referenced quotes to them by the Church Fathers. One such which expands the theme and fill in missing (ie removed) text is from a letter of Clement of Alexandria:


This 'disciple Jesus loved' also features in the orthodox New Testament as not all references have been fully excised by the Church in all versions.

I agree - all I'm saying is that different interpretations can be put on anything depending on time, place, personality etc.

We are all free to believe whichever we choose but we should respect others belief even if it conflicts or we believe it is wrong.

The only thing we can't do - or let's say, the thing I personally would try to actively prevent - is to force our own personal view onto others. That's what this thread is about. People who do that.

A lot of people do see that. So what - I'm not one of them but I can report those who do without having to push my own opinion.

Can you? No....oh....that's what we're talking about. Or rather what I'm talking about and you are intellectually incapable of grasping.

Trying to love you too (not like that) - but only because God said so....

Paul was in many ways hijacked Christ's teaching though didn't he? Certainly he was in disagreement with the disciples over key issues - he had a bit of a chip on his shoulder about them actually.

You are not on ignore. I'm not sure what it would take but it's not something I utilize.

Re your points:

1) Obsession: I would not consider myself obsessed - but then I wouldn't if I was so I guess it's possible - but rather it is an issue with which i have a long-time passionate interest.

Nothing wrong with that and even if I was obsessed so what? Is that a crime? No.

2) Legitimate criticism of Christianity: I cannot do this as I agree with Christ's teaching. Thus there is nothing to criticize.

If someone can show me that Christ taught hate and militarism say then I might start to attempt a legitimate criticism but as it is I will legitimately criticize the people who have hijacked the teaching. You see - that's what makes it legitimate to criticize, the fact it is not true to the original.

Al the posters here have to do to disprove this is to show where it is the same. Go for it - but they aren't even trying and nor are you. Poor.

3) These people may be irrelevant whackos to you - by the way, that undermines your argument: you claim I was criticizing Christianity, now you claim I am criticizing irrelevant whackos. Which is it? Or are both the same to you? - but to me they are not. What makes your view better than mine?

Nothing.

Look, let's put it like this: If you have a car that you like a lot and you continually hear strange and ominous rattling sounds from the engine accompanied by plumes of acrid smoke. Do you:

a) Tell yourself that this is a design feature and one that makes the car 'special'.

b) Start a campaign telling everyone it has always been like this and shouldn't be tampered with by people who want to 'wreck your car'.

c) Ignore it.

d) Take it to the garage to be checked.

Let's say that by some miraculous and circuitous bizarre conflation of events you choose d) and find yourself in your local garage facing your friendly covered in grease mechanic. He proceeds to tell you that there is a problem. Do you:

a) Start foaming at the mouth and accuse him of having a secret agenda to sabotage your beautiful car.

b) Start foaming at the mouth and accuse him of having a secret agenda to sabotage your beautiful car.

c) Start foaming at the mouth and accuse him of having a secret agenda to sabotage your beautiful car.

And on......

Depends whether you call shouting for executions of gays, storming around pulpits with assault rifles and generally spreading chaos 'normal road noise'.

I suppose in some circles (theirs) it is. My point is whether these factors were in the original design blueprint.

Some vehicles are beyond repair and need to be taken off the road. The safety of the public is paramount.

Oh, I thought you were leaving so I was being polite.

Let me ask you something: do you think that these people we are talking either have or desire, political power?

In my understanding they have a great deal of political power and are placed to gain more - if it wasn't for this factor then I probably would share your views about their irrelevance.

Stop telling me what to do.

You know how I feel about people try to impose their values on others.