Child suspended for his religious beliefs

[Serge A. Storms]

Do you know how Christianity was actually founded? Or Islam? All you have are the religious texts dating back centuries ago describing seemingly impossible events that we are to believe out of nothing but pure faith. For all we know, Christianity was founded as a way to enslave the hearts and minds of people thousands of years ago for the benefit of a few political hustlers inventing stories to terrify people (and this would be supported by the fact that it was used as a tool to terrify and control people for centuries).

Despite how it started, you'd have to be a retard to not see that the majority of Christianity today is summed up into two things: love god, love your neighbor. Modern Christianity is mostly the New Testament and the teachings of Jesus, not the Torah.

I stopped being Christian because I took issue with Jesus's second rule "love your neighbor" as I realized that some people don't deserve sympathy. There are some people in this world that I can't even pretend to give a shit about.

EDIT: By majority I mean the silent majority of sane Christians, not the vocal minority of fundies.

Oh, okay, so now you're talking for the "silent majority" of "sane Christians" excluding all of the ones that haven't take everything out of the Bible except for a few snippets of the New Testament or otherwise don't view Christianity the way that you've decided it should mean. Thanks for your opinion, President Nixon.

 

[Rokar333]

Thanks for your opinion, President Nixon.

Is that seriously the best you got? I think cuddly_tomato has already worn you down.

Yes, the silent majority does refer to the idea that the majority opinion is not the one that is most heavily vocalized because it is already the majority opinion. I'm sorry, did I imply that in the length of Nixon's presidency he said one thing that wasn't totally stupid. Based on your previous comments, I didn't think this would be the thing that got your panties in a bunch.

 

[Serge A. Storms]

By this logic, if I supported the nazi party I should not get suspended for wearing the arm thing with the symbol to school.

No because Nazism isn't a religion and it's offensive

So?
You can't please everyone, nor should you give a shit if you don't.
Hell, I'm dressing up as Harry Potter this Halloween, maybe some Christians will get pissed at me, but fuck them.

You should give a shit. Just a bit of common sense suffices. Unfortuately, it seems common sense is in short supply in this thread.

Dressing up as a fictional character = acceptable. People get pissed off, that is their problem not yours.

Dressing up as a group who tortured and incinerated millions of people, put the entire world into war, and gave us the word "holocaust" = Not quite the same thing.

Boiling Christianity down to that is exactly what Christianity is, without all of the pageantry and Bible quotes. The Bible describes an omniscient, omnipotent, clearly male figure that made everything and literally made man "in his own image." Calling it anything else takes away from the Bible, and whatever you call the new religion is not Christianity (and yes, that means that the vast majority of the "Christians" on this planet aren't Christians in the strictest sense of the word, but they use that title to describe their general belief in the Christian God)

Yes but in boiling it down you are loosing a chunk of some of the elements vital to the Christian culture. It is rather like boiling a Ferrari Enzo down to "four wheels and some metal", yes that is exactly what it is, but at the same time it's not quite accurate. To an outsider it is quite accurate. To someone who doesn't like cars, who doesn't know a camshaft from a CV boot, a Ferrari Enzo is just device that some people have to get from A-B. But to a car fanatic, it is an object of love, an example of magnificent engineering, and so on and so forth.

Should I start explaining God's stances on things like war, slavery, and the role of women? Calling him a giant invisible man that poofed everything into existence is really quite flattering when you compare that image to the image of the psychotic warmonger described by the Old Testament. I could be a real dick and start quoting Deuteronomy and Leviticus, I'm sure the ladies here would love to hear that.

No you shouldn't because, as has been said several times now, that is not representive of modern Christianity. We don't complain to Italians about Caesars invasion of Europe for a reason - it would be fucking stupid. These days, only stupid people still read that kind of stuff and take it literally, and you know it. To use a small group of stupid extremists to build a case against an entire creed and culture containing literally billions of people is even more stupid.

"Modern Christianity?" What is "modern Christianity?" The belief that some giant father figure makes everything better, as so many softer Christians believe? The one that is staunchly conservative on economic issues and against gay marriage, like our red state friends want to believe? The God that apparently wants people to stand on sidewalks with "abortion is murder signs?" You're claiming that I'm marginalizing Christians by talking about traditional Christianity, I say that if we're talking about Christianity, we're talking about Christianity, not one of its basterd children that have spawned in the past few decades.

"Modern Christianity" is "Christianity as practiced by Christians today, not a thousand years ago".

Abortion? You mean those pro-faith, pro-choice [http://www.rcrc.org/programs/clergy_resources.cfm] Christians lobbying for abortion to be acceptable? Or you mean those anti-abortion atheists [http://www.godlessprolifers.org/] we have running around?

Gay marriage? Ohh you mean in America were gay marriage is now legal? Or you mean in the atheist state of North Korea, where gay people can be executed [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_North_Korea]?

We are talking about Christianity, practiced by the majority of Christians today, not some sub group you have a bee in your bonnet about, nor some group from a thousand years ago. At least I am, you are talking about some Christianity you have apparently decided to make up for yourself.

That post was full of fail, I hope you recognize. I cited a few examples of what "Modern Christians" may mean, I never claimed they fell into only a few subgroups.

 

[Serge A. Storms]

Thanks for your opinion, President Nixon.

Is that seriously the best you got? I think cuddly_tomato has already worn you down.

Yes, the silent majority does refer to the idea that the majority opinion is not the one that is most heavily vocalized because it is already the majority opinion. I'm sorry, did I imply that in the length of Nixon's presidency he said one thing that wasn't totally stupid. Based on your previous comments, I didn't think this would be the thing that got your panties in a bunch.

Way to tell me how frustrated I am without addressing anything except the closing line. Now show me that the majority of Christians don't believe in 99% of the Bible

 

[Serge A. Storms]

I love this new term "Modern Christianity," as if people posting on a video game message board have some kind of monopoly on what the "new" (real, of course) Christianity is all about and what parts of the Bible "really matter" if you're a Christian. I'd argue that I'm far more tolerant of any of you, simply because I recognize what Christianity is and what it is not, rather than create a new definition for the term that leaves out hundreds of millions of people that don't believe that Christianity should be reduced to a fraction of the New Testament.

 

[TIMESWORDSMAN]

No one ever believes me when I say Pastafarians are real.

 

[Rokar333]

That post was full of fail, I hope you recognize. I cited a few examples of what "Modern Christians" may mean, I never claimed they fell into only a few subgroups.

Throwing in the towel already? Most people try to bicker semantics with him for a few more pages before a neutral third party shows the logical fallacies in his opponent's posts. The fact is you aren't following any real definition of modern Christianity, you're just making up your own. Any debate is winnable if you mess keep redefining the terms.

For example I can relabel you as Antitheist fucktard and win any argument against you, because I can now disregard anything you say. However I will indulge anyway, because I can tell I'm pissing you off.

EDIT: Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to say I'm the neutral third party, but as soon as someone else can slog through the 20 pages of posts, you will find yourself outnumbered by people who give a damn about educating you instead of just pissing you off like I am, ^_^

 

[cuddly_tomato]

By this logic, if I supported the nazi party I should not get suspended for wearing the arm thing with the symbol to school.

No because Nazism isn't a religion and it's offensive

So?
You can't please everyone, nor should you give a shit if you don't.
Hell, I'm dressing up as Harry Potter this Halloween, maybe some Christians will get pissed at me, but fuck them.

You should give a shit. Just a bit of common sense suffices. Unfortuately, it seems common sense is in short supply in this thread.

Dressing up as a fictional character = acceptable. People get pissed off, that is their problem not yours.

Dressing up as a group who tortured and incinerated millions of people, put the entire world into war, and gave us the word "holocaust" = Not quite the same thing.

Boiling Christianity down to that is exactly what Christianity is, without all of the pageantry and Bible quotes. The Bible describes an omniscient, omnipotent, clearly male figure that made everything and literally made man "in his own image." Calling it anything else takes away from the Bible, and whatever you call the new religion is not Christianity (and yes, that means that the vast majority of the "Christians" on this planet aren't Christians in the strictest sense of the word, but they use that title to describe their general belief in the Christian God)

Yes but in boiling it down you are loosing a chunk of some of the elements vital to the Christian culture. It is rather like boiling a Ferrari Enzo down to "four wheels and some metal", yes that is exactly what it is, but at the same time it's not quite accurate. To an outsider it is quite accurate. To someone who doesn't like cars, who doesn't know a camshaft from a CV boot, a Ferrari Enzo is just device that some people have to get from A-B. But to a car fanatic, it is an object of love, an example of magnificent engineering, and so on and so forth.

Should I start explaining God's stances on things like war, slavery, and the role of women? Calling him a giant invisible man that poofed everything into existence is really quite flattering when you compare that image to the image of the psychotic warmonger described by the Old Testament. I could be a real dick and start quoting Deuteronomy and Leviticus, I'm sure the ladies here would love to hear that.

No you shouldn't because, as has been said several times now, that is not representive of modern Christianity. We don't complain to Italians about Caesars invasion of Europe for a reason - it would be fucking stupid. These days, only stupid people still read that kind of stuff and take it literally, and you know it. To use a small group of stupid extremists to build a case against an entire creed and culture containing literally billions of people is even more stupid.

"Modern Christianity?" What is "modern Christianity?" The belief that some giant father figure makes everything better, as so many softer Christians believe? The one that is staunchly conservative on economic issues and against gay marriage, like our red state friends want to believe? The God that apparently wants people to stand on sidewalks with "abortion is murder signs?" You're claiming that I'm marginalizing Christians by talking about traditional Christianity, I say that if we're talking about Christianity, we're talking about Christianity, not one of its basterd children that have spawned in the past few decades.

"Modern Christianity" is "Christianity as practiced by Christians today, not a thousand years ago".

Abortion? You mean those pro-faith, pro-choice [http://www.rcrc.org/programs/clergy_resources.cfm] Christians lobbying for abortion to be acceptable? Or you mean those anti-abortion atheists [http://www.godlessprolifers.org/] we have running around?

Gay marriage? Ohh you mean in America were gay marriage is now legal? Or you mean in the atheist state of North Korea, where gay people can be executed [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_North_Korea]?

We are talking about Christianity, practiced by the majority of Christians today, not some sub group you have a bee in your bonnet about, nor some group from a thousand years ago. At least I am, you are talking about some Christianity you have apparently decided to make up for yourself.

That post was full of fail, I hope you recognize. I cited a few examples of what "Modern Christians" may mean, I never claimed they fell into only a few subgroups.

Firstly, fail is not an adjective, it is a verb. One can fail or one can experience a failing. It is, however, impossible to be fail or to be filled with fail.

Secondly, I used logic, and citations, to make the point that the problems you are associating with modern Christianity are quite capable of stemming from other sources. And that modern Christianity is capable of existing without creating them problems itself.

Thirdly, seriously, you need to back up and take a good look at the crap you have been spouting in the last few posts. Modern Christians are Christians. Just because they don't have the precise beliefs as some extremists that you or I don't like, and just because they don't have the same beliefs as Christians of a millenia ago, doesn't make them less Christian. That makes them modern Christians. The vast majority of modern Christians (many of whom post here) don't have issues with gay rights, abortion, other religions, as long as people aren't trying to shove such things in their face.

 

[Serge A. Storms]

That post was full of fail, I hope you recognize. I cited a few examples of what "Modern Christians" may mean, I never claimed they fell into only a few subgroups.

Throwing in the towel already? Most people try to bicker semantics with him for a few more pages before a neutral third party shows the logical fallacies in his opponent's posts. The fact is you aren't following any real definition of modern Christianity, you're just making up your own. Any debate is winnable if you mess keep redefining the terms.

For example I can relabel you as Antitheist fucktard and win any argument against you, because I can now disregard anything you say. However I will indulge anyway, because I can tell I'm pissing you off.

I'm not allowing any real definition of modern Christianity? Why, because I'm not accepting that today's Christianity means ignoring the vast majority of the Bible, and instead pointing out that many people don't actually believe that definition? I'm glad you'll indulge me, because I needed a warm sleeve.

 

[Rokar333]

I'm not allowing any real definition of modern Christianity

I can just take out the question mark without changing any of the content of your post and already you lose because you admit you aren't following a real definition of modern Christianity.

Sometimes it's fun to be a troll. ^_^

 

[Serge A. Storms]

By this logic, if I supported the nazi party I should not get suspended for wearing the arm thing with the symbol to school.

No because Nazism isn't a religion and it's offensive

So?
You can't please everyone, nor should you give a shit if you don't.
Hell, I'm dressing up as Harry Potter this Halloween, maybe some Christians will get pissed at me, but fuck them.

You should give a shit. Just a bit of common sense suffices. Unfortuately, it seems common sense is in short supply in this thread.

Dressing up as a fictional character = acceptable. People get pissed off, that is their problem not yours.

Dressing up as a group who tortured and incinerated millions of people, put the entire world into war, and gave us the word "holocaust" = Not quite the same thing.

Boiling Christianity down to that is exactly what Christianity is, without all of the pageantry and Bible quotes. The Bible describes an omniscient, omnipotent, clearly male figure that made everything and literally made man "in his own image." Calling it anything else takes away from the Bible, and whatever you call the new religion is not Christianity (and yes, that means that the vast majority of the "Christians" on this planet aren't Christians in the strictest sense of the word, but they use that title to describe their general belief in the Christian God)

Yes but in boiling it down you are loosing a chunk of some of the elements vital to the Christian culture. It is rather like boiling a Ferrari Enzo down to "four wheels and some metal", yes that is exactly what it is, but at the same time it's not quite accurate. To an outsider it is quite accurate. To someone who doesn't like cars, who doesn't know a camshaft from a CV boot, a Ferrari Enzo is just device that some people have to get from A-B. But to a car fanatic, it is an object of love, an example of magnificent engineering, and so on and so forth.

Should I start explaining God's stances on things like war, slavery, and the role of women? Calling him a giant invisible man that poofed everything into existence is really quite flattering when you compare that image to the image of the psychotic warmonger described by the Old Testament. I could be a real dick and start quoting Deuteronomy and Leviticus, I'm sure the ladies here would love to hear that.

No you shouldn't because, as has been said several times now, that is not representive of modern Christianity. We don't complain to Italians about Caesars invasion of Europe for a reason - it would be fucking stupid. These days, only stupid people still read that kind of stuff and take it literally, and you know it. To use a small group of stupid extremists to build a case against an entire creed and culture containing literally billions of people is even more stupid.

"Modern Christianity?" What is "modern Christianity?" The belief that some giant father figure makes everything better, as so many softer Christians believe? The one that is staunchly conservative on economic issues and against gay marriage, like our red state friends want to believe? The God that apparently wants people to stand on sidewalks with "abortion is murder signs?" You're claiming that I'm marginalizing Christians by talking about traditional Christianity, I say that if we're talking about Christianity, we're talking about Christianity, not one of its basterd children that have spawned in the past few decades.

"Modern Christianity" is "Christianity as practiced by Christians today, not a thousand years ago".

Abortion? You mean those pro-faith, pro-choice [http://www.rcrc.org/programs/clergy_resources.cfm] Christians lobbying for abortion to be acceptable? Or you mean those anti-abortion atheists [http://www.godlessprolifers.org/] we have running around?

Gay marriage? Ohh you mean in America were gay marriage is now legal? Or you mean in the atheist state of North Korea, where gay people can be executed [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_North_Korea]?

We are talking about Christianity, practiced by the majority of Christians today, not some sub group you have a bee in your bonnet about, nor some group from a thousand years ago. At least I am, you are talking about some Christianity you have apparently decided to make up for yourself.

That post was full of fail, I hope you recognize. I cited a few examples of what "Modern Christians" may mean, I never claimed they fell into only a few subgroups.

Firstly, fail is not an adjective, it is a verb. One can fail or one can experience a failing. It is, however, impossible to be fail or to be filled with fail.

Secondly, I used logic, and citations, to make the point that the problems you are associating with modern Christianity are quite capable of stemming from other sources. And that modern Christianity is capable of existing without creating them problems itself.

Thirdly, seriously, you need to back up and take a good look at the crap you have been spouting in the last few posts. Modern Christians are Christians. Just because they don't have the precise beliefs as some extremists that you or I don't like, and just because they don't have the same beliefs as Christians of a millenia ago, doesn't make them less Christian. That makes them modern Christians. The vast majority of modern Christians (many of whom post here) don't have issues with gay rights, abortion, other religions, as long as people aren't trying to shove such things in their face.

1) I like internet language, it can be used to express a point in new ways not traditionally recognized in the English language.

2) You used citations to show that showed that not all Christians are against abortion, not all atheists are for abortion, and gay marriage is legal in some places. I never said that any of that wasn't true.

3) I don't deny that "Modern Christians" as you define them are "Christian," at least in that they define themselves as Christian, I'm simply pointing out that the definition of "Modern Christianity" that reduces everything to "Jesus loves you, love other people," is neither an honest representation of Christianity as the Bible defines Christianity or how a huge portion of the population sees it. Furthermore, suggesting that "Modern Christians" have no issue with gay rights, abortion, etc. seems to leave out the part where most states haven't legalized gay marriage and abortion remains one of the most heavily debated topics to this day. By that logic, such things wouldn't even be an issue.

 

[Serge A. Storms]

I'm not allowing any real definition of modern Christianity

I can just take out the question mark without changing any of the content of your post and already you lose because you admit you aren't following a real definition of modern Christianity.

Sometimes it's fun to be a troll. ^_^

I've seen better trolls on youtube.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

Why, because I'm not accepting that today's Christianity means ignoring the vast majority of the Bible, and instead pointing out that many people don't actually believe that definition? I'm glad you'll indulge me, because I needed a warm sleeve.

There is a vast difference between "ignoring" something and not taking it literally. Noas Ark? Is that about taking care of yourself and others? Showing compassion for creatures who couldn't survive without you? Preparing yourself for what the future might throw at you? And about not giving up?

Or is it really about a guy who explicably invited two wood-worm to share his boat during a world wide flood?

Not taking things literally doesn't lessen those tales any, in fact it often makes them more valuble.

 

[Rokar333]

I've seen better trolls on youtube.

By all means continue your argument with cuddly_tomato, I didn't mean to interrupt, I just wanted to interject that I also think you're a fucktard.

I don't flame large groups of people, I target individuals who annoy, and occasionally amuse me. Now if you would please stop quoting me so I can move on to another target, I won't be taking much more of your time (Yes, I do need to have the last word on everything, why do you ask?) Besides, antitheists are too easy.

 

[Serge A. Storms]

Why, because I'm not accepting that today's Christianity means ignoring the vast majority of the Bible, and instead pointing out that many people don't actually believe that definition? I'm glad you'll indulge me, because I needed a warm sleeve.

There is a vast difference between "ignoring" something and not taking it literally. Noas Ark? Is that about taking care of yourself and others? Showing compassion for creatures who couldn't survive without you? Preparing yourself for what the future might throw at you? And about not giving up?

Or is it really about a guy who explicably invited two wood-worm to share his boat during a world wide flood?

Not taking things literally doesn't lessen those tales any, in fact it often makes them more valuble.

Noah's Ark in the Bible was a description of God wiping out the human race because they had fallen into sin, save for a few people that still believed. You can take part of it and make it into an inspirational story, I suppose, although I don't see that story being any better than "the little engine that could."

 

[Serge A. Storms]

I've seen better trolls on youtube.

By all means continue your argument with cuddly_tomato, I didn't mean to interrupt, I just wanted to interject that I also think you're a fucktard.

I don't flame large groups of people, I target individuals who annoy, and occasionally amuse me. Now if you would please stop quoting me so I can move on to another target, I won't be taking much more of your time (Yes, I do need to have the last word on everything, why do you ask?) Besides, antitheists are too easy.

So I got your panties in a bunch, and you've spent two pages bitching about me getting my panties in a bunch? As Yahtzee (bless his soul) might say "you're projecting hard enough to make Powerpoint presentations"

 

[Serge A. Storms]

Back on track...

Let me get this straight; the vast majority of Americans are "Modern Christian," they're pro-choice, for gay marriage, accept other religions, and have wiped away the feelings of xenophobia and jingoism that has followed us through the Cold War era.

In other news, Fox News is being replaced by X-treme "Rock, Paper, Scissors" and Rush Limbaugh is going back to his job at ESPN.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

1) I like internet language, it can be used to express a point in new ways not traditionally recognized in the English language.

2) You used citations to show that showed that not all Christians are against abortion, not all atheists are for abortion, and gay marriage is legal in some places. I never said that any of that wasn't true.

3) I don't deny that "Modern Christians" as you define them are "Christian," at least in that they define themselves as Christian, I'm simply pointing out that the definition of "Modern Christianity" that reduces everything to "Jesus loves you, love other people," is neither an honest representation of Christianity as the Bible defines Christianity or how a huge portion of the population sees it. Furthermore, suggesting that "Modern Christians" have no issue with gay rights, abortion, etc. seems to leave out the part where most states haven't legalized gay marriage and abortion remains one of the most heavily debated topics to this day. By that logic, such things wouldn't even be an issue.

1. You say there is no such thing as "modern Christianity", but are content to use "internet language"? What? So Christians aren't allowed to move with the times but the entire basis of communication in the western world has to adapt because of internet memes?

2. No, what you did do was bring up the subject of gays and abortionists. What I did was demonstrate that you were wrong in your claim that "The God that apparently wants people to stand on sidewalks with "abortion is murder signs?"" etc, and your general assertion that modern Christians think that way.

3. States, laws, and such things are not controlled purely by Christians, but by law makers. Remember that abortion is completely legal, and that it is a minority of vocal people (not just Christians, as I have proved), calling for its removal. Gay marriage requires a change in the law so profound it needs to be seriously considered and debated. Do not forget that marriage consititutes one of the corner-stones of modern society and common law across the world - property, ownership, parental rights, etc. ALL of that will need to be adjusted. Besides, if you think that even the Christian hardliners are treating gays bad now just take a look at what Stalin did to them. By logic, gay marriage and gay rights has always been an issue in every single country in the world, be it atheist, Muslim, Christian, Pagan, Hindu... Indeed it is only the Christian countries which have so far legalized it.

 

[Rokar333]

As Yahtzee (bless his soul) might say "you're projecting hard enough to make Powerpoint presentations"

Seriously, you're quoting Yahtzee now? Just because he contributes videos to the site doesn't mean we actually have to take him seriously.

Though it would be better for the thread if you kept arguing with cuddly_tomato, making this a thread with two contributors who both admit to not fully knowing what they're arguing about. I mean really, this is the religion that I renounced because it advocated giving everybody second chances, and the whole "God forgives everyone" thing and you are arguing that it is too close minded?

 

[cuddly_tomato]

As Yahtzee (bless his soul) might say "you're projecting hard enough to make Powerpoint presentations"

Seriously, you're quoting Yahtzee now? Just because he contributes videos to the site doesn't mean we actually have to take him seriously.

Though it would be better for the thread if you kept arguing with cuddly_tomato, making this a thread with two contributors who both admit to not fully knowing what they're arguing about. I mean really, this is the religion that I renounced because it advocated giving everybody second chances, and the whole "God forgives everyone" thing and you are arguing that it is too close minded?

I know exactly what I am arguing for, if not about - simple tolerance and respect for cultures and creeds which return the favour. Why that is a big ask from certain people, Mr Storms, is something that a shrinks couch should probably try to solve.

Let me get this straight; the vast majority of Americans are "Modern Christian," they're pro-choice, for gay marriage, accept other religions, and have wiped away the feelings of xenophobia and jingoism that has followed us through the Cold War era.

The silent majority, as long as those things are not shoved in their face?

Yes.