[QUOTE="Rusty_Ripper"]Really why? Because their the majority? Thats no reason to make it aceptable. If you say something against the white race, thats racism. Saying something against Christianity is just like making fun of any other religion.sSubZerOo... Last I checked Christianity is put into the lime light as a "superior" religion that helped develope the nations of the west.. This overly flawed and ridiculous view has done little when many people to this day believe regions of the world like the Middle East are specifically violent for their religion (which is not true..).. Furthermore racism is looked down no matter what it is, but to me this is like the rich little kid crying that the poor kid got a bike and he didn't.. Whites control the wealth and political power in the United States, even when there is a Black president in office.. Its the same kind of ridiculous logic of people saying "Why do we have a black history month? We should have a white history month!" No we don't need a white history month because 90% of history of the United States is specifically about whites, even worse so historians were writing with that bias in mind towards other people such as Native Americans, blacks, minorities etc etc.. So seriously give it a rest.. That is the best comment I have seen in a long time.
Why is racism/saying things against caucasians and Christians not looked down on
This topic is locked from further discussion.
All races of man are discriminated against. TC is just focusing on one race. Also, TC got b&. Lol.Because apparently Caucasians are evil and deserve to be discriminated against.
The above statement is a joke, and is not to be taken seriously to any extent.
scorch-62
True racism??! You're a joke! :lol: Racism is racism. Period. It does not matter which ethnicity it is. You can not be serious...you have to be trolling me.clayron
What I meant was that racism is generally hatred. That is its main purpose.
You tried your little joke, but it failed.
I am not telling any jokes. You can not be serious. Racism is hatred. Hatred/Racism can manifests itself in a number of ways. Of course. But an impersonation of another person's voice isnt. You are saying that punches are the same as bullets. While I am saying that bullets can kill, and punches cannot.Really why? Because their the majority? Thats no reason to make it aceptable. If you say something against the white race, thats racism. Saying something against Christianity is just like making fun of any other religion.Rusty_RipperI agree. But I have no respect for Christians who say that, then turn around and declare that people are going to hell for various reasons.
[QUOTE="clayron"][QUOTE="peaceoutmedusa"]I am not telling any jokes. You can not be serious. Racism is hatred. Hatred/Racism can manifests itself in a number of ways. Of course. But an impersonation of another person's voice isnt. You are saying that punches are the same as bullets. While I am saying that bullets can kill, and punches cannot. I did not impersonate anyone. What are you talking about? Your post is complete non-sense. And punches can kill...What I meant was that racism is generally hatred. That is its main purpose.
You tried your little joke, but it failed.
peaceoutmedusa
Of course. But an impersonation of another person's voice isnt. You are saying that punches are the same as bullets. While I am saying that bullets can kill, and punches cannot. I did not impersonate anyone. What are you talking about? Your post is complete non-sense. And punches can kill... You got my point, and I am referring to when some black comedians do that whole "white peoples impersonation" thing.[QUOTE="peaceoutmedusa"][QUOTE="clayron"] I am not telling any jokes. You can not be serious. Racism is hatred. Hatred/Racism can manifests itself in a number of ways.clayron
[QUOTE="Rusty_Ripper"]Really why? Because their the majority? Thats no reason to make it aceptable. If you say something against the white race, thats racism. Saying something against Christianity is just like making fun of any other religion.Bourbons3I agree. But I have no respect for Christians who say that, then turn around and declare that people are going to hell for various reasons. IF anything Christianity is far more hostile publically towards the other sects historically.... The fact that to have a shot to get into office, you basically have to be a devout Christian to even have a winning chance.. Furthermore when Christianity and Western culture has been claimed as the best historically, you are going to get backlash from people.. The fact that revisionist historians are popping out of the wood work in the past two decades, speak volumes of histography.. In which historians, political scientists etc etc.. For years had their views in a pro eurocentric/american bias.. Furthermore the recent trend in which fundamentalist groups of all religions is having a re-emergence world wide is causing bitterness.. Because these fundamentalists regardless of which religions do not accept or want secular law, but their own religious laws..
[QUOTE="clayron"]I did not impersonate anyone. What are you talking about? Your post is complete non-sense. And punches can kill... You got my point, and I am referring to when some black comedians do that whole "white peoples impersonation" thing. Regardless of whether its an impersonation of whites are not, its still racist. And no I do not get your point. You are talking pure sillyness.[QUOTE="peaceoutmedusa"] Of course. But an impersonation of another person's voice isnt. You are saying that punches are the same as bullets. While I am saying that bullets can kill, and punches cannot. peaceoutmedusa
[QUOTE="Rusty_Ripper"]Really why? Because their the majority? Thats no reason to make it aceptable. If you say something against the white race, thats racism. Saying something against Christianity is just like making fun of any other religion.Bourbons3I agree. But I have no respect for Christians who say that, then turn around and declare that people are going to hell for various reasons. For Christians, there is only one reason you go to hell, and that is not believing that Jesus Christ died for your sins. Any Christian who says somebody is going to hell for some specific, tangible act should be disregarded, because that's not what the Christian religion teaches. Fundamentalists, unfortunately, come with the territory. Christian don't condemn anybody to hell or shun any person as beyond redemption. But if a Christian does believe a certain person is going to hell because he or she doesn't believe in Jesus Christ, that's just what they honestly believe. It's the whole basis for the way they live their lives. You can't expect them to ignore that fact. What's more, most Christians will actually try and help if they believe someone is going to hell, but then they are ridiculed for trying to "push their religion" on others. It's a lose-lose situation for Christians manufactured by intolerance. People claiming to be Muslims, however, can fly planes into two buildings and kill four thousand people, but it's somehow politically incorrect to question the motivations behind Islam or say anything that might perceived as negative about a Muslim. That's what the topic creator is referring to.
[QUOTE="peaceoutmedusa"][QUOTE="Atmanix"]but please dont act like it wasnt because of what your ancestors and white people before you did that made that lack of trust. The trust wasnt there anymore in that community. I havent met one black person who live here in Chicago (one of the most segregated cities in America) have never ever done that stuff that you said. Sure they were wrong for what they did, but it was because of the bitterness of their past that made that particular community that way. So if my great great great grandfather owned a slave, I'm somehow responsible for his wrongs, and I should be understanding if a black person mistrusts me because of the color of my skin? That's ridiculous. In fact, that's racist, If you truly believe that, you are a racist. And most of America is starting to realize the same thing. Your excuse is not going to be considered legitimate much longer. You've got Affirmative Action in education and in employment, you've got enhanced welfare, and it's all at the expense of what is a majority of white taxpayers. The fact is, many blacks (not all) have a chip on their shoulder and feel like they should be handed success rather than having to work for it like everybody else, because their grandparents were persecuted and they have ended up in a difficult situation. It creates a black hole (no pun intended), a situation in which our money is going to ghettos in the form of welfare never to be used for any constructive purpose, or to programs for blacks that have failed to show results time and time again. Yes, I said it, and it's not a racist comment. it's an economic reality. What's really racist is the continued attitude that less fortunate blacks need so much government help. It's crippling them. It's telling them, "You can't do it yourself." The unemployment rate among black males 18-25 is almost 50%. You simply can't help somebody who isn't willing to help himself or herself first. Sorry if you think whites are responsible for all the problems that black families face; that may have had some amount of truth to it 40 years ago, but it doesn't anymore. Get over it, and work as hard as you can. I and countless others have achieved success with that mindset, and I wasn't born or raised in a pristine situation, believe me. In fact, for the first 16 years of my life, I was worse off than may families who get welfare checks. Quit the excuses, try to help yourself. Good things happen if you work hard. Cynicism never got anyone anywhere.There are plenty of racist black people who hate white people.
"there isnt a lot of racial slurs that can be used against whites (that they generally dont accept)".
I don't accept any of the things I was called while living in a primarily black neighborhood for 3 years. I didn't appreciate being threatened and told that I didn't belong whenever I went to buy a Diet Coke at my local grocery store either.
The double-standards surrounding racism in the U.S. are unreal.
Elephant_Couple
1. No, you are not responsible for your great grandfather. 2. Yes, you should be understanding of the fact that some would mistrust you, when all others like you have caused them harm. It's only natural you would have to EARN trust. 3. There may be AA in education and employment, but if your high school is underfunded compared to the neighboring school, and there are no jobs in your community (I was just mad last night that there is no Borders or Barnes & Noble in the CITY of St. Louis, by the way), what then? 4. What the heck is "enhanced welfare"? While on that subject, you seem smart, so I suppose you know that blacks are not the highest recipient of Welfare, right? 5. I don't know any black person that feels they should be handed success, but I won't argue they exist. However, I would also argue a similar number of ALL races feel similarly. 6. There isn't much money going into ghettos in any way, shape, or form. 7. There are very few, if any "programs for blacks" in the U.S. 8. Don't worry, I doubt anyone thinks that whites are responsible for all the problems that blacks face. Just wanted to throw these out there...
[QUOTE="peaceoutmedusa"][QUOTE="clayron"] I did not impersonate anyone. What are you talking about? Your post is complete non-sense. And punches can kill...You got my point, and I am referring to when some black comedians do that whole "white peoples impersonation" thing. Regardless of whether its an impersonation of whites are not, its still racist. And no I do not get your point. You are talking pure sillyness.clayron
an impersonation (or just pointing out culture differences or stereotypes) is not automatically racist.
This appears to stem from some sort of personal problem you're having that a lot of whites and Christians (at least in the United States) seem to experience, not a legitimate threat to any just cause. You're going to have to deal with it to your best of ability.
[QUOTE="Bourbons3"][QUOTE="Rusty_Ripper"]Really why? Because their the majority? Thats no reason to make it aceptable. If you say something against the white race, thats racism. Saying something against Christianity is just like making fun of any other religion.Elephant_CoupleI agree. But I have no respect for Christians who say that, then turn around and declare that people are going to hell for various reasons. For Christians, there is only one reason you go to hell, and that is not believing that Jesus Christ died for your sins. Any Christian who says somebody is going to hell for some specific, tangible act should be disregarded, because that's not what the Christian religion teaches. Fundamentalists, unfortunately, come with the territory. Christian don't condemn anybody to hell or shun any person as beyond redemption. But if a Christian does believe a certain person is going to hell because he or she doesn't believe in Jesus Christ, that's just what they honestly believe. It's the whole basis for the way they live their lives. You can't expect them to ignore that fact. What's more, most Christians will actually try and help if they believe someone is going to hell, but then they are ridiculed for trying to "push their religion" on others. It's a lose-lose situation for Christians manufactured by intolerance. People claiming to be Muslims, however, can fly planes into two buildings and kill four thousand people, but it's somehow politically incorrect to question the motivations behind Islam or say anything that might perceived as negative about a Muslim. That's what the topic creator is referring to.
.. This is wrong because its a oversimplification and stereotyping.. Many Christian sects require much more then just the belief in Jesus for their salvation.. Calvinists for instance believed that at birth they were already pre-ordained to go to heaven or hell regardless of what they done or believed in.
I agree. But I have no respect for Christians who say that, then turn around and declare that people are going to hell for various reasons. IF anything Christianity is far more hostile publically towards the other sects historically.... The fact that to have a shot to get into office, you basically have to be a devout Christian to even have a winning chance.. Furthermore when Christianity and Western culture has been claimed as the best historically, you are going to get backlash from people.. The fact that revisionist historians are popping out of the wood work in the past two decades, speak volumes of histography.. In which historians, political scientists etc etc.. For years had their views in a pro eurocentric/american bias.. Furthermore the recent trend in which fundamentalist groups of all religions is having a re-emergence world wide is causing bitterness.. Because these fundamentalists regardless of which religions do not accept or want secular law, but their own religious laws.. Fundamentalism in religion always existed, and it is at one of its lowest points today ftr. As a black Christian, I find it offensive how people would target the religion (which is civil) but no the human being. Because all humans do evil and atrocious things. And to truly answer your question, I wouldnt dare have a non christian person run the mass lives of people, because I dont leave my religion at home, that wasnt the point of my religion in the first place.[QUOTE="Bourbons3"][QUOTE="Rusty_Ripper"]Really why? Because their the majority? Thats no reason to make it aceptable. If you say something against the white race, thats racism. Saying something against Christianity is just like making fun of any other religion.sSubZerOo
excuse me???[QUOTE="peaceoutmedusa"][QUOTE="Snipes_2"]
Obviously Monkeys.
Snipes_2
What?
Regardless of whether its an impersonation of whites are not, its still racist. And no I do not get your point. You are talking pure sillyness.[QUOTE="clayron"][QUOTE="peaceoutmedusa"] You got my point, and I am referring to when some black comedians do that whole "white peoples impersonation" thing.TBoogy
an impersonation (or just pointing out culture differences or stereotypes) is not automatically racist.
You're right. I shouldn't be absolute in saying that. But, my overall point, as stated by my earlier posts, still stands. Blacks and Christians are just as racist and intolerant as everyone else.[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]IF anything Christianity is far more hostile publically towards the other sects historically.... The fact that to have a shot to get into office, you basically have to be a devout Christian to even have a winning chance.. Furthermore when Christianity and Western culture has been claimed as the best historically, you are going to get backlash from people.. The fact that revisionist historians are popping out of the wood work in the past two decades, speak volumes of histography.. In which historians, political scientists etc etc.. For years had their views in a pro eurocentric/american bias.. Furthermore the recent trend in which fundamentalist groups of all religions is having a re-emergence world wide is causing bitterness.. Because these fundamentalists regardless of which religions do not accept or want secular law, but their own religious laws.. Fundamentalism in religion always existed, and it is at one of its lowest points today ftr. As a black Christian, I find it offensive how people would target the religion (which is civil) but no the human being. Because all humans do evil and atrocious things. And to truly answer your question, I wouldnt dare have a non christian person run the mass lives of people, because I dont leave my religion at home, that wasnt the point of my religion in the first place.[QUOTE="Bourbons3"] I agree. But I have no respect for Christians who say that, then turn around and declare that people are going to hell for various reasons.peaceoutmedusa
:| No infact we have seen a re-emergence of fundamentalism in the past 15 years across the glob.. Evangelical movement is larger then ever for instance within the United States.. Middle Eastern Islamists are larger in numbers.. The suicide bombing for instance is a relatively new things that only began during the 1980s if I remember correctly.. Hell the Palestianian and Israeli conflict to many people they thought it was due to religious belief, when it is mainly a nationalist conflict.. Furthermore religion should have nothing to do with a politician in obeying the secular laws we have today..
Regardless of whether its an impersonation of whites are not, its still racist. And no I do not get your point. You are talking pure sillyness.clayron
an impersonation (or just pointing out culture differences or stereotypes) is not automatically racist.
You're right. I shouldn't be absolute in saying that. But, my overall point, as stated by my earlier posts, still stands. Blacks and Christians are just as racist and intolerant as everyone else. no it isnt, because you havent have a mass indecency towards white people. Not only just in recent history, but ever. What you dont understand is that we dont live in this world where everything is the same for every group.[QUOTE="peaceoutmedusa"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"] IF anything Christianity is far more hostile publically towards the other sects historically.... The fact that to have a shot to get into office, you basically have to be a devout Christian to even have a winning chance.. Furthermore when Christianity and Western culture has been claimed as the best historically, you are going to get backlash from people.. The fact that revisionist historians are popping out of the wood work in the past two decades, speak volumes of histography.. In which historians, political scientists etc etc.. For years had their views in a pro eurocentric/american bias.. Furthermore the recent trend in which fundamentalist groups of all religions is having a re-emergence world wide is causing bitterness.. Because these fundamentalists regardless of which religions do not accept or want secular law, but their own religious laws..
Fundamentalism in religion always existed, and it is at one of its lowest points today ftr. As a black Christian, I find it offensive how people would target the religion (which is civil) but no the human being. Because all humans do evil and atrocious things. And to truly answer your question, I wouldnt dare have a non christian person run the mass lives of people, because I dont leave my religion at home, that wasnt the point of my religion in the first place.:| No infact we have seen a re-emergence of fundamentalism in the past 15 years across the glob.. Evangelical movement is larger then ever for instance within the United States.. Middle Eastern Islamists are larger in numbers.. The suicide bombing for instance is a relatively new things that only began during the 1980s if I remember correctly.. Hell the Palestianian and Israeli conflict to many people they thought it was due to religious belief, when it is mainly a nationalist conflict.. Furthermore religion should have nothing to do with a politician in obeying the secular laws we have today..
I fail to see why you mentioned suicide bombers, that isnt fundamentalism at all.[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="peaceoutmedusa"] Fundamentalism in religion always existed, and it is at one of its lowest points today ftr. As a black Christian, I find it offensive how people would target the religion (which is civil) but no the human being. Because all humans do evil and atrocious things. And to truly answer your question, I wouldnt dare have a non christian person run the mass lives of people, because I dont leave my religion at home, that wasnt the point of my religion in the first place. peaceoutmedusa
:| No infact we have seen a re-emergence of fundamentalism in the past 15 years across the glob.. Evangelical movement is larger then ever for instance within the United States.. Middle Eastern Islamists are larger in numbers.. The suicide bombing for instance is a relatively new things that only began during the 1980s if I remember correctly.. Hell the Palestianian and Israeli conflict to many people they thought it was due to religious belief, when it is mainly a nationalist conflict.. Furthermore religion should have nothing to do with a politician in obeying the secular laws we have today..
I fail to see why you mentioned suicide bombers, that isnt fundamentalism at all.A fundamentalist is another word for a extremist in conservative ideals, in this matter in religious ideals.. That goes in line with the suicide bombings..
[QUOTE="clayron"][QUOTE="TBoogy"]You're right. I shouldn't be absolute in saying that. But, my overall point, as stated by my earlier posts, still stands. Blacks and Christians are just as racist and intolerant as everyone else. no it isnt, because you havent have a mass indecency towards white people. Not only just in recent history, but ever. What you dont understand is that we dont live in this world where everything is the same for every group.an impersonation (or just pointing out culture differences or stereotypes) is not automatically racist.
peaceoutmedusa
And what you do not understand is that the past is not an absolute indicator of what is or is not racism. Racism 1) a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race and 2) racial prejudice or discrimination. Any ethnicity is capable of racism. Regardless of whether or not they have had some mass indecency towards another race in the past.
For Christians, there is only one reason you go to hell, and that is not believing that Jesus Christ died for your sins. Any Christian who says somebody is going to hell for some specific, tangible act should be disregarded, because that's not what the Christian religion teaches. Fundamentalists, unfortunately, come with the territory. Christian don't condemn anybody to hell or shun any person as beyond redemption. But if a Christian does believe a certain person is going to hell because he or she doesn't believe in Jesus Christ, that's just what they honestly believe. It's the whole basis for the way they live their lives. You can't expect them to ignore that fact. What's more, most Christians will actually try and help if they believe someone is going to hell, but then they are ridiculed for trying to "push their religion" on others. It's a lose-lose situation for Christians manufactured by intolerance. People claiming to be Muslims, however, can fly planes into two buildings and kill four thousand people, but it's somehow politically incorrect to question the motivations behind Islam or say anything that might perceived as negative about a Muslim. That's what the topic creator is referring to.[QUOTE="Elephant_Couple"][QUOTE="Bourbons3"] I agree. But I have no respect for Christians who say that, then turn around and declare that people are going to hell for various reasons.sSubZerOo
.. This is wrong because its a oversimplification and stereotyping.. Many Christian sects require much more then just the belief in Jesus for their salvation.. Calvinists for instance believed that at birth they were already pre-ordained to go to heaven or hell regardless of what they done or believed in.
Yes. Predestined to believe in Jesus Christ, and hence predestined for eternity in heaven. Many Methodists believe that as well. I will say it again. The ONLY reason Christians believe a person will go to hell is if that person does not believe Jesus Christ died for his or her sins. Christianity is not a complex religion at all. The details can be complicated and the subject of debate and disagreement, which is where the sects have their differences, but NO Christian denomination believes anything other than faith in Jesus Christ can save you. None...not the Catholics, not the Baptists, not the Methodists, not Church of Christ, not the Episcopalians...none of them. If you have been taught or led to believe that something other than faith in Jesus Christ, for Christians, is required for salvation you have been misled or taught by someone who was misinformed. That's that. It's not a generalization.Really why? Because their the majority? Thats no reason to make it aceptable. If you say something against the white race, thats racism. Saying something against Christianity is just like making fun of any other religion.Rusty_RipperRacism against any race is unacceptable. Religion, however, can be criticized. Why? Because religion is a belief. Just like you can criticize someone's political views or favorite sports team, you can criticize their religion. It doesn't matter whether it's Islam, Christianity, Atheism, Hinduism, etc; it can be criticized. Religion is also up to choice. You can choose which god(s) you want to worship, and others can criticize your choice, whether you like it or not. That's the basic idea of free speech. Religion =/= Race
Really why? Because their the majority? Thats no reason to make it aceptable. If you say something against the white race, thats racism. Saying something against Christianity is just like making fun of any other religion.Rusty_RipperIt's just one of the many stupid double standards that made its way into society.
[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="Elephant_Couple"] For Christians, there is only one reason you go to hell, and that is not believing that Jesus Christ died for your sins. Any Christian who says somebody is going to hell for some specific, tangible act should be disregarded, because that's not what the Christian religion teaches. Fundamentalists, unfortunately, come with the territory. Christian don't condemn anybody to hell or shun any person as beyond redemption. But if a Christian does believe a certain person is going to hell because he or she doesn't believe in Jesus Christ, that's just what they honestly believe. It's the whole basis for the way they live their lives. You can't expect them to ignore that fact. What's more, most Christians will actually try and help if they believe someone is going to hell, but then they are ridiculed for trying to "push their religion" on others. It's a lose-lose situation for Christians manufactured by intolerance. People claiming to be Muslims, however, can fly planes into two buildings and kill four thousand people, but it's somehow politically incorrect to question the motivations behind Islam or say anything that might perceived as negative about a Muslim. That's what the topic creator is referring to.Elephant_Couple
.. This is wrong because its a oversimplification and stereotyping.. Many Christian sects require much more then just the belief in Jesus for their salvation.. Calvinists for instance believed that at birth they were already pre-ordained to go to heaven or hell regardless of what they done or believed in.
Yes. Predestined to believe in Jesus Christ, and hence predestined for eternity in heaven. Many Methodists believe that as well. I will say it again. The ONLY reason Christians believe a person will go to hell is if that person does not believe Jesus Christ died for his or her sins. Christianity is not a complex religion at all. The details can be complicated and the subject of debate and disagreement, which is where the sects have their differences, but NO Christian denomination believes anything other than faith in Jesus Christ can save you. None...not the Catholics, not the Baptists, not the Methodists, not Church of Christ, not the Episcopalians...none of them. If you have been taught or led to believe that something other than faith in Jesus Christ, for Christians, is required for salvation you have been misled or taught by someone who was misinformed. That's that. It's not a generalization.Yes it is.. Accepting Jesus is only one of the beliefs for salvation, some require more then that.. If this wasn't the case Luther would never hadargued on salvation the like with the Roman church..http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_salvation#Roman_Catholicism
Yes. Predestined to believe in Jesus Christ, and hence predestined for eternity in heaven. Many Methodists believe that as well. I will say it again. The ONLY reason Christians believe a person will go to hell is if that person does not believe Jesus Christ died for his or her sins. Christianity is not a complex religion at all. The details can be complicated and the subject of debate and disagreement, which is where the sects have their differences, but NO Christian denomination believes anything other than faith in Jesus Christ can save you. None...not the Catholics, not the Baptists, not the Methodists, not Church of Christ, not the Episcopalians...none of them. If you have been taught or led to believe that something other than faith in Jesus Christ, for Christians, is required for salvation you have been misled or taught by someone who was misinformed. That's that. It's not a generalization.[QUOTE="Elephant_Couple"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]
.. This is wrong because its a oversimplification and stereotyping.. Many Christian sects require much more then just the belief in Jesus for their salvation.. Calvinists for instance believed that at birth they were already pre-ordained to go to heaven or hell regardless of what they done or believed in.
sSubZerOo
Yes it is.. Accepting Jesus is only one of the beliefs for salvation, some require more then that.. If this wasn't the case Luther would never hadargued on salvation the like with the Roman church..http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_salvation#Roman_Catholicism
I happen to be Catholic, and I happen to have studied Catholic theology as well. Nowhere in that article does it say that something other than believing in Jesus' sacrifice is required for salvation. I'm not sure what you're reading. All of those possibilities on which salvation is contingent ultimately require that belief to attain salvation. With it, you go to heaven. Without it, you don't. How you come to realize that sacrifice is irrelevant.[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="Rusty_Ripper"]Really why? Because their the majority? Thats no reason to make it aceptable. If you say something against the white race, thats racism. Saying something against Christianity is just like making fun of any other religion.peaceoutmedusa... Last I checked Christianity is put into the lime light as a "superior" religion that helped develope the nations of the west.. This overly flawed and ridiculous view has done little when many people to this day believe regions of the world like the Middle East are specifically violent for their religion (which is not true..).. Furthermore racism is looked down no matter what it is, but to me this is like the rich little kid crying that the poor kid got a bike and he didn't.. Whites control the wealth and political power in the United States, even when there is a Black president in office.. Its the same kind of ridiculous logic of people saying "Why do we have a black history month? We should have a white history month!" No we don't need a white history month because 90% of history of the United States is specifically about whites, even worse so historians were writing with that bias in mind towards other people such as Native Americans, blacks, minorities etc etc.. So seriously give it a rest.. That is the best comment I have seen in a long time. Listen to these people. It's not about what one says. It's about the social consequences derive from what is assuming or being said in the population.
[QUOTE="Rusty_Ripper"]Really why? Because their the majority? Thats no reason to make it aceptable. If you say something against the white race, thats racism. Saying something against Christianity is just like making fun of any other religion.dk00111Racism against any race is unacceptable. Religion, however, can be criticized. Why? Because religion is a belief. Just like you can criticize someone's political views or favorite sports team, you can criticize their religion. It doesn't matter whether it's Islam, Christianity, Atheism, Hinduism, etc; it can be criticized. Religion is also up to choice. You can choose which god(s) you want to worship, and others can criticize your choice, whether you like it or not. That's the basic idea of free speech. Religion =/= Race So is it okay to call Christians terrorists? Or to say that "Muslims have a common goal to repopulate and assimilate in other countries?" Or to say that Wiccans are evil devil worshippers? Or to say that Catholics are phony Christians? Or to equate religious people to people who are bipolar or have mental disorders?
I don't think so. Just because the name doesn't fit with "racism" doesn't mean that it isn't another form of bigotry.
[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="Elephant_Couple"] Yes. Predestined to believe in Jesus Christ, and hence predestined for eternity in heaven. Many Methodists believe that as well. I will say it again. The ONLY reason Christians believe a person will go to hell is if that person does not believe Jesus Christ died for his or her sins. Christianity is not a complex religion at all. The details can be complicated and the subject of debate and disagreement, which is where the sects have their differences, but NO Christian denomination believes anything other than faith in Jesus Christ can save you. None...not the Catholics, not the Baptists, not the Methodists, not Church of Christ, not the Episcopalians...none of them. If you have been taught or led to believe that something other than faith in Jesus Christ, for Christians, is required for salvation you have been misled or taught by someone who was misinformed. That's that. It's not a generalization. Elephant_Couple
Yes it is.. Accepting Jesus is only one of the beliefs for salvation, some require more then that.. If this wasn't the case Luther would never hadargued on salvation the like with the Roman church..http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_salvation#Roman_Catholicism
I happen to be Catholic, and I happen to have studied Catholic theology as well. Nowhere in that article does it say that something other than believing in Jesus' sacrifice is required for salvation. I'm not sure what you're reading. All of those possibilities on which salvation is contingent ultimately require that belief to attain salvation. With it, you go to heaven. Without it, you don't. How you come to realize that sacrifice is irrelevant.Roman Catholicism teaching on justification is the principal cause of division from Protestantism, and holds a soul is justified "by reason of a perfect act of charity elicited by a well disposed sinner or by virtue of the Sacrament either of Baptism or of Penance." This condition can be appropriated by proxy, in recognition of the faith of a qualified sponsor, and is held to be effected by an actual change in the recipient's heart, that of the infused love of God, so that the justified are not only reputed to be righteous, "but we are truly called and are just, receiving justice within us". The Roman church was big on justifying salvation not just through the belief but you had to committ acts of donation and the like to cement your claim.. This one was of the main things Luther argued against, that the church was taking advantage of the teachings of Jesus to force the population to donate money which would absolve them of their sins.. Furthermore baptism for some was seen as a MUST if you ever were going to recieve salvation from Christ.. So yet again, no it is not as simple as that..
I happen to be Catholic, and I happen to have studied Catholic theology as well. Nowhere in that article does it say that something other than believing in Jesus' sacrifice is required for salvation. I'm not sure what you're reading. All of those possibilities on which salvation is contingent ultimately require that belief to attain salvation. With it, you go to heaven. Without it, you don't. How you come to realize that sacrifice is irrelevant.[QUOTE="Elephant_Couple"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]
Yes it is.. Accepting Jesus is only one of the beliefs for salvation, some require more then that.. If this wasn't the case Luther would never hadargued on salvation the like with the Roman church..http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_salvation#Roman_Catholicism
sSubZerOo
Roman Catholicism teaching on justification is the principal cause of division from Protestantism, and holds a soul is justified "by reason of a perfect act of charity elicited by a well disposed sinner or by virtue of the Sacrament either of Baptism or of Penance." This condition can be appropriated by proxy, in recognition of the faith of a qualified sponsor, and is held to be effected by an actual change in the recipient's heart, that of the infused love of God, so that the justified are not only reputed to be righteous, "but we are truly called and are just, receiving justice within us". The Roman church was big on justifying salvation not just through the belief but you had to committ acts of donation and the like to cement your claim.. This one was of the main things Luther argued against, that the church was taking advantage of the teachings of Jesus to force the population to donate money which would absolve them of their sins.. Furthermore baptism for some was seen as a MUST if you ever were going to recieve salvation from Christ.. So yet again, no it is not as simple as that..
Everything you just said was either discontinued centuries ago or was resolved at Vatican II. Wikipedia, in this instance, is outdated and wrong. Not only because of what we're arguing about, but also because of its claim about what the principal reason for Luther's split was. The main reason Protestantism exists today is not because of indulges and the like, which the Catholic Church acknowledged as wrong over 200 years ago. It is because of the disagreement over the role of the Eucharist in mass proceedings- whether or not the reception of the body and blood is literal or a representation. All of this aside though, you've just proved your original point irrelevant. If no protestants believe that works can get you to heaven, and if Catholics only believe that can happen in a certain rare and extenuating circumstance (which they no longer believe, as I just said), that still means the extreme majority of Christians believe that it's faith in Jesus Christ that is required for salvation.Racism against any race is unacceptable. Religion, however, can be criticized. Why? Because religion is a belief. Just like you can criticize someone's political views or favorite sports team, you can criticize their religion. It doesn't matter whether it's Islam, Christianity, Atheism, Hinduism, etc; it can be criticized. Religion is also up to choice. You can choose which god(s) you want to worship, and others can criticize your choice, whether you like it or not. That's the basic idea of free speech. Religion =/= Race So is it okay to call Christians terrorists? Or to say that "Muslims have a common goal to repopulate and assimilate in other countries?" Or to say that Wiccans are evil devil worshippers? Or to say that Catholics are phony Christians? Or to equate religious people to people who are bipolar or have mental disorders?[QUOTE="dk00111"][QUOTE="Rusty_Ripper"]Really why? Because their the majority? Thats no reason to make it aceptable. If you say something against the white race, thats racism. Saying something against Christianity is just like making fun of any other religion.PannicAtack
I don't think so. Just because the name doesn't fit with "racism" doesn't mean that it isn't another form of bigotry.
There is a HUGE difference between stereotyping and criticism. Calling Catholics phony Christians or Christians terrorists would be the same as calling Democrats Communists or calling Dallas Cowboy fans mentally challenged. What I am trying to say is that there should be absolutely no problem with someone criticizing any religion on its sexist values. Criticizing Islam for what it teaches, such as the "jihad", isn't the same as calling Muslims terrorists.Edit: Fixed a few typos.
[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="Elephant_Couple"] I happen to be Catholic, and I happen to have studied Catholic theology as well. Nowhere in that article does it say that something other than believing in Jesus' sacrifice is required for salvation. I'm not sure what you're reading. All of those possibilities on which salvation is contingent ultimately require that belief to attain salvation. With it, you go to heaven. Without it, you don't. How you come to realize that sacrifice is irrelevant. Elephant_Couple
Roman Catholicism teaching on justification is the principal cause of division from Protestantism, and holds a soul is justified "by reason of a perfect act of charity elicited by a well disposed sinner or by virtue of the Sacrament either of Baptism or of Penance." This condition can be appropriated by proxy, in recognition of the faith of a qualified sponsor, and is held to be effected by an actual change in the recipient's heart, that of the infused love of God, so that the justified are not only reputed to be righteous, "but we are truly called and are just, receiving justice within us". The Roman church was big on justifying salvation not just through the belief but you had to committ acts of donation and the like to cement your claim.. This one was of the main things Luther argued against, that the church was taking advantage of the teachings of Jesus to force the population to donate money which would absolve them of their sins.. Furthermore baptism for some was seen as a MUST if you ever were going to recieve salvation from Christ.. So yet again, no it is not as simple as that..
Everything you just said was either discontinued centuries ago or was resolved at Vatican II. Wikipedia, in this instance, is outdated and wrong. Not only because of what we're arguing about, but also because of its claim about what the principal reason for Luther's split was. The main reason Protestantism exists today is not because of indulges and the like, which the Catholic Church acknowledged as wrong over 200 years ago. It is because of the disagreement over the role of the Eucharist in mass proceedings- whether or not the reception of the body and blood is literal or a representation. All of this aside though, you've just proved your original point irrelevant. If no protestants believe that works can get you to heaven, and if Catholics only believe that can happen in a certain rare and extenuating circumstance (which they no longer believe, as I just said), that still means the extreme majority of Christians believe that it's faith in Jesus Christ that is required for salvation.Are you suggesting that every sect doesn't believe that with the hundreds of unique ones out there? :| I beg to differ..
So is it okay to call Christians terrorists? Or to say that "Muslims have a common goal to repopulate and assimilate in other countries?" Or to say that Wiccans are evil devil worshippers? Or to say that Catholics are phony Christians? Or to equate religious people to people who are bipolar or have mental disorders?[QUOTE="PannicAtack"]
[QUOTE="dk00111"] Racism against any race is unacceptable. Religion, however, can be criticized. Why? Because religion is a belief. Just like you can criticize someone's political views or favorite sports team, you can criticize their religion. It doesn't matter whether it's Islam, Christianity, Atheism, Hinduism, etc; it can be criticized. Religion is also up to choice. You can choose which god(s) you want to worship, and others can criticize your choice, whether you like it or not. That's the basic idea of free speech. Religion =/= Racedk00111
I don't think so. Just because the name doesn't fit with "racism" doesn't mean that it isn't another form of bigotry.
There is a HUGE difference between stereotyping and criticism. Calling Catholics phony Christians or Christians terrorists would be the same as calling Democrats Communists or calling Dallas Cowboy fans mentally challenged. What I am trying to say is that there should be absolutely no problem with someone criticizing any religion on its sexist values. Criticizing Islam for what it teaches, such as the "jihad", isn't the same as calling Muslims terrorists.Edit: Fixed a few typos.
Okay. Fair enough.Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment