Is it attacking a person to question their beliefs?

[Quinlan]

Maybe people just feel defenseless because they don't wield the weapons of evidence :laser: and reason:moony:?

 

[Wyst]

From the homosexual PoV though, you are right in pointing this out Billy. How do people expect gays to suck it up and not fight back with words when the view they are fighting does everything in its power to keep them out of 'regular' society?

I know Christians get tired of getting picked on verbally, but honestly why do you expect to not have angry people attacking your view when there are so many people who are accepted as being Christian who legally and illegally do almost anything to punish non believers? And this is in the USA, not somewhere in a third world regime.

Justifying the picking on of Christians that are weaker in their ability to defend the faith when they haven't asked for a debate is retarded. Ultimately that's how this thread started - the question being, why do people take personal offense so quickly?

But where does that EVER work in real life?

Man that's like jumping little kid who's wearing a karate suit and explaining it to the officers later, "He was asking for it!! If he doesn't want a fight he shouldn't wear clothes like that. He totally asked for it!"

 

[bamf]

I technically agree with some of the ideas presented here. However; What good does reading the book do when there are very angry book readers in your front lawn looking to punish you for not accepting their interpretation?

What good does getting angry back do unless you have a knowledge of the basis of their beliefs? Just like categorizing all gays as this way or that, you can't categorize all Christians to believe this way or that way (or at least that's what I took out of her post). If you're unbiassedly educated of someone's point of view, you can begin to understand where they might be coming from (not saying it's justified) and have a better attack/defense against it.

Or you could go super-christ on them and turn the proverbial other cheek (assuming that they aren't actually threatening your well-being).

 

[Wyst]

What good does getting angry back do unless you have a knowledge of the basis of their beliefs? Just like categorizing all gays as this way or that, you can't categorize all Christians to believe this way or that way (or at least that's what I took out of her post). If you're unbiassedly educated of someone's point of view, you can begin to understand where they might be coming from (not saying it's justified) and have a better attack/defense against it.

Or you could go super-christ on them and turn the proverbial other cheek (assuming that they aren't actually threatening your well-being).

True - if you really wanted to legitimately fight in court about this, those that would like to legalize gay marriage would be fools to not study the bible and know their opponent's playbook.

 

[Solar Empath]

You are making the assumption that to attack the belief is to attack the person though. What I am saying is that the people who stand against 'Christianity' are taking offense at the Christianity that is attacking their lives. They are attacking the belief system because that is what is used as the reason for the bigotry. No one has an issue with someone going to church, reading their bible or singing hymns. Most people felt Mother Teresa was a true saint. But again, if a system of beliefs leads to the loss of your rights and privileges, would you not argue against it?

 

[Sithious]

Look at it like this.

Imagine you're in a cave, surrounded by bears, there's a snickers bar on the ground, do you eat it or do you eat the bears?

And does it really make a difference?

 

[bamf]

You are making the assumption that to attack the belief is to attack the person though. What I am saying is that the people who stand against 'Christianity' are taking offense at the Christianity that is attacking their lives. They are attacking the belief system because that is what is used as the reason for the bigotry. No one has an issue with someone going to church, reading their bible or singing hymns. Most people felt Mother Teresa was a true saint. But again, if a system of beliefs leads to the loss of your rights and privileges, would you not argue against it?

I agree with you in the bold, but the thing is not all Christians or Christianity works that way. The hateful groups get the coverage, but there are Christian sects that have nothing against homosexuality. Then there are those that do have something against homosexuality but do nothing legally about it. Like someone said before, it's throwing all Christians under the bus. Let the bigots be bigots and preach all the hate that they want. The place it has to stop is, like you said, when the loss of your rights and privileges begins.

 

[Solar Empath]

What good does getting angry back do unless you have a knowledge of the basis of their beliefs? Just like categorizing all gays as this way or that, you can't categorize all Christians to believe this way or that way (or at least that's what I took out of her post). If you're unbiassedly educated of someone's point of view, you can begin to understand where they might be coming from (not saying it's justified) and have a better attack/defense against it.

Or you could go super-christ on them and turn the proverbial other cheek (assuming that they aren't actually threatening your well-being).

If this were true then one would expect there to be a single denomination representing the majority of Christians. Knowing the Bible back to front won't turn a Baptist into a Methodist, or a Charismatic into a Catholic. And if an unbeliever starts quoting the bible there's always the quote about Satan knowing every verse to back up your personal/group interpretation.

And again, I do not dislike every christian on a personal basis: I do have issues with doctrines though. I do have issues with Christian politics.

 

[Wyst]

You are making the assumption that to attack the belief is to attack the person though. What I am saying is that the people who stand against 'Christianity' are taking offense at the Christianity that is attacking their lives. They are attacking the belief system because that is what is used as the reason for the bigotry. No one has an issue with someone going to church, reading their bible or singing hymns. Most people felt Mother Teresa was a true saint. But again, if a system of beliefs leads to the loss of your rights and privileges, would you not argue against it?

My point is that there is a difference between arguing with a debater who welcomes debate and stepping into a public arena to argue with those who aren't there to argue.

 

[bamf]

If this were true then one would expect there to be a single denomination representing the majority of Christians. Knowing the Bible back to front won't turn a Baptist into a Methodist, or a Charismatic into a Catholic. And if an unbeliever starts quoting the bible there's always the quote about Satan knowing every verse to back up your personal/group interpretation.

And again, I do not dislike every christian on a personal basis: I do have issues with doctrines though. I do have issues with Christian politics.

I'm with you in being against Christian politics, doctrines not so much as long as they don't turn into politics outside of the church.

But if you don't take the time to at least grasp a basic understanding of their beliefs, where are you forming yours? It's like trying to say 1984 was a stupid and pointless book, when all you've heard is what crazy 1984 lovers are saying about it.

 

[Wyst]

I do have issues with Christian politics.

I'm a Christian and I have issues with Christian politics. The Christian right needs to stay the heck out of politics.

 

[just me]

http://www.famous-quotes.com/topic.php?page=0&total=91&tid=995

some famous quotes regarding "reason"

 

[Solar Empath]

I agree with you in the bold, but the thing is not all Christians or Christianity works that way. The hateful groups get the coverage, but there are Christian sects that have nothing against homosexuality. Then there are those that do have something against homosexuality but do nothing legally about it. Like someone said before, it's throwing all Christians under the bus. Let the bigots be bigots and preach all the hate that they want. The place it has to stop is, like you said, when the loss of your rights and privileges begins.

I know. I agree. But they don't only get the coverage, they get the law on their side. And that's why people get angry. People have their children taken away. Gays watch as the parents of deceased mates walk away and leave them with nothing because their co habitation is not protected by law (I've seen that one happen myself, and it was all legal). And of course illegally, people get beaten and even killed.

This is the emotional reason why some people are angry. This is why some people can not let it lie. I know that Other Christians disagree with it. But there's no massive campaign for Good Christians United Against Bad Christian Abuse. Their voice is small. The voice that makes the laws is the one that screams Gay Is Not Okay. And Wiccans Worship the Devil.

 

[Solar Empath]

I'm a Christian and I have issues with Christian politics. The Christian right needs to stay the heck out of politics.

I know you do Wyst. I have no issue with you at all. You are a very respectful person. I like you. I respect your personal stand for your beliefs, even though I passionately disagree with your doctrine. If only your voice was the one that actually turned heads. But it isn't, and I believe that part of the reason is what the bible says when it is read from an inerrant, literal viewpoint. Which is why I stand against it.

My favorite line from the Gospels is John 11:35: "Jesus wept."
Unfortunately his most powerful followers today shed few tears for anyone not in their pew.

 

[Solar Empath]

I'm with you in being against Christian politics, doctrines not so much as long as they don't turn into politics outside of the church.

But if you don't take the time to at least grasp a basic understanding of their beliefs, where are you forming yours? It's like trying to say 1984 was a stupid and pointless book, when all you've heard is what crazy 1984 lovers are saying about it.

I have read the Bible cover to cover. I have studied theology as a layman. I do know what it says, and I am familiar with many of the arguments from scripture. But no amount of scripture quoted by a gay, lesbian or pagan will sway those who need to be swayed.

 

[bamf]

I have read the Bible cover to cover. I have studied theology as a layman. I do know what it says, and I am familiar with many of the arguments from scripture. But no amount of scripture quoted by a gay, lesbian or pagan will sway those who need to be swayed.

I agree, but it at least gives you an understanding of the religion and not just what the hatemongers are spewing.

 

[Solar Empath]

My point is that there is a difference between arguing with a debater who welcomes debate and stepping into a public arena to argue with those who aren't there to argue.

If you mean specifically the thread Ask a Christian, that's why I stayed out of that thread: it's about telling people what 00chris00 believes, and more generally what the participating christians believe. I respect that.

If instead you mean that noone can argue against a christian viewpoint espoused in general unless the author of the comment allows: I disagree. If someone states something that I disagree with in response to whatever-the-original-topic-is-about, I have the right to dissent. I wouldn't do it in a manner that attacks the holder of the view (unless the person is in fact a 'jerk'). But the viewpoint is fair game if it's in answer to a general topic.

 

[Solar Empath]

I agree, but it at least gives you an understanding of the religion and not just what the hatemongers are spewing.

True enough, I concede that knowledge is better than ignorance. I simply don't feel that such knowledge will sway the impassioned. I submit the speeches in Julius Caesar for Shakespearean evidence (which isn't evidence I know, but it works metaphorically).

 

[Wyst]

I know you do Wyst. I have no issue with you at all. You are a very respectful person. I like you. I respect your personal stand for your beliefs, even though I passionately disagree with your doctrine. If only your voice was the one that actually turned heads. But it isn't, and I believe that part of the reason is what the bible says when it is read from an inerrant, literal viewpoint. Which is why I stand against it.

My favorite line from the Gospels is John 11:35: "Jesus wept."
Unfortunately his most powerful followers today shed few tears for anyone not in their pew.

Reading the bible from an inerrant point of view and getting involved in hyped up about religious politics are two very different things.

I do believe that the bible is the inerrant word of God. I however do not interpret all of the bible literally. Where this the case, I'd have to interpret it's poetry literally - nobody takes poetry literally... at least I hope they don't.

So basically, it's not Christians that use the bible as an 'equalizer' of sorts that you have a problem with.. it's the God of the Bible that you have a problem with because you disagree with what He has to say about certain things. No?

I'm just trying to understand you, SE, I'm not trying to corner you or anything.

 

[Wyst]

If you mean specifically the thread Ask a Christian, that's why I stayed out of that thread: it's about telling people what 00chris00 believes, and more generally what the participating christians believe. I respect that.

Agreed - I don't think you jumped on that bandwagon in any way at all. I'm just speaking to what this thread's topic is: when does discussion become attacking.