Those Whacky Christians, Volume 3.

[hasoos]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32228994/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

Where is the twilight zone music when you need it?

 

[BlazerWookee]

Did someone scare you with a crucifix or something? Why the Christophobia?

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Did someone scare you with a crucifix or something? Why the Christophobia?

A fair question. There's clearly a disconnect somewhere. And that is really too bad. To be so blinded is not a good thing.

 

[RR7]

Fair question? Why? Because it questions something you two believe in? Why does it have to be a phobia? Does Shooter have an Obamaphobia to post articles about Obama?

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Fair question? Why? Because it questions something you two believe in? Why does it have to be a phobia? Does Shooter have an Obamaphobia to post articles about Obama?

No, but hasoos is clearly predisposed to going out of his way to take every pot shot he can at any nut who uses religion as a means to do wrong and then implies it's all religion's fault. THAT, my fellow poster, is a disconnect. There's no harm in asking why.

 

[The Sebastian Express]

It is just as wrong to negatively stereotype Christians as it is to stereotype minorities, so I agree that BW's question is fair.

 

[RR7]

It is just as wrong to negatively stereotype Christians as it is to stereotype minorities, so I agree that BW's question is fair.

Who's stereotyping? He posted a link to an article.

 

[Minstrel]

It is just as wrong to negatively stereotype Christians as it is to stereotype minorities, so I agree that BW's question is fair.

Not just as wrong, in my opinion, since religion is chosen, whereas race/gender/sexuality aren't. Not that I think religious adherents should be persecuted or anything of the like, but it's as reasonable to stereotype based on religion as it is to stereotype based on something like party affiliation. There clearly are some things that connect Christians or Democrats or Muslims or Republicans, because they all chose to affiliate with their respective entity.

I think religious views are essentially the same as political views, in terms of being open to "attack" or questioning.

 

[PapaG]

Fair question? Why? Because it questions something you two believe in? Why does it have to be a phobia? Does Shooter have an Obamaphobia to post articles about Obama?

Shooter seems to be somewhat obsessed with Obama. I guess you could say that hasoos is somewhat obsessed with Christianity.

 

[The Sebastian Express]

Who's stereotyping? He posted a link to an article.

As it was said earlier he is posting links to negative Christian stories in an attempt to make Christianity look bad on a whole. If he just wanted to post a link to an article about people being crazy, he could have gone with "People are whacky" or "People are crazy" instead of adding the Christian part of it.

If I were to post an article to a crazy news story and happened to add "gay" "blacks" "Latinos" or "Muslims" a lot of people would be in an uproar, even if the crazy person identified as gay/Muslim or happen to be black or Latino. I see no reason why it should be different for adding Christian in this manner.

Minstrel,

I agree that it isn't wrong to add certain stereotypes to religions as it is a choice and you can come to a fair conclusion that a lot of religious people are going to hold the main core thoughts. I've no problem with that at all. What I have a problem with is negatively stereotyping all Christians/Muslims/Gays/Straights/Blacks/Whites/Latinos/Asians/Democrats/Republicans/Gossip Girl viewers based on the actions of a select outrageous actions of a few (in contrast to the overall population of said groups).

All that does is increase tensions and doesn't help us overcome racism, homophobia, and (certain) anti-religious tendencies.

 

[PapaG]

Not just as wrong, in my opinion, since religion is chosen, whereas race/gender/sexuality aren't. Not that I think religious adherents should be persecuted or anything of the like, but it's as reasonable to stereotype based on religion as it is to stereotype based on something like party affiliation. There clearly are some things that connect Christians or Democrats or Muslims or Republicans, because they all chose to affiliate with their respective entity.

I think religious views are essentially the same as political views, in terms of being open to "attack" or questioning.

I can agree with that, but I also think that the stereotyping that the title of this thread implies in relation to the article posted is wrong toward any group of people, religious or otherwise. Attributing the actions of a few people to a large group of people seems rather shallow, and it doesn't exactly exhibit a complex understanding of individual actions versus the traits of an entire group. I mean, I suppose I could be considered a "Christian" since I grew up Catholic (I don't attend church as an adult), but that doesn't mean I would deny my daughters the required health care to keep them alive.

So, with that, this thread is either a cheap shot at Christianity based on the actions of one disturbed man, or it is a reflection of the intellect of the person who posted the thread title. I'll let others decide that one.

 

[Minstrel]

Minstrel,

I agree that it isn't wrong to add certain stereotypes to religions as it is a choice and you can come to a fair conclusion that a lot of religious people are going to hold the main core thoughts. I've no problem with that at all. What I have a problem with is negatively stereotyping all Christians/Muslims/Gays/Straights/Blacks/Whites/Latinos/Asians/Democrats/Republicans/Gossip Girl viewers based on the actions of a select outrageous actions of a few (in contrast to the overall population of said groups).

All that does is increase tensions and doesn't help us overcome racism, homophobia, and (certain) anti-religious tendencies.

I can agree with that, but I also think that the stereotyping that the title of this thread implies in relation to the article posted is wrong toward any group of people, religious or otherwise. Attributing the actions of a few people to a large group of people seems rather shallow, and it doesn't exactly exhibit a complex understanding of individual actions versus the traits of an entire group. I mean, I suppose I could be considered a "Christian" since I grew up Catholic (I don't attend church as an adult), but that doesn't mean I would deny my daughters the required health care to keep them alive.

So, with that, this thread is either a cheap shot at Christianity based on the actions of one disturbed man, or it is a reflection of the intellect of the person who posted the thread title. I'll let others decide that one.

No argument with either one of you. I wasn't defending the concept behind this "series" of threads. I don't think there's any value in finding someone disturbed in a group and using it to characterize the entire group.

I just wanted to note that there's a difference between a chosen action/philosophy and an innate characteristic in terms of how it should reflect upon you.

 

[BrianFromWA]

Now this is a better example.

I've seen the story in a couple of reports, and yet no one's said what he was using as his proof text. I always confused by someone who takes odd positions based upon "I couldn't find it biblically".

On a related note, I'm wondering what this guy eats. I imagine it's wheat threshed in his own home, or goats, or manna from heaven. Because I can't find biblically where it says I should trust McDonald's more than God to keep me fed. Did he build his house with his hands? Or trust his company more than God to pay his wages, allowing him to pay the mortgage?