(POL + REL) An Easter message to reclaim the Christian faith

[SirFozzie]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/04/martin.jesus/index.html

By Roland Martin
CNN Contributor

Editor's note: Roland Martin is a CNN contributor and talk-show host on WVON-AM in Chicago, Illinois. He is the author of "Listening to the Spirit Within: 50 Perspectives on Faith."

NEW YORK (CNN) -- When did it come to the point that being a Christian meant caring about only two issues,* abortion and homosexuality?

Ask the nonreligious what being a Christian today means, and based on what we see and read, it's a good bet they will say that followers of Jesus Christ are preoccupied with those two points.

Poverty? Whatever. Homelessness? An afterthought. A widening gap between the have and have-nots? Immaterial. Divorce? The divorce rate of Christians mirrors the national average, so that's no big deal.

The point is that being a Christian should be about more than abortion and homosexuality, and it's high time that those not considered a part of the religious right expose the hypocrisy of our brothers and sisters in Christianity and take back the faith. And those on the left who believe they have a "get out of sin free" card must not be allowed to justify their actions.

Many people believe we are engaged in a holy war. And we are. But it's not with Muslims. The real war -- * the silent war *-- is being engaged among Christians, and that's what we must set our sights on.

As we celebrate Holy Week, our focus is on the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. But aren't we also to recommit ourselves to live more like Jesus? Did Jesus spend his time focusing on all that he didn't like, or did Jesus raise the consciousness of the people to understand love, compassion and teach them about following the will of God?

As a layman studying to receive a master's in Christian communications, and the husband of an ordained minister, it's troubling to listen to "Christian radio" and hear the kind of hate spewing out of the mouths of my brothers and sisters in the faith.

In fact, I've grown tired of people who pimp God. That's right; we have a litany of individuals today who are holy, holy, holy, sing hallelujah, talk about how they love the Lord, but when it's time to walk the walk, somehow the spirit evaporates.

A couple of years ago I took exception to an e-mail blast from the Concerned Women for America. The group was angry that Democrats were blocking certain judges put up for the federal bench by President Bush. It called on Americans to fight Democrats who wanted to keep Christians off the bench.

So I called and sent an e-mail asking, "So, where were you when President Clinton appointed Christian judges to the bench? Were they truly behind Christian judges, or Republican Christian judges?

Surprise, surprise. There was never a response.

An African-American pastor I know in the Midwest was asked by a group of mostly white clergy to march in an anti-abortion rally. He was fine with that, but then asked the clergy if they would work with him to fight crack houses in predominantly black neighborhoods.

"That's really your problem," he was told.

They saw abortion as a moral imperative, but not a community ravaged by crack.

If abortion and gay marriage are part of the Christian agenda, I have no issue with that. Those are moral issues that should be of importance to people of the faith, but the agenda should be much, much broader.

I'm looking for the day when Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Joyce Meyer, James Dobson, Tony Perkins, James Kennedy, Rod Parsley, " Patriot Pastors" and Rick Warren will sit at the same table as Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Cynthia Hale, Eddie L. Long, James Meek, Fred Price, Emmanuel Cleaver and Floyd Flake to establish a call to arms on racism, AIDS, police brutality, a national health care policy, our sorry education system.

If they all say they love and worship one God, one Jesus, let's see them rally their members behind one agenda.

I stand here today not as a Republican or a liberal. And don't bother calling me a Democrat or a conservative. I am a man,* an African-American man *who has professed that Jesus Christ is Lord, and that's to whom I bow down.

If you concur, it's time to stop allowing a chosen few to speak for the masses. Quit letting them define the agenda.

So put on the full armor of God because we have work to do.

[DaddyTorgo]

in before the lock

[DaddyTorgo]

dola

and in before the inevitable bubbawheels appearance and/or the bannination that will ensue

[SirFozzie]

This was not posted as an attempt to troll, or touch off a war.. this is honestly what I think. Mister Martin couldn't have said it any better.

[WVUFAN]

Let me say my two cents here.

Thanks for the post, SirFozzie. I agree with what it says completely.

[ISiddiqui]

It's quite a powerful statement. I do think that those Christians who only focus on abortion and homosexuality tend to give the faith a bad name. Jesus was about love and compassion and it seems some in the Christian faith have forgotten those lessons. I'm surprised that there isn't more of a focus on poverty, since Jesus was pretty big into the meek.

[ISiddiqui]

forum pausing dola

[ISiddiqui]

forum pausing double dola

[SirFozzie]

Thanks WVUFan .. a minute after I posted that, I was talking with DaddyTorgo, and I expected an almighty flame war to bust out over it, but here at work, I read that.

Then I read it again.

And I said to myself. "Damn, there's nothing in there I can really disagree with".

Then I read it again.

And I'm still appreciating his words.

[Young Drachma]

I like.

[Honolulu_Blue]

I don't think this is flame war type stuff. It's an honest statement. Wasn't there some angelical leader who was recently asked to resign or resigned or something like that for pretty much making the same point?

If I recall correctly, he wanted to broaden the group's (not sure which one) focus to start taking on issues like poverty, AIDS, maybe even global warming and focus less on abortion and gay marriage and was pretty much told that was not going to happen.

[SirFozzie]

Some of the comments on the CNN article were basically "But Abortion KILLS! Screw all the other issues!", (two of the more virulent posts were there one minute, gone the next.)

[Coder]

I'm not religious, but that article is great. I have no problem with religion or with people who have faith, in fact, I have several believing friends... What I do have, however, is a problem with bigotry.

[CraigSca]

I personally think this has already been done, but this doesn't sell papers, nor does it get people in the media as "Christian Leaders".

My local church is all about helping the local community through food banks, shelters, etc., and stipulates exactly how each dollar given to the church is spent. Does this warrant a full-page story in the community newspaper? No. That's what churches do. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people who speak to the media in the name of the church who couldn't buy a clue, but that's the nature of the beast.

[Marc Vaughan]

I thought the article was well written and pretty darn interesting (and unfortunately probably fairly accurate also).

[SirFozzie]

I personally think this has already been done, but this doesn't sell papers, nor does it get people in the media as "Christian Leaders".

It seems to become a "Christian Leader", (not only in the media but in terms of congregation, donations, etcetera).. You have to yell louder and longer about how evil everyone is.. except those who follow you.

[CraigSca]

It seems to become a "Christian Leader", (not only in the media but in terms of congregation, donations, etcetera).. You have to yell louder and longer about how evil everyone is.. except those who follow you.

I don't necessarily think that's so. Our church is prospering and growing in congregation, but doesn't preach how "evil" everyone is. We all have sin - the preachers, the congregations, etc. Unfortunately, the leaders of any large group (secular on non-secular) aren't infallible, and they suffer the same problems anyone would when it comes to power (absolute power corrupts absolutely).

I'm not a big fan of "the church" -whatever that is (it's more a nice, tidy package than anything). It's like any other large-scale organization - it's run by people and people inherently screw up.

I consider myself part of the "Christian right" - but I'm not necessarily sure I know what it even means. I'm Christian and I'm a conservative. However, though the media would have you believe I'm standing outside of abortion clinics screaming epithets at young women and telling others I think they're going to hell because they're gay, that's not so.

Again, it's a nice, tidy package to think all or even a majority of Christians think that way, but it's not necessarily the case, nor is it responsible. But hey, we as humans inhrently classify things this way so we can relate to it more easily.

[Rizon]

Easter is about Peeps. The End.

[PSUColonel]

Easter is about Peeps. The End.

This is what begins flame wars

[JPhillips]

An appropriate message just days after the head of the Catholic League stole the papacy and tried to kill Jesus.

[ISiddiqui]

An appropriate message just days after the head of the Catholic League stole the papacy and tried to kill Jesus.

:D

And the poor bunny, don't forget!

[Buccaneer]

This article is consistent with what I have been writing about here for the past few years, at least I hope so.

A joyous Easter to all.

[Rizon]

This is what begins flame wars

Your're one of those Cadbury Egg people, aren't you?

[WVUFAN]

Your're one of those Cadbury Egg people, aren't you?

I know you're kidding, and that's cool, but PSU is right ... statements like that, especially given the nature of the commentary the thread started on, does start the religion/anti-religion flame war.

Given the fact that the article is talking about all the positive things religion does as opposed to the things it does that non-religious folks rightly say is wrong with religion, your statement really is in poor form.

I mean, really -- I honestly don't think rational athiests would have a single problem with religious folks if they did what this article says they should be doing. It's when they act like fools that they have the issue.

[st.cronin]

I know dozens of church going Christians who have personally gone to places like Haiti and Africa to build houses and schools. I do not know anybody who has ever held a sign outside an abortion clinic.

[Axxon]

Unfortunately, there are a lot of people who speak to the media in the name of the church who couldn't buy a clue, but that's the nature of the beast.

But since Jesus didn't give these people free pass in his day why do current people who ostensibly follow him choose to? Jesus treated his church leaders like modern guys treat the outcasts and the outcasts like the modern guys treat their church leaders.

Doesn't make sense for his followers to do so.

[Rizon]

I know you're kidding, and that's cool, but PSU is right ... statements like that, especially given the nature of the commentary the thread started on, does start the religion/anti-religion flame war.

Given the fact that the article is talking about all the positive things religion does as opposed to the things it does that non-religious folks rightly say is wrong with religion, your statement really is in poor form.

I mean, really -- I honestly don't think rational athiests would have a single problem with religious folks if they did what this article says they should be doing. It's when they act like fools that they have the issue.

I guess there really isn't any way for me to respond your post without a flame-war starting (not necessarily with you), which is pretty sad and ironic given the subject of the article.

[Axxon]

Dola,

I really like the article a lot and agree with the guy.

[Drake]

Don't you know that all Christians are obsessed with homosexuality and abortion and all Muslims are terrorists?

[Toddzilla]

I mean, really -- I honestly don't think rational athiests would have a single problem with religious folks if they did what this article says they should be doing. It's when they act like fools that they have the issue.As one of them "rational athiests", I agree with this 100%.

Problem is, it's the differing opinion of the definition of "act like fools" that athiests and religious folk get all worked up over.

[WVUFAN]

As one of them "rational athiests", I agree with this 100%.

Problem is, it's the differing opinion of the definition of "act like fools" that athiests and religious folk get all worked up over.

Can't speak for everyone, but here's what I think of when Christians "Act Like Fools":

- Believe in the Bible LITERALLY.
- Try to intimidate others into their viewpoint.
- Force their religion onto others
- Picket abortion clinics

I'm more than sure there's about a dozen or more things, but I'm at work, and I never think clearly about things like this at work.

[Axxon]

Can't speak for everyone, but here's what I think of when Christians "Act Like Fools":

- Believe in the Bible LITERALLY.
- Try to intimidate others into their viewpoint.
- Force their religion onto others
- Picket abortion clinics

I'm more than sure there's about a dozen or more things, but I'm at work, and I never think clearly about things like this at work.

2-4 absolutely but why is holding a belief "acting" like a fool? This is where rational atheists lose me. It becomes just another example of 'believe what I believe or you're acting like a fool' which drops them into the 2-4 category as well.

[st.cronin]

Even if you believe in the Bible literally, interpretation is still required, since life and words are not the same thing.

[WVUFAN]

2-4 absolutely but why is holding a belief "acting" like a fool? This is where rational atheists lose me. It becomes just another example of 'believe what I believe or you're acting like a fool' which drops them into the 2-4 category as well.

If it sticks to just believing, that's fine, but if you believe in the Bible verbatim, you have to testify, ie, tell everyone you know of your beliefs, which puts you right smack down in the 2-4 category.

[Axxon]

If it sticks to just believing, that's fine, but if you believe in the Bible verbatim, you have to testify, ie, tell everyone you know of your beliefs, which puts you right smack down in the 2-4 category.

That doesn't make sense to me. I believe in a lot of things and I don't feel compelled to act on those beliefs. In fact, christians like this literally believe in the devil but they aren't supposed to try and tempt everybody.

Seems the difference may be in what we're talking about. I'm using "believe in" as in, believe what it says literally and yet "believe in" could also mean support and actively promote.

I'm using the former definition.

[Deattribution]

It's really not a bad article but it's flawed for two reasons. For one, it's entirely too broad - when I think of Christianity I don't think of any of the names listed in the article. They may have the most publicity but I think of people I've came in direct contact with, or people who have touched others I know. People involved who bust their ass and even give up the floor if there is someone there who has something they need to say - which reaches a myriad of different topics. All in all, those people may only get to a small number of people in the big scheme of things, but when it's all over the country - even the world, it's not that small of a number especially when those people talk with others and so forth, it's just not plastered all over the media monster of today.


Secondly, this practically could be said about any religion, or any non-religion for that matter. Because it's not really even about what the religion stands for, it's simply how the media portrays what the religion is about, that includes some of the people named in the article, not just outlets. You could call several religions for singling in and caring too much about certain subjects, and you could say the same for others that don't care at all about anything.

[WVUFAN]

That doesn't make sense to me. I believe in a lot of things and I don't feel compelled to act on those beliefs. In fact, christians like this literally believe in the devil but they aren't supposed to try and tempt everybody.

Seems the difference may be in what we're talking about. I'm using "believe in" as in, believe what it says literally and yet "believe in" could also mean support and actively promote.

I'm using the former definition.

I think my definition is more the latter of what you said.

[Eaglesfan27]

I also agree with a lot of points in the article. Craig, it sounds like you are at a great church, but some of the churchs I attended weren't like that which is part of the reason for my various periods of disillusionment with organized religion.

[CraigSca]

I also agree with a lot of points in the article. Craig, it sounds like you are at a great church, but some of the churchs I attended weren't like that which is part of the reason for my various periods of disillusionment with organized religion.

I'm with you on that. Unfortunately, sometimes it's hard to find a church that suits you. I had a period in my life where I couldn't find a church and then finally just gave up. Fortunately, fifteen years later, my wife and I found one and we couldn't be happier. Sure, it's not perfect, just like no individual is (well, not ENTIRELY true :)), but ultimately you'll find church isn't about YOU - it's about the service it performs for the community and the fellowship surrounding the teachings of Jesus.

It's okay to be disillusioned with various churches. Ultimately, a church (in the context of Christianity) is nothing but a group of people (hopefully) worshipping God and his Son. The thing one has to remember is that man is not perfect, and therefore the church isn't either. You just hope and pray that the people involved in the church leadership are grounded in the teachings of Christ.

I hope you keep looking, EF. You may find what you're looking for :).

[CraigSca]

If it sticks to just believing, that's fine, but if you believe in the Bible verbatim, you have to testify, ie, tell everyone you know of your beliefs, which puts you right smack down in the 2-4 category.

What's wrong with testifying about your beliefs? You have good news to share and others should be able to make a decision about is as well. If it's not for them, so be it - you tried. I don't know how testifying about Jesus dying on the cross for one's sin puts me in the same place as a person picketing at an abortion clinic. That's just silly.

[WVUFAN]

What's wrong with testifying about your beliefs? You have good news to share and others should be able to make a decision about is as well. If it's not for them, so be it - you tried. I don't know how testifying about Jesus dying on the cross for one's sin puts me in the same place as a person picketing at an abortion clinic. That's just silly.

I'm always of the feeling that if people want to know about your religion, they will come and ask someone, or go to church and ask. Testifying, for many people, is annoying and irritating, and oftentimes spreads more negativity than what the intent is. I've never been a fan of spouting off things about my religion without being asked.

But you're right -- I'm not trying to compare testifying to picketing abortion clinics , I was stating things from the top of my head that many people find annoying about established religion. I apologize if what I said gave that impression (which it did). Wasn't what I was trying to say.

[CraigSca]

I'm always of the feeling that if people want to know about your religion, they will come and ask someone, or go to church and ask. Testifying, for many people, is annoying and irritating, and oftentimes spreads more negativity than what the intent is. I've never been a fan of spouting off things about my religion without being asked.

You're right -- I'm not trying to compare testifying to picketing abortion clinics , I was stating things from the top of my head that many people find annoying about established religion.

Yes, I agree with you there - going up to strangers and friends and saying, "Have you heard the good news about Jesus?" probably is a little annoying.

However, when I refer to testifying - I include day-to-day things...e.g. through church we have found an outstanding therapist for my son specializing in Asperger's syndrome - something very few doctors/therapists know anything about. Quite literally, it was a Godsend. So, when people ask me how my son is doing, I have no problem "testifying" that God has delivered an incredible therapist who has been instrumental in helping us find the right methods and teachings to help my son fit into everyday society. To me, that's an opportunity to testify - moreso than wearing a rainbow wig and a John 3:16 shirt. But, you know what, both may be equally effective, so who knows.

[Uncle Briggs]

Can't speak for everyone, but here's what I think of when Christians "Act Like Fools":

- Believe in the Bible LITERALLY.
- Try to intimidate others into their viewpoint.
- Force their religion onto others
- Picket abortion clinics

I'm more than sure there's about a dozen or more things, but I'm at work, and I never think clearly about things like this at work.

I take you to mean people who go to abortion clinics and call names and generally make horses' behinds of themselves. These people damage their own cause and make their Savior look bad in the process. There are, in fact, other people who picket abortion clinics who march quietly holding signs with non-aggressive slogans, and offer help with other alternatives. Would these people also be acting like fools?

Say that you believe that humanity begins before birth. What does that mean is happening to actual humans in abortion clinics every day? Even if you don't believe in God and the Bible, doesn't it then seem like a good thing to once in a while go stand outside one of these places and politely say "Hey, you might not want to do this"? To me that seems more like acting on an obligation than acting like a fool.

Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but in the above quote and another post you seem contemptous of people who would do this.

[WVUFAN]

I take you to mean people who go to abortion clinics and call names and generally make horses' behinds of themselves. These people damage their own cause and make their Savior look bad in the process. There are, in fact, other people who picket abortion clinics who march quietly holding signs with non-aggressive slogans, and offer help with other alternatives. Would these people also be acting like fools?

Yes. Marching outside an abortion clinic in an attempt to badger poor women who are already making a decision that has to be incredibly tough and heartbreaking IS acting like a fool, despite your personal beliefs. Don't matter whether the picketing is "non-aggressive" or not, your very presence is causing more hardship on the women who choose to go in there.


Say that you believe that humanity begins before birth. What does that mean is happening to actual humans in abortion clinics every day? Even if you don't believe in God and the Bible, doesn't it then seem like a good thing to once in a while go stand outside one of these places and politely say "Hey, you might not want to do this"? To me that seems more like acting on an obligation than acting like a fool.
No. You or anyone else do not have the right to try and force your personal beliefs on others, ESPECIALLY in this case. Regardless of what your stance is on abortion, picketing in front of clinics is wrong.


Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but in the above quote and another post you seem contemptous of people who would do this.
I absolutely am. I feel abortion pickers are the lowest form of "Christians" I can think of. I'm not in favor of abortion, but I'm not gonna press my beliefs on a poor soul going through an incredibly hard decision. I don't know her situation, I don't know the circumstances as to why she's there, and I sure as hell am not going to make whatever they're going through that much worse by a guilt trip.

So, yes, I LOATHE those who choose to picket in front of abortion clinics. They make ALL Christians look bad.

[Honolulu_Blue]

As one of them "rational athiests", I agree with this 100%.

Problem is, it's the differing opinion of the definition of "act like fools" that athiests and religious folk get all worked up over.

I concur.

[BrianD]

It's really not a bad article but it's flawed for two reasons. For one, it's entirely too broad - when I think of Christianity I don't think of any of the names listed in the article. They may have the most publicity but I think of people I've came in direct contact with, or people who have touched others I know. People involved who bust their ass and even give up the floor if there is someone there who has something they need to say - which reaches a myriad of different topics. All in all, those people may only get to a small number of people in the big scheme of things, but when it's all over the country - even the world, it's not that small of a number especially when those people talk with others and so forth, it's just not plastered all over the media monster of today.

Seems like the point was to call out the leaders and others with a big media presence. I feel safe in saying that most people think most Christians are decent folk who are doing decent things. The sad fact (as in most situations) is that the bad stuff gets all the press. The vocal minor shouldn't be making the decent majority look bad and they are rightly being called out for doing so.


Secondly, this practically could be said about any religion, or any non-religion for that matter. Because it's not really even about what the religion stands for, it's simply how the media portrays what the religion is about, that includes some of the people named in the article, not just outlets. You could call several religions for singling in and caring too much about certain subjects, and you could say the same for others that don't care at all about anything.

I could be wrong, but I also think the author of the article is pointing fingers at his own group and telling them to do better. It is easy to point fingers at others, but it is quite different (and more effective) to stand up to your own group and say we need to do better.

[Uncle Briggs]

Yes. Marching outside an abortion clinic in an attempt to badger poor women who are already making a decision that has to be incredibly tough and heartbreaking IS acting like a fool, despite your personal beliefs. Don't matter whether the picketing is "non-aggressive" or not, your very presence is causing more hardship on the women who choose to go in there.


No. You or anyone else do not have the right to try and force your personal beliefs on others, ESPECIALLY in this case. Regardless of what your stance is on abortion, picketing in front of clinics is wrong.


I absolutely am. I feel abortion pickers are the lowest form of "Christians" I can think of. I'm not in favor of abortion, but I'm not gonna press my beliefs on a poor soul going through an incredibly hard decision. I don't know her situation, I don't know the circumstances as to why she's there, and I sure as hell am not going to make whatever they're going through that much worse by a guilt trip.

So, yes, I LOATHE those who choose to picket in front of abortion clinics. They make ALL Christians look bad.

(Not intending to sound sarcastic) You're awfully tough on people peacefully expressing their beliefs in a public place.

But we seem to have an agree to disagree situation. I'm curious why you feel this way (and so adamantly), but I don't want this to become an argument so I'll let it drop. Sorry if I upset you.

[WVUFAN]

(Not intending to sound sarcastic) You're awfully tough on people peacefully expressing their beliefs in a public place.

The problem is that people who "express their beliefs" like this affects others negatively, and the do it under the guise of Christianity, which (IMO) makes ALL Christians look bad because of a few bad apples.


But we seem to have an agree to disagree situation. I'm curious why you feel this way (and so adamantly), but I don't want this to become an argument so I'll let it drop. Sorry if I upset you.
You didn't upset me. This is how I normally write. :)

I don't have any personal experience with knowing anyone who went to an abortion clinic. I just try and imagine if a close relative or loved one had to make a decision like that. If there were people picketing as she entered, I'd want to punch out the people who were doing it.

Personal expression has a limit. You can get your point about being against abortion across in ways other than guilting those who have to make that decision.

[Uncle Briggs]

The problem is that people who "express their beliefs" like this affects others negatively, and the do it under the guise of Christianity, which (IMO) makes ALL Christians look bad because of a few bad apples.
....
Personal expression has a limit. You can get your point about being against abortion across in ways other than guilting those who have to make that decision.

I wish you were right; I'm afraid you're not. My preference would be that my Christian responsibilities only consisted of living the best life I can and setting an example. I never liked (still don't) being corrected or told I was wrong, and would prefer not to do so to others. Our culture says "it's not my place to tell him how to live". But the Bible says if you don't try to help your neighbor see when he's messing up, then you bear part of the blame. Unfortunately, this has led to a lot of acts and statements that while well-intentioned were poorly executed, and had also drawn in a few people who really just like to be obnoxious. The problem is to find ways to make unpleasant (even unwanted) truths clear in a respectful and loving way that does not alienate the other person.

Unfortunately, sometimes the other person will feel bad. Poorly paraphrased example: a man came to Jesus and asked what he needed to do to get into Heaven. Jesus says (after a short conversation with other details) to sell all his stuff and give the money to the poor. The man left "with a heavy heart" because he had a lot of stuff. Now to me, "with a heavy heart" says the guy probably felt pretty bad when he left.

That's my rambling $.02 worth, anyway. You of course should do what you are led to do; you (obviously) aren't answerable to me.

[WVUFAN]

I wish you were right; I'm afraid you're not. My preference would be that my Christian responsibilities only consisted of living the best life I can and setting an example. I never liked (still don't) being corrected or told I was wrong, and would prefer not to do so to others. Our culture says "it's not my place to tell him how to live". But the Bible says if you don't try to help your neighbor see when he's messing up, then you bear part of the blame. Unfortunately, this has led to a lot of acts and statements that while well-intentioned were poorly executed, and had also drawn in a few people who really just like to be obnoxious. The problem is to find ways to make unpleasant (even unwanted) truths clear in a respectful and loving way that does not alienate the other person.

Unfortunately, sometimes the other person will feel bad. Poorly paraphrased example: a man came to Jesus and asked what he needed to do to get into Heaven. Jesus says (after a short conversation with other details) to sell all his stuff and give the money to the poor. The man left "with a heavy heart" because he had a lot of stuff. Now to me, "with a heavy heart" says the guy probably felt pretty bad when he left.

That's my rambling $.02 worth, anyway. You of course should do what you are led to do; you (obviously) aren't answerable to me.

Wow. I honestly disagree with everything you said in this post.

Yeah, we're gonna agree to disagree. Anything more will turn into an argument, and I have a feeling neither one of us will change our minds on this.

[Uncle Briggs]

Fair enough ;) .

[EagleFan]

I guess there really isn't any way for me to respond your post without a flame-war starting (not necessarily with you), which is pretty sad and ironic given the subject of the article.

As one of them "rational athiests", I agree with this 100%.

Problem is, it's the differing opinion of the definition of "act like fools" that athiests and religious folk get all worked up over.

Funny how Toddzilla was able to respond to WVU without a flame war starting.... I guess what you meant was "I only start flame wars about religion", or something like that.... Respond with reason and without having to act like some militant athiest who feels that it is their duty to be an ass every time religion is mentioned and there will be no flame war. It's like people who hate NASCAR continually going into NASCAR threads just to stir up trouble and the act gets old.

Many people believe in religion of some sort, get over it. What I don't seem to notice from you (maybe missing it if it's there) is the same kind of responses with religions other than Christianity are mentioned which seems to prove what your agenda is. Maybe I've missed it though, it wouldn't be the first.


Anyway, sorry for the tangent. The article is true, to a point. At least nationally that seems to the be focus. There are plenty of religious organizations that do concentrate on other areas but abortion and gay rights are major political hot buttons for many so it's just natural that these things get more air time. Plus today's media would rather only mention something that is potentially inflamatory over a positive story in general (I guess no one would watch if most of the news was about good things happening, or that is the perception anyway).

[Axxon]

I think my definition is more the latter of what you said.

Then I understand your view. Thanks.

From that perspective you are correct.

[Axxon]

What's wrong with testifying about your beliefs? You have good news to share and others should be able to make a decision about is as well. If it's not for them, so be it - you tried. I don't know how testifying about Jesus dying on the cross for one's sin puts me in the same place as a person picketing at an abortion clinic. That's just silly.

Hey, if you choose to be a telemarketer for God that's fine but understand when you are treated like, well, a telemarketer. :)

Of course, most of us place telemarketers in a lower circle of hell than abortion clinic picketers.

[Drake]

Poorly paraphrased example: a man came to Jesus and asked...

I think the key issue here is "a man came up to Jesus and asked" vs. "a Christian comes up to this guy and tells him".

[MizzouRah]

Excellent reading.

[CraigSca]

Hey, if you choose to be a telemarketer for God that's fine but understand when you are treated like, well, a telemarketer. :)

Of course, most of us place telemarketers in a lower circle of hell than abortion clinic picketers.

Well, I don't call strangers at dinnertime to talk about Jesus, so I suppose that puts me ahead of the game.

[sterlingice]

Excellent reading.

Agreed- a good REL/POL thread that's been civil yet good food for thought. Bravo.

SI

[WVUFAN]

Well, I don't call strangers at dinnertime to talk about Jesus, so I suppose that puts me ahead of the game.

I think what you call "testifying" is great, but I think for many people the standard stereotype of someone doing it is much more ... aggressive. That's what I have the problem with.

[PSUColonel]

I am just wondering at what point in time it suddenly became so terrible to be a christian in today's seemingly "secular progressive" society. Why are christians suddenly getting the brunt of blame from this group in America? Yet these are the same group of people who appear to be defending every other religion under the sun, regardless of what their actions may be.

[CraigSca]

I think what you call "testifying" is great, but I think for many people the standard stereotype of someone doing it is much more ... aggressive. That's what I have the problem with.

Agreed, but I can also count on one or two fingers the number of people who aggressively testified to me about Jesus in my 38 years on earth. Really, I think it's quite overblown, but the stereotype lives on.

[Axxon]

Agreed, but I can also count on one or two fingers the number of people who aggressively testified to me about Jesus in my 38 years on earth. Really, I think it's quite overblown, but the stereotype lives on.

Or it could very well be regional. In the deep south I ran into it often.

What I see as the problem is this:


What's wrong with testifying about your beliefs? You have good news to share and others should be able to make a decision about is as well.

See, in JC's time most people would have no way to hear about him and his teachings so it made perfect sense to share the "good news" and enlighten them so they could indeed share. Now, basically all you have to do is turn on a television or go to a motel and you'll hear/read the "good news."

This whole, "my fellow american is living under a rock and has never heard of christianity or Jesus so I simply have to share the "good news" with them is condescending at best. Now, if a person is lost and asking for help then absolutely I feel it is a christians duty to share this with them but that's a different story than the guy on the bus this morning interrupting my reading to wish me a happy easter and ask me if I'd found Jesus and give me a fabulous Jack Chick tract.

Oh, and by the way, to everyone on this thread who is a christian "Happy Easter!!!!!"

[sabotai]

Chick Tracts rule. My favorite is the D&D one.

[Axxon]

Chick Tracts rule. My favorite is the D&D one.

Would you call "The Passion of the Christ" a Chick flick?

[BrianD]

I am just wondering at what point in time it suddenly became so terrible to be a christian in today's seemingly "secular progressive" society. Why are christians suddenly getting the brunt of blame from this group in America? Yet these are the same group of people who appear to be defending every other religion under the sun, regardless of what their actions may be.

This post would seem to indicate that you haven't read any of the rest of the thread.

[sabotai]

Would you call "The Passion of the Christ" a Chick flick?

I never saw it, but unless it has an atheist that is screaming in bold type with veins popping out his neck and forehead with a hideously evil look on his face, no I wouldn't. :)

[-Mojo Jojo-]

This post would seem to indicate that you haven't read any of the rest of the thread.

You must be new around here...

[BrianD]

You must be new around here...

I realize that is what he does, but this one annoyed me enough that I had to say something.

[PSUColonel]

Would you call "The Passion of the Christ" a Chick flick?

mo way..many women refuse to watch it in fact

[PSUColonel]

This post would seem to indicate that you haven't read any of the rest of the thread.

Actually I only had a chance to quickly skims over a few of the posts, so I am sorry if I misinterperted the premise of what was being said. My fault.

[CraigSca]

a fabulous Jack Chick tract.

Oh, and by the way, to everyone on this thread who is a christian "Happy Easter!!!!!"

What's a Jack Chick tract?

While I agree with you, it's not nice to interrupt people and yes, you have to be living under a rock not to know what Christianity IS, I do offer a different scenario.

While at a customer site I was installing one of our products and it was taking a heck of a long time. The customer and I began talking about our kids and that eventually led to a talk about religion. He considered himself an atheist and we began talking about Christianity a bit. There was no pressure, no "you better find Jesus or else" to it, but what was enlightening to him (and I can only say this because he told me so) is that there was no judgment, no "homosexuals and abortionists are going to hell" from me. I said to him that the one thing I wanted him to get from the conversation was that Christians aren't just what you see on the news - that's not what we and our beliefs are about. So, while you DO probably have to be living under a rock not to know what Christianity is, it's sometimes refreshing to meet someone and find out that it's also not what is sometimes portrayed.

[SirFozzie]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick_tract

is a Chick Tract

Basically, the exact opposite of your last paragraph.

[SirFozzie]

Dola: Some enterprising soul got the list of members of our RPG group (Dungeons and Dragons) at the college I went to and stuck one of those things (the anti-D&D one) in all of our mailboxes. Weekly. It took going to the college administrators to tell this guy to stop.

[Axxon]

What's a Jack Chick tract?

While I agree with you, it's not nice to interrupt people and yes, you have to be living under a rock not to know what Christianity IS, I do offer a different scenario.

While at a customer site I was installing one of our products and it was taking a heck of a long time. The customer and I began talking about our kids and that eventually led to a talk about religion. He considered himself an atheist and we began talking about Christianity a bit. There was no pressure, no "you better find Jesus or else" to it, but what was enlightening to him (and I can only say this because he told me so) is that there was no judgment, no "homosexuals and abortionists are going to hell" from me. I said to him that the one thing I wanted him to get from the conversation was that Christians aren't just what you see on the news - that's not what we and our beliefs are about. So, while you DO probably have to be living under a rock not to know what Christianity is, it's sometimes refreshing to meet someone and find out that it's also not what is sometimes portrayed.


Now, if a person is lost and asking for help then absolutely I feel it is a christians duty to share this with them

This is along the lines of what I meant here. You were having a conversation and the subject came up and you presented your beliefs to an interested person who indeed was getting something out of the exchange.

I really don't think anybody is talking about this stuff when they talk about testifying. Oh, and for what it's worth I would and do the same thing when the subject comes up and I don't consider myself a christian.

I do think though that practiced correctly it's a heck of a positive belief system that can enhance the rexeptive persons life. That, and the fact that I grew up in christianity and my beliefs are still based in it's roots.