If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(WorldNetDaily)   Americans are right to be wary of Pope Francis. His religious philosophy is a result of KGB influence in Latin America   (wnd.com) divider line 378
    More: Scary, Pope Francis, Latin American, KGB, Americans, KGB influence, Pope Pius XII, trickle-down economics, economic power  
•       •       •

2110 clicks; posted to Politics » on 04 Dec 2013 at 1:04 PM (37 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



378 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-12-05 04:11:45 AM

skullkrusher: BojanglesPaladin: skullkrusher: The only Protestants we had were of the blue blood variety.

We call those Episcopalians.

Catholic Lite.


Twice the fun,half the guilt...
 
2013-12-05 04:15:31 AM

vrax: Reads article:  Trickle Down Economics

Checks year:  2013


[i40.tinypic.com image 248x200]


This. people are still talking this simplistic, 19th century grammar school economics.
And it's 20 f**king 13.
Jesus.
 
2013-12-05 04:31:12 AM

vrax: syrynxx: This is the political structure that declared that witches were real and justified torture?  I'll leap right on caring what they think.

Hilariously, if you asked a smart, but politically uninformed person, they would think you were talking about relatively ancient history in this country and not something from within the last decade, to be sure.


Someone thought witches should be tortured within the last decade? Who?
 
2013-12-05 06:24:34 AM
The question here is if it were true would it be bad?
 
2013-12-05 06:32:38 AM

A Dark Evil Omen: Mikey1969: Even the poorest of the poor in the United States live far better than the rest of the world because capitalism works.


Really? The "poorest of the poor live far better than the entire "rest of the world"? So the US has a median income of $51,000, so let's say the poor live off a third of that. NOBODY on the planet makes MORE than $17,000 a year?

Hell that's the farthest I've gotten to this point, came up for air and a pair of hip waders...

I think he means poor Americans are better off than poor people anywhere else. Which is patently absurd and also ignores the fact that that poverty is purely manufactured, unnecessary and only exists at all to enrich the already insanely wealthy.


I hate to break your bubble, but poverty existed long before capitalism.
 
2013-12-05 07:06:00 AM
I love seeing that the Republicans have something in common with a mentally disturbed foreigner tearing up a picture of the pope on SNL.
 
2013-12-05 07:49:20 AM

technicolor-misfit: Look, fine... I'll be serious for a minute.

Snap was just cut by $5 billion dollars during a time in which those on the bottom end of our society are hurting about as bad as they ever have, and conservatives support it by about 70%. The roughly 30% who don't will likely continue to support the movement and party that allowed it to happen and encourages shredding the safety net even more.

You can spare me all the crap about "not all conservatives hate compassion" because at the end of the day, in the practical world, when you're taking food money out of the hands of the very poorest among us, it's a distinction without a farking difference whether or not someone "hates" compassion, or is simply indifferent, or even if they actually take the time to pay lip service to compassion.

What farking good does it do to be compassionate if you don't act on it?

What farking difference does it make to be compassionate if you endorse the very same policies that the ugly, angry, dollar-bill throwing mob cheers on?

So yeah, I talk shiat about conservatives. But not because I want internet high fives. Not because I want to take part in a liberal circle-jerk. I do it because I farking hate them. Because they're rotten dicks who support atrocious and mean-spirited policies. You can try to attach a bunch of high-minded economic philosophy to WHY they support those policies... but I'm tired of playing the let's be polite and agree to disagree game when it gets to the point that we're talking about whether or not children should be allowed to go hungry.


U mad huh?
It's not about being polite or agreeing to disagree. It is about one person (me) explaining to another person (you) how farking stupid it is to make sweeping generalizations. Which you continue to do.
Going so far as to say you "hate" an entire group of people. I don't think I can be well described as anything but conservative in some sense of the word... Yet I don't support cutting funding for SNAP. How does that fit into your simplistic view of stuff? Do you "hate" me because judging people on their individual merits and flaws is something you're incapable of?
 
2013-12-05 09:36:17 AM

erik-k: You're trying to sell us on a cross-country all-summer road trip, when everyone's seen your car engine repeatedly catch fire when it's driven more than a few blocks. Yeah, that'd be a sweet trip... too bad it'll never actually happen.


I didn't attempt to sell you anything.  I attempted to clear up what socialism is, what communism is and what capitalism is.  Obviously there are many people that have no farking idea what they are talking about.
 
2013-12-05 09:52:57 AM

guestguy: BojanglesPaladin: I'm not sure where to go with your weird view of the obligations of one group of Christians to squelch another group who thinks differently, or how you think that would be a good idea, and I have no idea how you think Joel Osteen trumps the Vatican for instance, but I don't see any point fighting about it.

But out of curiosity, what do you think the new Pope is DOING?


Is this copy-pasta that you vomit up anytime someone points out that if good Christians take offense to being lumped in with loud-mouth assholes Christians, then maybe they should denounce said loud-mouth asshole Christians with the same fervor with which they whine about being lumped in with them?

Yes, the new pope is finally doing this, and I hope that mentality takes hold here in the US as well, where we have some of the loudest-mouth asshole Christians on the planet.


Because "good Christians" also try to follow those bits about loving others and not being judgemental. That's a huge part of what Jesus actually taught.

That and they don't get very much airtime in the mainstream media. "Loudmouth asshole Christians", like Fark trolls, stir up angry readers or viewers and increase page hits or ratings so they get in the news more than mainstream WWJD Christians, who may get an occasional human interest clip if they happen to get noticed doing something particularly good. Anyway, Christians don't really relish the limelight: it's too close to boasting.
 
2013-12-05 09:57:23 AM

meat0918: The pic is new, but the quote is quite old, I think 1890s


It looks like the quote originated with Galbraith circa 1982; though Galbraith indicated it had older origins, Google Books seems to turn up no earlier trace.
 
2013-12-05 10:23:19 AM

BojanglesPaladin: Two people in this thread made the exact same dumb-ass argument, so I saved myself some typing, yes. It's a dumb-ass argument, so the less time spent on it the better.



How exactly is that a dumb-ass argument?  Forgive me if I don't take your "I dub thee dumb-assery" response to heavily edited down quotes as gospel.
 
2013-12-05 10:34:59 AM
vinniethepoo: Because "good Christians" also try to follow those bits about loving others and not being judgemental. That's a huge part of what Jesus actually taught.

That and they don't get very much airtime in the mainstream media. "Loudmouth asshole Christians", like Fark trolls, stir up angry readers or viewers and increase page hits or ratings so they get in the news more than mainstream WWJD Christians, who may get an occasional human interest clip if they happen to get noticed doing something particularly good. Anyway, Christians don't really relish the limelight: it's too close to boasting.


So do you think the pope is not a "good Christian" for publicly disagreeing with the loud-mouth asshole brigade?  If the vast majority of Christians in the US don't agree with them, then they could easily have a noticeable media voice with a little organization and will.  The fact is, they have seemed perfectly content to just whine about being lumped in with the vocal minority without doing a damn thing to publicly differentiate themselves from it.  I have little sympathy for the selectively apathetic.
 
2013-12-05 11:35:28 AM

guestguy: Forgive me if I don't take your "I dub thee dumb-assery" response to heavily edited down quotes as gospel


No one is asking you to take anything I say as gospel, and you would be dumb to do so.
But you are encouraged to read the posts and make up your own mind.
 
2013-12-05 11:47:52 AM
Protip:  If conservatives don't like being stereotyped as selfish, uncompassionate troglodytes they should probably stop hanging out with and directly supporting a bunch of selfish, uncompassionate troglodytes.
 
2013-12-05 12:12:39 PM
First off, YOU chimed in on a comment I made to someone else. It's a bit rich to now claim your argument is being distorted when YOU jumped in to defend a pre-existing argument. You are clearly losing track of things.

Here is what I said to SOMEONE ELSE that you responded to:
BojanglesPaladin: "I'm not sure where to go with your weird view of the obligations of one group of Christians to squelch another group who thinks differently, or how you think that would be a good idea, and I have no idea how you think Joel Osteen trumps the Vatican for instance, but I don't see any point fighting about it.

So you took up someone ELSE's argument to defend it. If you now want to step away from that. That's fine. As I said at the outset: I TOLD you it was a dumb position to take, don't get all mad at me just because you finally realized it.

But just to clarify a few points:

technicolor-misfit: Show me where I said Christians should be trying to "shut down" versions of Christianity they disagree with.Show me where I said Christians have an "obligation" to "squelch another group who thinks differently."


Here is what you said:
- "If you're angry that mean-spirited jackholes are taking control of your religion's public image, you should probably tell THEM to get bent instead of getting angry with the people who react to them."
- "Maybe all those good AMERICAN Christians should have farking done it years ago."
- And yes, the pope farking well did call people out. He ran sword directly through the heart of "Christian Conservatism":

 

technicolor-misfit: Show me where I said Christians should "police" each other.


Here is what you said:
- that weak-willed, cowardly-ass, go along to get-along, conformist allegiance to the "club" of Christianity that supercedes devotion to the principles. It's like "good" cops whose loyalty to fellow cops supercedes their obligation to uphold the law.

So Christians are like cops. Like Cops who have an obligation to uphold the law even against their own brethren.

So I'm afraid that I have to stand by my characterization that you were calling on the majority of Christians to "correct" the minority of Christians who are the "wrong kind". to "police each other"

If you now want to revise or clarify that you meant by debating the use of terms like "Squelch", "shut down", "call out their bullshiat", or "PUT A SWORD THROUGH THE HEART", I suppose you could go that route. That is arguing semantics. We agree that you mean good Christians should 'denounce' bad Christians, right?

So no. No it's not a strawman to respond to the argument you were actually making. Thankfully on Fark, people here can scroll up and see what you ACTUALLY said.

Anywho, just wanted to clear that up. I think you just got a little turned around posting too fast or something and forgot who was arguing against whom in the first place. It happens.

Have a good day.
 
2013-12-05 12:35:44 PM

guestguy: The fact is, they have seemed perfectly content to just whine about being lumped in with the vocal minority without doing a damn thing to publicly differentiate themselves from it. I have little sympathy for the selectively apathetic


Stop picking on Muslims. We've been over this. The problem is with the ignorant people who just lump the asshole crazies in with the nice, moderate, peaceful ones. It's the ignorant rubes starts saying "Those Muslims are all the same!" without even trying to understand or respect their religion that is the problem. They don't have to answer to YOU about their religion!!

amidoinitright? I remember these exact arguments being made not too long ago by a lot of the same people now arguing the reverse for Christians. Not saying you, but there's a weird 'whole on the other foot' double-standard.
 
2013-12-05 01:22:19 PM

BojanglesPaladin: guestguy: Forgive me if I don't take your "I dub thee dumb-assery" response to heavily edited down quotes as gospel

No one is asking you to take anything I say as gospel, and you would be dumb to do so.
But you are encouraged to read the posts and make up your own mind.



I am asking you to explain how they are dumb-ass arguments.  If you don't want to answer me, you are encouraged to say so rather than simply editing that part of my comment out.  I noticed that has been a habit of yours in this thread, severely editing down posts to a series of one-liners that are more easily sniped (since the accompanying context has been stripped away).
 
2013-12-05 01:35:22 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Stop picking on Muslims. We've been over this. The problem is with the ignorant people who just lump the asshole crazies in with the nice, moderate, peaceful ones. It's the ignorant rubes starts saying "Those Muslims are all the same!" without even trying to understand or respect their religion that is the problem. They don't have to answer to YOU about their religion!!

amidoinitright? I remember these exact arguments being made not too long ago by a lot of the same people now arguing the reverse for Christians. Not saying you, but there's a weird 'whole on the other foot' double-standard.



I am actually of the same opinion when it comes to Muslims.  The difference is, I have seen far more examples of Muslims publicly decrying the actions of their highly visible crazies than Christians.  And it's not exactly an apples to apples comparison in the first place, as most of the time you're talking about violent tendencies (e.g. Muslims are terrorists!) vs. general jackassery/intolerance (e.g. Christians hate gay people!) when lumping those religions in with their associated loud crazies.
 
2013-12-05 02:53:24 PM

guestguy: I am asking you to explain how they are dumb-ass arguments.


I did. Many times. Previous comments are available for review. You are coming in the next day. I do not feel the need to retype everything all over again, but if you would like, here is my stock answer to the argument that "Good" Christians should be 'doing something' about these "bad Christians".

BojanglesPaladin: I'm not sure where to go with your weird view of the obligations of one group of Christians to squelch another group who thinks differently, or how you think that would be a good idea, and I have no idea how you think Joel Osteen trumps the Vatican for instance, but I don't see any point fighting about it. But out of curiosity, what do you think the new Pope is DOING?

Also, this may come as a shock, but when responding to a specific point you made it is customary to quote that specific part. Yes, you may have said any number of other things, related and unrelated. Since I may or may not choose to address every single point you may have made, I specify which portion I consider relevant and which I am responding to. That's how Fark works.

And lastly, While I generally make an effort to respond to Farkers who post to me directly, I am not in any way obligated to answer your questions simply because you posed them. I don't owe you and answer, you don't owe me one. If I think you make a good point, or that I need to clarify something about my own position that could have been clearer, or if you said something that I think should be challenged I may choose to do so. Same as anyone else here. If I don't, I don't. Nothing personal.

Don't take offense if I don't answer everything you might wish. You are free to declare yourself "winnah!" if that's your bag, or use the ignore function, or keep asking hoping I will change my mind.

And so when you say "Forgive me if I don't take your "I dub thee dumb-assery" response to heavily edited down quotes as gospel."

I say: Why would you EVER take ANY Farker's posts as gospel? That's not how it works, and no one asked you to do any such thing. If you have a counterpoint to make, then make it. We can discuss like adults.

But please note, I am not here to "win". I am not trying to convert anyone's thinking on a topic, and I DAMN sure don't give a shiat about this brain-dead binary politico redteam/blueteam mental disease that seems to have infected half of Fark. I come here to have a lively discussion with rational and informed people, to sharpen my own thinking and to be challenged with good reasoning or data. Insults, personal attacks, impugning of motives, and all the feeble recourses of small thinkers is part of Fark, but it's not why I am here.
 
2013-12-05 02:55:35 PM

BojanglesPaladin: guestguy: I am asking you to explain how they are dumb-ass arguments.

I did. Many times. Previous comments are available for review. You are coming in the next day. I do not feel the need to retype everything all over again, but if you would like, here is my stock answer to the argument that "Good" Christians should be 'doing something' about these "bad Christians".


Come on, dealing with the problematic people is everyone's job.  That's how civilized society works.  Other Christians have no more obligation to deal with them than you do.
 
2013-12-05 03:03:09 PM

guestguy: The difference is, I have seen far more examples of Muslims publicly decrying the actions of their highly visible crazies than Christians.


I can't speak to your experience, but as mentioned above, America has a very pronounced and long-standing tradition of not critiquing someone else's Christianity. It's baked into our national identity and goes back to the very founding of our nation. Also

That being said, any number of mainstream Christians loudly and repeatedly denounce the likes of the KKK and murderers like Eric Rudolph or other abortion doctor killers.

But going out of their way to chastise or condemn a variant of Christianity? Unlikely. Also, ultimately, what would that do? Do you think the people who think all Christians are assholes will change their minds anyway?

guestguy: it's not exactly an apples to apples comparison in the first place, as most of the time you're talking about violent tendencies (e.g. Muslims are terrorists!) vs. general jackassery/intolerance (e.g. Christians hate gay people!) when lumping those religions in with their associated loud crazies.


No it's not a direct parallel. I chose it because it is a more extreme and blatant example. But the reasoning behind it essentially the same. "Hey you! You are a bald guy! Why don't you tell that bald guy over there to stop being an asshole! If you don't, then I guess all you bald guys are the same, and I'll assume you are an asshole too, you asshole baldy!"

We agree it's nonsense.
 
2013-12-05 03:57:53 PM

technicolor-misfit: Look, fine... I'll be serious for a minute.

Snap was just cut by $5 billion dollars during a time in which those on the bottom end of our society are hurting about as bad as they ever have, and conservatives support it by about 70%. The roughly 30% who don't will likely continue to support the movement and party that allowed it to happen and encourages shredding the safety net even more.

You can spare me all the crap about "not all conservatives hate compassion" because at the end of the day, in the practical world, when you're taking food money out of the hands of the very poorest among us, it's a distinction without a farking difference whether or not someone "hates" compassion, or is simply indifferent, or even if they actually take the time to pay lip service to compassion.

What farking good does it do to be compassionate if you don't act on it?

What farking difference does it make to be compassionate if you endorse the very same policies that the ugly, angry, dollar-bill throwing mob cheers on?

So yeah, I talk shiat about conservatives. But not because I want internet high fives. Not because I want to take part in a liberal circle-jerk. I do it because I farking hate them. Because they're rotten dicks who support atrocious and mean-spirited policies. You can try to attach a bunch of high-minded economic philosophy to WHY they support those policies... but I'm tired of playing the let's be polite and agree to disagree game when it gets to the point that we're talking about whether or not children should be allowed to go hungry.


this^
 
2013-12-05 04:07:09 PM

BojanglesPaladin: I did. Many times. Previous comments are available for review. You are coming in the next day. I do not feel the need to retype everything all over again, but if you would like, here is my stock answer to the argument that "Good" Christians should be 'doing something' about these "bad Christians".



Fair enough; I did not read through the hundreds of comments since my last post, and I probably should have before responding.  However, in your answer to me you could have easily said exactly that, rather than editing out that section of my post entirely.

BojanglesPaladin: BojanglesPaladin: I'm not sure where to go with your weird view of the obligations of one group of Christians to squelch another group who thinks differently, or how you think that would be a good idea, and I have no idea how you think Joel Osteen trumps the Vatican for instance, but I don't see any point fighting about it. But out of curiosity, what do you think the new Pope is DOING?



This dreck does not explain how it's a dumb-ass argument.  It attempts to recharacterize the argument and flippantly dismisses that new version of it.  It was also thoroughly dismantled by technicolor-misfit in earlier posts.

BojanglesPaladin: Also, this may come as a shock, but when responding to a specific point you made it is customary to quote that specific part. Yes, you may have said any number of other things, related and unrelated. Since I may or may not choose to address every single point you may have made, I specify which portion I consider relevant and which I am responding to. That's how Fark works.



It doesn't come as a shock at all.  As you can see, I am going point-by-point through your post right now.  What I'm not doing is deleting large chunks of the points you're making (which have taken you multiple sentences to fully convey), and attacking one or two lines which have a different, more easily refuted meaning when taken completely on their own rather than part of the larger point (i.e. out of context).  It comes off as either a sleazy method of argument (deliberately taking out of context quotes to twist the intended meaning), or just dickish dismissiveness.

BojanglesPaladin: And lastly, While I generally make an effort to respond to Farkers who post to me directly, I am not in any way obligated to answer your questions simply because you posed them. I don't owe you and answer, you don't owe me one. If I think you make a good point, or that I need to clarify something about my own position that could have been clearer, or if you said something that I think should be challenged I may choose to do so. Same as anyone else here. If I don't, I don't. Nothing personal.

Don't take offense if I don't answer everything you might wish. You are free to declare yourself "winnah!" if that's your bag, or use the ignore function, or keep asking hoping I will change my mind.



I didn't say that you owe me jack shiat.  I said you are encouraged to answer my question, which was directly related to the statement that followed it.  See, by deleting that question, you altered the apparent meaning of the sentence that you responded to.  It was intended to be a snarky way of saying "explain your assertion".  Instead, you twisted it into something about me inherently believing some farkers posts but not others...or something equally silly.  Do you see what happens when you take things out of context?

BojanglesPaladin: And so when you say "Forgive me if I don't take your "I dub thee dumb-assery" response to heavily edited down quotes as gospel."

I say: Why would you EVER take ANY Farker's posts as gospel? That's not how it works, and no one asked you to do any such thing. If you have a counterpoint to make, then make it. We can discuss like adults.



The only point I had is that you should explain why it's a dumb-ass argument, rather than just stating it as fact.  As I noted above, you got completely off in the weeds by taking that statement on its own without the accompanying question.

BojanglesPaladin: But please note, I am not here to "win". I am not trying to convert anyone's thinking on a topic, and I DAMN sure don't give a shiat about this brain-dead binary politico redteam/blueteam mental disease that seems to have infected half of Fark. I come here to have a lively discussion with rational and informed people, to sharpen my own thinking and to be challenged with good reasoning or data. Insults, personal attacks, impugning of motives, and all the feeble recourses of small thinkers is part of Fark, but it's not why I am here.



If this is true, then I suggest addressing points in their entirety, rather than sniping out of context quotes of the people you're attempting to have a lively discussion with.
 
2013-12-05 04:33:42 PM

BojanglesPaladin: I can't speak to your experience, but as mentioned above, America has a very pronounced and long-standing tradition of not critiquing someone else's Christianity. It's baked into our national identity and goes back to the very founding of our nation. Also



They don't even have to critique it so much as repeatedly and publicly say "We, the vast majority of Christians in this country, disagree with you; you do not speak for us."  I don't see how that's even judgmental...slightly confrontational maybe, but not judgmental.

BojanglesPaladin: That being said, any number of mainstream Christians loudly and repeatedly denounce the likes of the KKK and murderers like Eric Rudolph or other abortion doctor killers.



The KKK and abortion doctor killers are not viewed as mainstream Christianity in this country.  It is easy to condemn something that is already widely considered an abberation of your religion.

BojanglesPaladin: But going out of their way to chastise or condemn a variant of Christianity? Unlikely. Also, ultimately, what would that do? Do you think the people who think all Christians are assholes will change their minds anyway?



Yes, it very well could.  If nothing else, they then can make a legitimate complaint about being lumped in with them.

BojanglesPaladin: No it's not a direct parallel. I chose it because it is a more extreme and blatant example. But the reasoning behind it essentially the same. "Hey you! You are a bald guy! Why don't you tell that bald guy over there to stop being an asshole! If you don't, then I guess all you bald guys are the same, and I'll assume you are an asshole too, you asshole baldy!"

We agree it's nonsense.



Ugh, I understand what you were trying to do, but the bald guy thing is just an abysmal way of doing it...we're talking about religion which entails a philosophy dictating how you live your life.  It is also something that is adopted by choice.  As such, your religion is far more likely to say something about you as a person than something silly like baldness.  If the public face of your religion is awful, and the majority of the adherents disagree with that public face, yet do nothing to differentiate themselves from it, then they really have no right to complain when assumptions are made based off of that.

That said, I personally try to avoid making such assumptions, and believe others should do the same...but I can't really be too angry at those who do in this case.  They are not being provided evidence to the contrary.
 
2013-12-05 08:38:18 PM

guestguy: If the public face of your religion is awful, and the majority of the adherents disagree with that public face, yet do nothing to differentiate themselves from it, then they really have no right to complain when assumptions are made based off of that.


Let's try this a different way. Who says that these assholes are the public face? People who have a jaundiced view of "Christians"? People who fixate on the negatives because that's what they are looking for?

How is what a minority of non-denominational congregations who make up, what 17% of Christians, the 'public face of Christianity' compared to the Vatican, Episcopalians (who ordain lesbians and openly gay ministers), Methodists (like the Clintons), Presbyterians, and ALL the rest not the actual public face?

How many people know Mother Theresa? And how many people have even heard of Joel Osteen?

Just because lot of people like to biatch about the prosperity assholes, doesn't mean the overwhelming majority of Americans who are Christians have any obligation to "set the record straight" for people who don't like Christianity anyway.

Even if they did (and sometimes do) it makes no difference to people who dislike the whole thing anyway.

Anymore that Bruce Springsteen or Kiss have an obligation to remind people who don't like pop music that Mylee Cyrus isn't "real rock and roll".
 
2013-12-05 10:41:58 PM

BojanglesPaladin: how many people have even heard of Joel Osteen?


How many people have heard of Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, James Dobson, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Ted Cruz, Rick Santorum, Michelle Bachmann, etc?  Maybe they don't all strictly follow the prosperity doctrine in particular, but they are/were powerful media voices representing themselves as espousing Christian ideals.  These are examples of some of the most visible Christians in our country right now...they are acting as the public face of the religion.  Do the majority of Christians share the views of these people?  Because that's who they will be lumped in with if they don't publicly differentiate themselves from them.
 
2013-12-06 02:11:19 AM

guestguy: BojanglesPaladin: how many people have even heard of Joel Osteen?

How many people have heard of Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, James Dobson, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Ted Cruz, Rick Santorum, Michelle Bachmann, etc?  Maybe they don't all strictly follow the prosperity doctrine in particular, but they are/were powerful media voices representing themselves as espousing Christian ideals.  These are examples of some of the most visible Christians in our country right now...they are acting as the public face of the religion.  Do the majority of Christians share the views of these people?  Because that's who they will be lumped in with if they don't publicly differentiate themselves from them.


I'm not sure that any of the people you listed espouse 'prosperity gospel' at all and some of them, like Rush Limbaugh don't even really identify as Christians. I think you may have just made my point for me.

But yes, by your logic, Bruce Springsteen and Bob Dylan should expect to be lumped in with Miley Cyrus and Marilyn Manson, because they have never made any effort to publicly differentiate themselves.

And seriously. The Episcopal Church is ordaining openly gay and lesbian ministers. I think that is a very public differentiation.

You just keep repeating yourself. You say that Christians have some obligation to denounce other Christians or else they should all expect to be treated like the least palatable of them all. And I say they have no such obligation, and the people who are prejudiced and insisting that they are all the same are the ones in error- they are the ones judging the majority based on their own perception of a sub-group, even when these unaffiliated mega churches are espousing a distorted quasi-theology that is in direct opposition to most Christian faiths.

Joel Osteen and his ilk have as much to do with Christianity as North Korea has to do with democracy.
 
2013-12-06 02:59:02 AM

BojanglesPaladin: I think you may have just made my point for me.



What point is that exactly?  Seems like you've changed it a couple different times throughout the course of this discussion.  My point has always been that loudmouth asshole Christians have become the public face of Christianity in the US, and that if good Christians take offense to being lumped in with them, they should publicly decry/denounce/differentiate themselves from them or they have no right to whine about it.

BojanglesPaladin: But yes, by your logic, Bruce Springsteen and Bob Dylan should expect to be lumped in with Miley Cyrus and Marilyn Manson, because they have never made any effort to publicly differentiate themselves.



Stop making comparisons...seriously, just stop.  You are terrible at it.

BojanglesPaladin: And seriously. The Episcopal Church is ordaining openly gay and lesbian ministers. I think that is a very public differentiation.



I agree, that is outstanding and certainly a step in the right direction, but they need to accompany this with a greater media presence as well if they hope to take back the public perception of Christianity.  The pope is, by far, the best example of the right way to go about it.  I honestly hope good Christian leaders in the US follow his lead.
 
Displayed 28 of 378 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report