Speakeasy forum

General discussion

The problem with Christianism

by Dango517 / February 26, 2008 5:03 PM PST
Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: The problem with Christianism
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: The problem with Christianism
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
I think it would only be fair if you could
by Steven Haninger / February 26, 2008 8:04 PM PST

expound on your own reasons rather than ask others first. You used the term "Christianism". Did you mean another word? That's a slang usage with a vague definition and connotation. It can refer to a political rather than religious ideology. Some may feel bound to vote based on their own values which are contained in...but not necessarily governed by...those of the religion they practice. You also mentioned that "the church" has lost its way. Which church? Give examples too. As well, are you speaking as one from the outside? Do you have expectations of religion that don't meet your standards? Do you think your standards are higher than those of any religion?

I could certainly agree that those professing a religious belief don't always display that they adhere to it in a perfect sense. Your nose will sense the rotten fruit before it will the good....and there will always be some that's not as good as others. I see no reason to dwell too much on that which doesn't conform to my standards if I don't have a right to set them anyway.

Collapse -
Why don't respond
by Dango517 / February 26, 2008 9:23 PM PST

to the article as well as you've nit-picked my post. I didn't write it, talk to the author.

Collapse -
(NT) Why don't "you" respond
by Dango517 / February 26, 2008 9:26 PM PST
In reply to: Why don't respond
Collapse -
Reasons for my response
by Steven Haninger / February 27, 2008 7:19 AM PST
In reply to: Why don't respond

The author, primarily, writes about the various bodies of religious organizations and their position(s) in the political arena. Your comment "I would agree that the church has lost it's way in America and many parts of the world." does not address anything the author specifically said in the article. So, there's nothing to agree with. The author expresses his "dissents". He did not say anything suggesting an opinion that the church has lost it's way in America. In fact, he mentioned several church denominations. You said "the church". Such is why I asked which one.

You've asked me to address the article but I don't see that you did so yourself...in fact, went in another direction with one terse comment that was not part of the article. My objections...and take it as you will...is with those who toss out a link asking others to comment without making one first. Some will disagree... and that's ok... but I personally think it's only polite to stick your neck out first before you ask others to do so.

Here's my thoughts after perusing the article. I have to wonder whether religious organizations naturally have political power or have been handed it by politicians. Those seeking election are well off to seek out voting blocs rather than approach individuals while on the campaign trail. You get more bang for the buck that way. Once candidates begin to woo and court "people of faith", they have just given them political power. It would require the candidates political rival(s) to enter the game and vie for their votes also. I'm not saying it doesn't happen that religious groups often take an aggressive stance on certain positions. I am certain it happens. But I am suggesting this isn't a one sided attack by the Christian community that we see during campaign time. It's a negotiation session of sorts with each side wanting a show of favoritism. It does take two to tango. Of course we know for certain that politicians always keep their promises to those who elect them, don't we. Happy

Collapse -
response
by Dango517 / February 27, 2008 4:37 PM PST

"Such is why I asked which one."

Would you like the major groups or would you like all of them?

"You've asked me to address the article but I don't see that you did so yourself...in fact, went in another direction with one terse comment that was not part of the article."

Patience a problem for you Steven?

"My objections...and take it as you will...is with those who toss out a link asking others to comment without making one first. Some will disagree... and that's ok... but I personally think it's only polite to stick your neck out first before you ask others to do so."

I have my own rules of conduct, I'll follow them.

Thank you for responding to the article.

Collapse -
Dango
by Steven Haninger / February 27, 2008 7:26 PM PST
In reply to: response

What I was looking for was your point or objective in posting the article as you made so little comment yourself. You washed your hands of the authors observations but interjected a thought completely foreign to what the author might be suggesting. The piece wrapped both politics and religion into a package. You probably know quite well that these are both emotional and volatile subjects here. You did not comment on the article yourself but asked others what they thought. One could easily get the impression that your objective was not to offer your own thoughts or opinions to see what comes back to you but to....maybe....get to watch a good fight between other members instead. Such is why I mentioned sticking one's own neck out first. But, you said you have your own rules of conduct and will follow them. I can accept that but I hope you can also accept graciously that what comes back might not be to your liking.

The rest is up to you. Your comments on the article would be, IMO, a worthwhile gesture.

Collapse -
About this
by Dango517 / February 28, 2008 3:21 AM PST
In reply to: Dango

"The piece wrapped both politics and religion into a package. You probably know quite well that these are both emotional and volatile subjects here."

Of course this run counter to what you believe so I'm certain you find offence in it as I do your point of view. Perhaps the larger question is, is an opposing view truly acceptable here or just idle chatter. Seams again a problem with "say one thing and do another".

References to politics is only generally discussed in the article, within a very broad context and only briefly. Are you looking for an excuse to remove it? If you remove it then it will simply become, yet, another example of the bias here on Speakeasy. Do you believe you can put anything about Religion here and not expect it to be emotionally charged? By it's very nature it insights strong emotion responses from others. Perhaps it would be best to remove all religious content from Speakeasy to avoid conflict. My best guess is it will stay so you and others can continue to preach from your pulpit.

Collapse -
a response
by Dango517 / February 27, 2008 4:22 PM PST

" You used the term "Christianism". Did you mean another word? That's a slang usage with a vague definition and connotation. It can refer to a political rather than religious ideology."

This is part of the authors point to the article.
I did not use the word "Christianism" the author did.

"Do you think your standards are higher than those of any religion?" No, but I do hold religions to there own standards. If your going to talk about Peace, Love and the "Golden Rule" then your actions need to show this resolve all the time and not just when it suits you. This goes for there members as well.

Collapse -
I can certainly agree with part of it ...
by Bill Osler / February 26, 2008 8:32 PM PST

My Problem with Christianism - TIME
I dissent from the political pollution of sincere, personal faith. I dissent most strongly from the attempt to argue that one party represents God and that the other doesn't. I dissent from having my faith co-opted and wielded by people whose politics I do not share and whose intolerance I abhor. The word Christian belongs to no political party. I

Last I checked, God wasn't a member of the Republican (or Democratic) party and I do not believe that either party is lead by men/women who are interested in advancing the faith as much as they are interested in advancing their party's agenda and/or their personal power.

I think that one of the most relevant Scriptures regarding political affiliation is this:
Joshua 5:13-14;
Now when Joshua was near Jericho, he looked up and saw a man standing in front of him with a drawn sword in his hand. Joshua went up to him and asked, "Are you for us or for our enemies?"
"Neither," he replied, "but as commander of the army of the LORD I have now come..."


Joshua was the leader of Israel, God's chosen people, but the angel was not on Joshua's side or Israel's side. Given that the U.S. is NOT God's chosen people and the leaders of the U.S. are not chosen as His special emissaries on earth it would be absurd to think that God or his servants should be viewed as faithful followers of ANY political party.

That does not mean I have no preference when it comes time to vote. I'll do my best to choose candidates who best represent my views. Right now it seems to me that one of the national parties has completely abandoned most of the moral standards I hold important but I can't say that they are wrong on everything and that party may well choose candidates that I could support. The other national party's leadership has cynically attempted to manipulate people of faith by pretending that they share some of my values while simultaneously carrying out an agenda that appears driven more by secular power than by moral values. I can't really endorse that either.

Collapse -
Religion....pick your flavor
by Bob__B / February 26, 2008 11:27 PM PST

is a very powerful tool.

Some people in this world have learned how to use that tool to control the masses.

The masses seem to have difficulty separating faith from fact.

As far as I know....we have zero facts to support any such thing as a god exist.

Folks can believe anything they want....just keep that faith and fact thing in mind.

Collapse -
my 50-50 approach
by WOODS-HICK / February 26, 2008 11:59 PM PST

I was raised to be in a religious organization (catholic). was an altar-boy 4yrs.

once I started reading books that were not required ; my views became my own. I left organized religion soon after. I do rely on many teachings of all the "flavors" regarding ethics and social interaction.

making the statement "use that tool to control the masses" might bring 'marxist supporter' into the discussion by some not I. I think it is a broader view observed by history. I agree it is a mechanism for social control by offering an unproven reward for earthly struggles and complacency.

I figure there is a 50-50 chance that god exists. which version of god?

I also figure that if there isn't, no problem, because I live the day to day following the 'golden rule' and enjoy the pleasures that we are offered on this little blue dot. hoping I pass with as little pain unless it is my required last experience.

I also figure that if there is a god, then according to the rules he gave me my way of thinking by free will or predetermination . with his/her/its' infinite wit and wisdom he/she/it will tell me the punch-line when I arrive at the processing center.

Collapse -
50-50
by drpruner / February 28, 2008 7:38 AM PST
In reply to: my 50-50 approach

1 Kings 18:21

Collapse -
oh-oh
by WOODS-HICK / February 28, 2008 9:16 AM PST
In reply to: 50-50

1 Kings 18:21 (King James Version)

21 And Elijah came unto all the people, and said, How long halt ye between two opinions? if the LORD be God, follow him: but if Baal , then follow him. And the people answered him not a word.


1 Kings Chapter 18:21 (New Advent Catholic Version)

21 And Elias coming to all the people, said: How long do you halt between two sides? If the Lord be God, follow him: but ifBaal , then follow him. And the people did not answer him a word.


1 Kings 18:21 Online Bible (Jehovah's Witnesses)
New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures

21 Then E

Collapse -
While I fully agree that God is neither a Democrat nor a
by Kiddpeat / February 27, 2008 2:16 AM PST

Republican nor any other political flavor, I do think that God is something. I also think that a Christian is something. There is such a thing as a person who is not a Christian. Thus, the discussion must center around one's theology rather than one's political views. What is it that makes a person a Christian rather than a Hindu or a Muslim? Surely, at the very least it is a belief in, and a commitment to Jesus Christ. If this is missing, I see no useful, spiritual purpose in describing one's self as a Christian.

Collapse -
Why are we discussing Religion here on CNET??
by taboma / February 27, 2008 7:30 AM PST

?Check out Lee's post. Simple to understand.
Comply with it.

-Kevin

Collapse -
and if you read further
by jimandjerry. / February 27, 2008 7:44 AM PST

Religious topics will be allowed...However
by TONI H - 7/12/07 9:50 AM

This is a relaxation of the rules in an effort to see if discussions can be exactly that....discussions.

If it appears that posts are becoming inflamatory, degrading, belittling, or disparaging regarding someone else's faith or beliefs because they don't agree with yours, those posts will be deleted on sight. This will also hold true if any attempt is made to drag political/moral 'arguments' into the mix (I personally believe that this part will probably be the most difficult area to prevent in order to keep things civil.)

This decision was made by a consensus of all of the SE Moderators, and Lee is aware of this. This thread is being locked to prevent further debate regarding our decision.

TONI (on behalf of all of the SE Moderators)
Post 1 of 1 | Back to top

Collapse -
Why ask me? I didn't start the thread, and I wasn't the
by Kiddpeat / February 27, 2008 7:58 AM PST

first to post a response. Increasingly one of the problems with SE is that, when you try to post a thoughtful response, someone comes along and says "Why did you do that?" As someone else pointed out, the rules on religious discussion have been relaxed. I bent over backwards with my response to observe that relaxation and try to stay within it. If you want to discuss what I said, I will be happy to try to oblige.

Collapse -
(NT) FWIW..I agree your post was well within the rule
by WOODS-HICK / February 27, 2008 8:28 AM PST
Collapse -
Thanks.
by Kiddpeat / February 27, 2008 9:41 AM PST

I appreciate that.

Collapse -
you missed this?
by Patricia89 / February 27, 2008 10:40 AM PST

Search forums All CNET Forums within this forum within this thread Advanced Search
CNET forums: Speakeasy Forum display: Tree view Threaded view Flat view
Speakeasy: Religious topics will be allowed...However
by TONI H - 7/12/07 9:50 AM
Total posts: 1 (Showing page 1 of 1)Back to Speakeasy forumTrack this thread
Post 1 of 1 Religious topics will be allowed...However Original post
by TONI H - 7/12/07 9:50 AM
This is a relaxation of the rules in an effort to see if discussions can be exactly that....discussions.

If it appears that posts are becoming inflamatory, degrading, belittling, or disparaging regarding someone else's faith or beliefs because they don't agree with yours, those posts will be deleted on sight. This will also hold true if any attempt is made to drag political/moral 'arguments' into the mix (I personally believe that this part will probably be the most difficult area to prevent in order to keep things civil.)

This decision was made by a consensus of all of the SE Moderators, and Lee is aware of this. This thread is being locked to prevent further debate regarding our decision.

TONI (on behalf of all of the SE Moderators)

Collapse -
Good question
by Dango517 / February 27, 2008 4:47 PM PST

I'm sure open forums are a bit of a problem for any web provider. With or without a Religious topics allowed rule. Perhaps this was not a wise choice.

It appears to be a platform for a religious agenda.

Collapse -
Let me get this straight.
by Kiddpeat / February 27, 2008 9:59 PM PST
In reply to: Good question

You post an item which is critical of Christians. You receive responses that agree with the thrust of your article (political), but disagree with the article's theology, and you say that is a platform for a religious agenda?

Why not explain what your comment means? Apparently a rational discussion and a call for reasonable definition of the subject of your linked article is a religious agenda? Amazing!

Collapse -
a small request to those participating in the thread
by jonah jones / February 27, 2008 11:49 PM PST

let's keep this "equatorial" shall we?

it's an interesting subject that doesn't have to go 'South'

thank you

jonah

.,

Collapse -
The Christian community as voters
by Steven Haninger / February 28, 2008 7:40 AM PST

I'll say that, as a rule, what you will probably find is that this group of voters is mainly interested in how their tax money will be spent and who will help maintain religious freedom in the USA

I'll say that, as a rule, what you won't find is that this group of voters is looking for political favors and government handouts.

I doubt that the the above statements can both be made by many other voting blocs.

Collapse -
Not a problem unless it's allowed to be.
by drpruner / February 28, 2008 7:43 AM PST

In the past, religions have been suppressed by force or by stroke of the pen, or they have died out. (I believe Dragon still worships Juno, though ... Happy )

Popular Forums
icon
Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
icon
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
icon
Laptops 21,181 discussions
icon
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
icon
Phones 17,137 discussions
icon
Security 31,287 discussions
icon
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
icon
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
icon
Windows 10 2,657 discussions

FALL TV PREMIERES

Your favorite shows are back!

Don’t miss your dramas, sitcoms and reality shows. Find out when and where they’re airing!