It has a strong purpose in the reasoning of why they perceive attacks. The author seemingly works under the premise that the criticism is unwarranted("bigoted" by the writer's own words), thereby painting criticism in a different light. I'll admit I went a wee bit overboard and neglected important bits in the process. I'm not quite sure what your overall complaint is though, so I'm not even sure why I'm replying back.
Isn't it great how every Christian is equally guilty for the misconduct of, say, a bishop?
I'm not going to dive through script after script. It'd require me to read the entire thing or at least a ridiculous portion to actually weigh one script against the next. You seem to be interested in that kind of thing, but I'm not. Waddle across the countless Christian communities and it'll make itself as apparent as daylight.
You come to a lazy conclusion and then sit from a position constructed of laziness to accuse the world as if you have accumulated a worthy intellect.
If I love a child of mine, would I ever throw them out of the house and lock the door?
What if they are 20 years old and not employed, seeking employment, etc?
When dealing with religions, you are talking about institutions that underwrite the definition of words associated with moral conduct. Religions affect what it means to love, what the extent and context of loyalty or obedience are, what is 'good' and what is 'evil.' In that sense, it behooves one to investigate into what it is that separates the religions based on their definitions of good, moral behavior and evil behavior.
I can create a religion and say it is the good and moral thing for every female to service my member. That is good and righteous. To those who are simply waddling through, they can hear me talk about doing good and righteous things - and, oh boy, now all of their ideas of good and righteous acts get piggy-backed on top of my message. What a good, honest, and upstanding member of society I am.
Nothing to be argued here on my end, but I'll pick off the easy one. The white, male Christian is more likely to be held to his religion's text because he's also more likely to hold others to it to a greater extent. Blacks tend to align with Democrats and whites with Republicans. Guess which party aligns most to Christianity while constantly citing it as a reason for their goals.
And the Democrats align with satanic rituals that use mock human sacrifice and *** rituals.... or... are they mock? ... Stand by, Allison Mack is dropping names. This goes world wide, for example, you'll notice that Peter Munk owns some yacht clubs in Montenegro frequented by the same people who liked to go to Epstein Island. It's a category 10 storm that is building and about to destroy your entire understanding of reality.
While I would be among the first to accuse the Church as it is, today, of being the antichrist - context reigns as king in these kinds of discussions.
Stay out the deep end. This is just alienating without anything substantial behind it and something that's only tangentially related to what I said once again.
Well, yes, we've already established you're being shallow and lazy.
To the contrary, it is not alienating. When the CIA flew Al Qaeda into Bosnia to attack ethnic Serbs, the media went to great lengths to obscure the tragedy and accuse the Serbs of perpetrating crimes and genocide that were not, at all, their doing. The whole process was a deliberate invasion and destruction of their identity and culture - until, ultimately, when they acted in self-defense to preserve the unity of their nation, NATO was called in to dismantle the infrastructure used to preserve the Yugoslavian state as U.S. diplomatic channels supported secession within the region.
Yugoslavia served as the model for what is being done in Europe and the United States. Big boys swim in the deep end of the pool. We know how to dive.
Too much rambling. I won't hail the education system, but I'm not naive enough to believe it's a good idea to trample over its standards.
What standards? The standards and principles of education were abandoned long ago. The only people given a semi-real education are those screened by gifted education programs in their communities. The rest are effectively given a set of conditioned responses to stimuli. Even among those of us who test among the top in intelligence, we are selected or black-listed based on our acceptance of 'progressive' doctrine. Truth is treason in the empire of lies.
You missed the point.
I gave you enough of the specifics that it wouldn't count as a generalization. You're introducing a whole new can of worms with everything that comes after that statement.
And it is a can of worms that needs to be eaten and digested. The reality is that all of this begins to set into question the bounds of the first amendment. If it is 'against policy' to kneel in prayer before a ball game, then is it also against policy to wear a bracelet with a cross? If it is 'against policy' to display a bible verse, can it also be against policy to display a quote from Yoda about the Jedi?
There is actually a Jedi religion. It may or may not be officially recognized by nations - but what makes a passage or quote religious? Would a quote from Jesus about "Do unto your neighbor as you do unto yourself" be a display of a religious preference and be "exclusion?"
If such is perfectly possible under the First Amendment, then why do we even have the illusion of such freedoms of expression? Religion could practically be banned by the first amendment on the basis of policies as described above - all while 'being consistent' with the first amendment.
@Bold, and how'd you reach this conclusion? The label is hardly arbitrary if it's wearers act in such unity. Ignoring the ridiculous with glaring questions.
By being deep.
The label is arbitrary? Is Ron Paul "Right?" What about Gary Noland? Contrast them to Jeb Bush. Ben Carson. Camile Paglia is, actually, coming out to be more in line with the right as time has gone on, than those under the label of 'the left.'
The label is useless, as we are effectively talking about insanity co-opting political parties and social concepts and then abusing the rest of the population into compliance with that insanity. Hence "Liberalism is a mental disorder."
@Bold. Bombing, shootings, brutal executions? Are you even speaking of America? If you aren't, shove it. Both this article and thread is specifically about Christian treatment in America. Christians are mocked for legitimate reasons, and that doesn't spell catastrophe for them. American mass shootings have NEVER been targeted at churches(as far as I know) just because the attacker hated the religious. The only church killings I know of have been because the members were mainly black or to get a highscore. How are Christians mistreated when they practically run the country?
Would it surprise you to learn that the U.S. was being slated for mass extinction events (starvation, disease, and the civil wars that would precipitate)?
You have no idea what you were being made an accessory to - what fate you have been spared. This will all begin coming to light in the subsequent years. You should look at Europe to see what was being done to Christianity. Police looked the other way or completely misdocumented events where muslims would assault Christian communities - still do.
The left in the U.S. has been rather careful not to attack Churches, outright. They love to shoot at small town communities or into country music concerts, however.
Then, as you say, you self-righteously proclaim yourself to be above criticism and then begin to lay into the Christian communities with a whole host of accusations. They are guilty... yet, you are not? Turn the same accusations you level against Christians around to virtually any other community in existence. Yet, here you single them out and say it is 'justified' to do so.
