Should Christians be hated?

[plaingirly]

Random question! I opened my Bible on Matthew 10 and verse 22 says :

And all nations will hate you because you are my followers. But everyone who endures to the end will be saved.

I think there is another verse similar but can't remember it.

So if someone is really a follower of Jesus will people hate them and if people don't hate them are they not strong enough in their faith?

I don't really want to be hated! Also at work we have to get along with people so having them hate us wouldn't be ideal. Unless the verses are more specific or maybe aimed at the disciples.

[PedroYoniLikesCrisps]

I think the point is that a lot of the physical attacks which take place every day are committed by people who just want to cause trouble or are influenced by peer pressure or drug abuse. Not because they have a specific problem with a specific group of people. Try going out on a Friday or Saturday night and not coming across a bunch of idiots who just want to have a fight.

If there's something which makes you stand out from the crowd, be it a dog collar, a funny hat or that you are unusually tall, perhaps, this will attract the focus of a crowd.

Not saying there aren't people who premeditate attacks on the clergy, but no more than there are against organisations linked to animal testing or the police or politicians, etc, etc.

[SolidGoldBrass]

The whole concept of hate crimes is an interesting - and sometimes tricky - thing to deal with. Yes, hate crimes occur and there are some nasty people who think it's not only OK but justifiable to attack others because they are 'different' in some way, whether that's to do with things they can't change about themselves (skin colour, height, disability) or choices they have made (clothing, political affiliation etc). However, being a member of a group that may attract attacks based on prejudice is not a free pass to make a knob of yourself, nor does it mean you should be given special privileges.
Being disagreed with is not a hate crime. Being called to account for things you have done is not a hate crime. Being asked to defend your support for an institution that has done bad things is not a hate crime.

[sieglinde]

SGB said 'Being disagreed with is not a hate crime. Being called to account for things you have done is not a hate crime. Being asked to defend your support for an institution that has done bad things is not a hate crime.'

No, agreed - I'm always up for a reasoned debate - but niminy's point is that the extreme end of the negative rhetoric may not be THAT easy to divorce from the actual beatings and threats of violence to which some of us are truly subject. It seems really unlikely that these have NOTHING to do with one another.

Hate speech is in any case a crime, and it ought to be. Surely it's possible to call people to account on matters of doctrine without adding that they are all deluded unscientific idiots who have been brainwashed by a sky fairy and live to persecute women and gay men? These generalities are - like all generalities - wrong in many, maybe even most cases. Yet they are zealously recycled.

[backonlybriefly]

deluded - yes (by definition). Deceived might be a better and fairer word. Like being the victim of an April Fool joke. No one is immune from that if people go to enough trouble to trick you. Believers are also the victims of a self perpetuating system. It's not that all believers are all evil and after us perfect non-believers.

unscientific - yes (by definition) see the Young Earth Creationist thread for a recent example.

idiots - No. Because humans are supposed to believe what they are told as children and within limits as adults. That's a perfectly normal part of development and puts a responsibility on the parent/teacher/priest not to take advantage.

brainwashed - Frequently. See above.

by a sky fairy no, by parents/teachers/priests, but if sky fairy is considered an expression of contempt by Christians then doesn't that imply that Christians feel that those who do believe in fairies are somehow contemptible?

That is why I use it. Because the only way it can be offensive is if you feel about someone else's belief the way I feel about yours.

and live to persecute women and gay men? No not all, but fellow church members are in effect supporting those who do. If you say god is real and you say god speaks the truth and you say the bible is the word of god then it must be ok to stone gay people, and that's good enough for the lunatic fringe.

Of course there is some hate and some people who make it personal and nasty. I can well believe that people can be assaulted when representing the church. Just not that a large proportion of the population is actively involved - not in the UK.

[Italiangreyhound]

backonlybriefly being a Christian does not mean that one hates women or gay people, thinks anyone should be stoned, takes all of the Bible literally or is responsible for any terrible things done in the name of religion in the past or supporting those who do....persecute women and gay men.

Do you really think that it does?

That seems to be what your post implies. Please tell me if I have read it wrong.

If it were the case I would totally understand if Christians were hated.

The reality is, of course, that it is not true, but I am just curious to see if you really feel Christians are responsible for all the bad things assocciated with religion and also to ask if you really think that if those of us who are tolerant and loving etc (I would hope to include myself in that category) left the church, the result would be that religion would be 'better'? I'm not offering to leave any church, of course, just trying to work out what you mean. .

[SolidGoldBrass]

If someone is (for instance) a Conservative and you (hypothetical you) are a Socialist, then you would not be unreasonable to call the Conservative to account for the awful things the Government is doing, and ask him/her how s/he can remain loyal to an organisation that is doing XYZ. It's the same if the person is a member of a religious organisation with a dodgy track record. By remaining a member of it, you are condoning its crimes.

[Italiangreyhound]

A faith group is not a political party. A faith group is more like a family that you join by adoption. This is a picture image not to be taken literally. It is not an individual's fault if members of their family do wrong things. (and which of us do not do wrong things at times.). You could, of course, disown all members of your family or you could work for peace and harmony within your family.

There are lots of people outside the church who are hateful of women and gay people, and others who are hateful of all manner of other people. And there are many loving and kind people in the church. It's not as simple as all of the people in the church being bad!

The implication seems to be if some people in a church or organisation behave in a way that you (or I) do not approve of, therefore everyone is tainted with the same brush. There may well be times when this could be true. In the case of the church I do not think that this is one of those times. The church is huge, multifacited, does a lot of good and does some bad.

Would the church be a better place if all the tolerant voices left? Genuine question.

[PedroYoniLikesCrisps]

I have to admit, I agree with SGB on this one.

Individual Christians (or indeed members of any religion) are, in the most part, not directly responsible for crimes against humanity. But Christianity (and other religions) has been and still is in some cases responsible for atrocious acts against women, children, 'non believers', etc.

That is certainly not an organisation I'd want to be a part of. You can still maintain your beliefs in god and jesus and the bible without subscribing to the institutions which have such a poor track record of human rights violations.

[niminypiminy]

Ooh, I think I know where this is going!

"You, as Christians are responsible for all bad things done by Christians, even if you condemn them, because you are a Christian and must therefore sign up to the programme of things I say Christians think and do."

"I, as an atheist, cannot in anyway be responsible for any bad things done by atheists, because atheism is not a belief system and we are simply individuals who don't believe in God (although we all say exactly the same things as each other)."

Otherwise known as 'Having your cake and eating it'.

Do I get the prize?

[sieglinde]

Sorry, Pedro - you can't be Catholic without being, well, Catholic - to be RC is to be a part of a community - so all you've accomplished is the replacement of discrimination against Christians with discrimination against specific kinds of Christians. Well done! That really helps

SGB, what does it matter what percentage of the population is involved? If enough of them are involved to perpetrate hate crimes, it doesn't really matter if they are a vicious minority or a slim majority.

backonly, it was almost cute the way you simply recycled the insults without any apparent thought. Let's go back over the list:

deluded - yes (by definition). Deceived might be a better and fairer word. Like being the victim of an April Fool joke. No one is immune from that if people go to enough trouble to trick you. Believers are also the victims of a self perpetuating system. It's not that all believers are all evil and after us perfect non-believers.

Fair cop, but only if you are right and I am wrong. How would it sound to you if I said you are the one who has been tricked by the mere reiteration of positions you probably haven't investigated personally?

unscientific - yes (by definition) see the Young Earth Creationist thread for a recent example.

FFS. I'm not a creationist and I don't know any believers who are. I have a degree in zoology. FFFFS. So clearly NOT by definition.

idiots - No. Because humans are supposed to believe what they are told as children and within limits as adults. That's a perfectly normal part of development and puts a responsibility on the parent/teacher/priest not to take advantage.

brainwashed - Frequently. See above.

You do know there's NO SUCH THING as brainwashing, don't you? It's an old idea which has BEEN SCIENTIFICALLY DISPROVED. (I will stop yelling, I promise, but I've said all this before...)

by a sky fairy no, by parents/teachers/priests, but if sky fairy is considered an expression of contempt by Christians then doesn't that imply that Christians feel that those who do believe in fairies are somehow contemptible?

You do see that a fairy - whether extant or not - is absolutely nothing like the God of the religions of the book, don't you? You do know that fairies and belief in them is associated with childhood, don't you?

That is why I use it. Because the only way it can be offensive is if you feel about someone else's belief the way I feel about yours.

Which is why this isn't true. what I dislike is the way you conflate my God with someone else's fairy. I should think fairy believers might not like it much either

and live to persecute women and gay men? No not all, but fellow church members are in effect supporting those who do. If you say god is real and you say god speaks the truth and you say the bible is the word of god then it must be ok to stone gay people, and that's good enough for the lunatic fringe.

I'm not bothered about wearing the hide of a pig either, or about eating rock badger... or about planting two crops in the same field... in other words I am not a fundamentalist.

It's good that you know there is a lunatic fringe. A fringe - by definition - is not the mainstream. And since I support and have campaigned for gay rights and respect, I am not on that fringe. Why do you assume I am? Oh- because I haven't stalked out of the RC church... but I don't stay in it passively. If everyone like me left then it really would be close to what you think it is.

[EllieArroway]

For what, Niminy? Misunderstanding absolutely everything that's been said? Certainly.

Why did you ignore this: Individual Christians (or indeed members of any religion) are, in the most part, not directly responsible for crimes against humanity

Why do you always, always ignore us when we point this out, then follow it up with the claim that we're blaming all Christians - when we've quite clearly and concisely explained over and over that we don't?

Where does this need to take offence come from? If we're talking about people who misuse the Bible to hurt others, rape children then involve the church hierarchy in order to cover it up or lie to Africans about AIDS and YOU are not one of those people responsible for that - then guess who we are not talking about? YOU.

"Oh, but I am my religion", right? No, you're not - as you prove when you distance yourself (rightly) from the horror that some members of your religion perpetrate against others. If we cannot talk about these things that ARE HURTING PEOPLE because we're worried about hurting poor Niminy's feelings, or Sieglindes, then you're telling us we can't talk about them at all. And on behalf of the raped children & babies with AIDS in Africa, I thank you for that.

I am so tired of having words put in my mouth by people who can't actually be bothered to listen to what I (and my fellow atheists) say.

There is no Christian persecution in this country. What there are is rather a lot of is ignorant oiks who'll pick on anyone standing out from the crowd. Including those with dog collars.

You know, there are parts of the world where Christians really ARE being persecuted & I should think they'd dearly love to come and live in our largely secular society where most of us believe equally in freedom OF and freedom FROM religion.

[backonlybriefly]

Italiangreyhound, Firstly I didn't say that Christians must be like that. Surely you can't be unaware that right now huge numbers of Christians (at one time all of them) believe the bible to be the word of god? and that god says he wants those who follow him to kill gay people. (not just gay people. He's quite keen on people being killed. Apparently because we are the descendants of someone he once tricked into eating an apple)

I can take you to a christian right now who will tell you god has the right to do (or order) the worst things you can imagine to anyone - even children and that it will be moral because god says so.

You must have noticed the opposition to gay people having human rights even in this green and pleasant land? based on the bible?

If you were defending some auntie who puts flowers in the church and bakes cakes then I completely understand your puzzlement.

Christians are not directly responsible for what other Christians do, but if you go around saying that Christianity is a good thing then you are aiding those others.

[backonlybriefly]

Fair cop, but only if you are right and I am wrong. How would it sound to you if I said you are the one who has been tricked by the mere reiteration of positions you probably haven't investigated personally?
I think you just did and I support your right to say and think it. Why do christians want to ban my opinion?

FFS. I'm not a creationist and I don't know any believers who are. I have a degree in zoology. FFFFS. So clearly NOT by definition.
You misunderstand. The creationist thread is a recent example of unscientific thinking by the religous in support of faith. All religion is unscientific - not just creationism. By definition because as Christians tell me all the time the whole point is to have faith.

You do see that a fairy - whether extant or not - is absolutely nothing like the God of the religions of the book, don't you? You do know that fairies and belief in them is associated with childhood, don't you?

And if any fairy believer doesn't like it than tough right? cos yours is a 'proper' religion. Religions deserve respect, but only 'proper' ones.

Childhood?

Your holy book has a talking snake tricking a woman into eating an apple.
A talking donkey berating a man for his treatment and ingratitude.
God saying "blow your horn" and the walls of Jerico falling down.

They should have built it out of brick cos then the wolf could huff and puff.. oh wait. wrong fairytale.

[Italiangreyhound]

Ellie just to clarify, I am not angry, or insulted at all. I fully support the right of all people to talk about the atrocities and hurts inflicted by all and any group. I was asking backonlybriefly if they thought religion/the church would be better if those of us who are more tolerant left, because what backonlybriefly seemed to be implying was that by way of being part of a church (any church? Mine is free church) then we were some how part of the problem.

[PedroYoniLikesCrisps]

If all the tolerant people left the church you'd be left with an extremist sect which would instantly lose its privileges because it wouldn't have any reasonable people fighting for its rights to be treated specially.

We're not saying that by being part of the institution you are part of the problem. We are saying that by being part of the institution you create a 'moderate', majority body of members which give the minority of more extreme and less tolerant members a safe platform to operate from.

[sieglinde]

The interlineations are getting to be a bit tricky..

Back,

I completely support your right to say what you like provided it isn't bigoted or hate speech. I am not against atheism, only against the crimes of prejudice. Disagree with what I say, but don't do personal broad-brush general attacks, and we will get along fine.

If religion condemns us all to be 'unscientific', how do you square that with my science degree? It is clearly not inevitable that people of faith will reject science, since I don't, and nor do many others.

And if any fairy believer doesn't like it than tough right? cos yours is a 'proper' religion. Religions deserve respect, but only proper ones

I didn't say this, I don't think it, and you are making it up. I didn't say tough. I really mean it - if I were a fairy believer I would probably be a neopagan - which is a perfectly proper religion, whatever the f that means - and I would definitely resent the assumption that calling gods fairies is the same as calling them nonexistent. Nor would I like the equation of the God of the OT with fairies. Stop trying to push me in to your stereotyped view of RCs.

[backonlybriefly]

I have seen the argument that staying means you can influence the church to be better. It's a valid point of view. I have to wonder how much difference you can make though unless you are a bishop/cardinal. From where I'm sitting it looks like those in charge ignore you (maybe not true for every denomination)

What worries me is that when the really good people stay they make the church look good/safe when it may not be.

Every time some fundamentalist Christian/Muslim stands up and rants they say they represent many thousands/millions of Christians/Muslims who agree with them. If those millions don't stand up and say "Hey! you're not speaking for me!" then it's just as if they did have millions of supporters.

[backonlybriefly]

While you may (must be) scientific about your work, the actual faith in god can't be scientific. Most Christians I've spoken don't see that as a bad thing of course, but would say it was a thing of the heart/soul/spirit.

The thing about using fairies as am example is not so much that they are non-existent, but that one can be fairly sure the listener will dismiss them as 'obviously not real'. Often quite forcefully along the lines of "How dare you compare MY god with...."

Then it's possible to make the point that if they don't respect fairy believers there are no grounds to expect others to respect theirs.

I know you know all this. I'm just trying to lay it out as clearly as I can. The point about my list of words further back was that they sound awful, but when you step through them they are valid opinions/positions. I don't expect you to agree with any of them, but they are not simply insults

[sieglinde]

Yes, I see all that, backonly. It's just that it happens that little of it applies to me. The assumption that it will apply to most - as when you write 'one can be fairly sure the listener will...' - is what I find insulting. I accept that you intended no insult, though.

I agree of course that faith itself is not science, but it shouldn't and doesn't PREVENT reason in other areas. Looking at the fossil record should call on reason, not faith. It does for me. One of my closest friends, also RC, is a professor of oncology and I doubt she 'uses' faith for diagnoses, but she is sustained in her very stressful career by it.

I'm not in the business of dismissing fairies. I am agnostic about them. But I also think it's just a plain category mistake to compare them with the God of the OT, and one that would rightly offend both sets of believers just as a mistake, maybe a failure to listen.

For what it's worth, I agree that no one individual is likely effortlessly to overturn a big organisation in a lifetime, but I DO think and I have seen that individuals working together CAN and DO make all kinds of small differences. I have often disagreed with priests' sermons and I've done it pretty openly, though usually not in church itself but immediately afterwards. Just look at the changes in the RC church just in my lifetime. Not enough, not yet - but they show what's possible.

One reason I nag on here on Mumsnet is to do just what you say - to say well, fundamentalists are not speaking for me. I do it in other forums too.

[EllieArroway]

Ellie just to clarify, I am not angry, or insulted at all

It's OK, I know that Italian. As I've said before, I am grateful for your willingness to discuss difficult things with me. It doesn't go unappreciated.

Sieglinde We could have done with you on the YEC thread. He assumed the only people who accept evolution MUST be atheists - and that any Christians who accept it must not truly understand it!!

[PedroYoniLikesCrisps]

Without meaning to hijack, do we want a YEC2 thread to finish off the discussion? HQ have offered to link to it to the first one if we do.

[Italiangreyhound]

backonlybriefly just realised what your name is, I kept thinking of you as bacon only briefly in my head!! Not that I am thinking of you all the time. .

Every time some fundamentalist Christian/Muslim stands up and rants they say they represent many thousands/millions of Christians/Muslims who agree with them. If those millions don't stand up and say "Hey! you're not speaking for me!" then it's just as if they did have millions of supporters. Yes, good point, I think, we do need to ensure we do not condone evil done in God's name. Don't inadvertently throw our weight behind those who are preaching evil.

I also agree Christians are not directly responsible for what other Christians do.

However, I would not agree that ..but if you go around saying that Christianity is a good thing then you are aiding those others.

The reason is, to explain, I don't go around saying Christianity is a good thing exactly, I go around (well some of the time) saying Jesus is good and I think that therein lies the difficulty, my main aim is to promote a relationship with God, not with the church, yet of course to become a Christian does often mean people join a church or worshipping community. Also, I believe that it is totally right for those who become Christians to do that (join a church).

The 'church', or Christians in general, do a lot of good things and it seems a shame that they/we are totally tarnished in some people's minds by some actions or some words which are wrong.

We are talking about a huge number of individual people, and of course with any great big bunch of people there will be good and bad, BUT I do understand where you are coming from backonlybriefly (honestly I do get it) and I do agree you have some valid points and I am learning a lot here.

As a bunch of Christians we have this very important book that was written 100s, or even 1000s, of years ago and generally we do not agree with it all being taken literally. I do not know any people at all who think you should stone people or commit any of the horrible atrocities written in the old testament.

Maybe you (or someone) then ask/s, why are they there? Well, for me maybe they are a lesson, in what happened, maybe in what did not happen. Why did God appear to say or do this or that... to be honest I don't always (often!) know. But there is a lot of tender stuff in the Bible too and you know it was written (old testament) at a time when behaviour was much more violent (read some of the old Greek classics stuff and you will see it is very violent). So in those tough and violent times things happened in a certain way or were recorded in a certain way, and the Old Testament was written in its time, as was the new.

So when we read and use it, we (I mean me I can only really speak for me) must try and discern what I can learn from it in my time and my context.

I honestly do not know anyone who wants to kill gay people or kill anyone.

I do know people who don't agree gay should not be able to get married. I disagree with that opinion; I would (will) welcome equal marriage.

And I can imagine within the population as a whole there are plenty of people who also agree and disagree with equal marriage. So these issues are not just for us in the church or us in religious groups to grapple with.

I am part of what may be called a Bible-believing church, yet I do not know a single person who takes the whole bible literally, in fact I have never heard of anyone. They all pick and choose based on whatever guiding principle is used.

I am saying this to explain where I am coming from.

I really am learning a lot here. If I were not learning from you guys I would not be coming on here day after day. Any thoughts of converting you are long gone!!! .

[EllieArroway]

Do you think Best will come back? He says on his FB page he wanted to carry on - but he's scared of us now. We could try.

[OliviaMMumsnet]

Evening all
Just a reminder of our talk guidelines
Peace and love to all, Christians or not.

[backonlybriefly]

It's ok Olivia. No one is burning anyone at the stake :)

Reading quick cos I have to rush off, but yeah I guess Italiangreyhound & sieglinde that we're on the same page. Maybe sometimes I lay it on a bit thick, but it seems like the only way to make the point. I'm not accustomed to people who actually listen to what I'm saying.

Yes a YEC2 thread could be interesting. With or without Best.

And /note to self to put capital letters in name. 'I' see it as bacon now. :)