Inside Bay Area – Christian teens rally to save San Francisco — I wish these two groups s would just duke it out and get it over with.
By the tens of thousands, Christian teens poured into proudly liberal San Francisco on Friday for a two-day evangelical extravaganza where they would rock, pray and provoke progressives, who accused the movement of working toward a theocracy endangering “San Francisco values.”
BattleCry, a cross between a rock concert and a war rally, began with a showdown on the steps of San Francisco City Hall as Christians and progressives judged one another while accusing each side of intolerance.
“These people are no better than the Taliban — Christian soldiers,” said Joel Cook, 47, of Alameda.
On the other side of the philosophical breach, Eden West, a 16-year-old Christian, said of a man holding a sign proclaiming he was both gay and Christian, “If he really loved God, he wouldn’t be gay.”
The dueling rallies were the first course in a two-day evangelical event known as BattleCry, where 22,000 people were expected at AT&T Park to celebrate God while rejecting aspects of pop culture.
Divided by a street as well as ideology, BattleCry participants waved red banners and yelled that they were taking back their generation as progressives carried a blue banner depicting fornicating stick figures and the phrase “Sodomy Rocks.”
Sodomy rocks? Gads. What kind of retort is that? My favorite quote I saw on TV came from one of the particpants of Battle Cry. He said. “It’s great because when I hang out with my friends and they don’t know about God, I can tell them about God and have fun.” Move over Heidegger!
Realted link:
Battle Cry Home Page — See if it creeps you out.
#17 – Since when did popularity make something right? Yes, Christians make up one third of the world….so what? It amazes me that in this day and age there are so many people that hang on to these silly…yes silly…superstitions.
Being one-third of humanity doesn’t make us right — it just makes it nearly impossible to generalize about us like people so glibly do here.
The older I get the more I believe that perception of spiritual reality is a brain function that we don’t chose.
You don’t perceive the spiritual world, so you dismiss it as “silly superstition” similar to those who don’t perceive love usually dismiss it as emotional weakness.
Since our spiritual perception is outside of your personal reality, we religious folk must simply must be delusional!
But if you can’t perceive it, I don’t think there really is any way to solve this issue. I’m OK with that and don’t think you are any less moral or smart or reasonable than me. We’re just different in a way we probably can’t help.
However, it is hard not to notice how condescending and judgmental you are are of people like me!
Managing the cult is TeenMania.com, whose broken-home upbringing led to degrees in counseling and… shhhhhh … psychology. He also has an honory doctorate from Jerry Falwell and has George Bush’s ear as a drug advisory committee member sponsored by the gov’t. Sooooo… he’s well versed in manipulation, and since teenagers are so very manipulatable… And, oh my Gosh! You can still be a teen, enjoy rock music, eat junk food, wear t-shirts with stuff written on them, hang out with friends and … oh my Gosh! It’s … it’s… it’s not a cult! It’s God!
In my post above, forgot to add the name of Ron Luce, the leader of TeenMania.com.
#21
Facts and evidence are the answer to creationism.
Homosexuals are a part of nature just as are people that are stupid and people that are born with a high level of intelligence.
Atheists are not religious, they just have evidence that Christians are mistaken.
Atheists cannot be against “sin” until we define what “sin” is. I would bet that there are differing opinions amongst atheists about abortion. Since atheists are not confined to the myopia of a 2 year old watching a commercial, I suspect that the majority have no qualms with homosexuality, feel that adultery (depending on what we mean) is harmful, are most definitely against theft and could care less about jealousy until it leads to actual harmful behavior. I would bet that most atheists would accept euthanasia as being ethical under specific circumstances like the Terry Shavo case and I would suspect that most atheists could care less what you read and watch and what you do while watching it as long as you have the choice to watch and read something else.
RE: Christian “tolerance”
You mean the same Christians that feel that homosexuals are evil? You mean the same Christians that tortured people to confess they were worshipping Satan? You mean the same Christians that think that everyone not baptized is going to hell? You mean the same Christians that sent armies into the middle-east to “liberate” the holy land? You mean the same Christians that felt that childhood indoctrination was not enough and thus had “Under God” stamped on everything to thwart the “evil” atheists? You mean that kind of tolerance?
RE: Creationism
I’ll leave that for another day. Suffice to say that scientific theories on the Big Bang are ever changing and due to the recent discovery that the universe is not only expanding but do so at an accelerated rate, there have been challenges to the single Big Bang theory.
RE: Human Rights
Read after me very carefully: Hitler was a CATHOLIC not an atheist. He was a fanatically, frothing-at-the-mouth Catholic that felt that he was doing God’s work by killing almost six million Jews.
The problem with discussing Christian morality it that their God offers a moving target, contradicting their own argument of moral absolutism. One of their god’s all-time favorite people was Abraham, whom God even praised as having kept all of God’s laws and commands. The inconvenient truth is, Abraham had an incestuous marriage to his half-sister Sarah (they had the same father). When Sarah couldn’t conceive a child for him, Abraham banged her servant Hagar, and he later had other concubines as well, not really wanting to confine himself to having sex with just two women. Sound a bit immoral?
Maybe God’s sense of morality hadn’t fully developed at that time. He was a youthful god, full of exuberance but without much real-world experience. I’m sure he’s much more moral now. Pity that he can’t go back and correct his mistakes of the past.
And there you have my Sunday sermon 😉
Thomas – RE: Human Rights
Read after me very carefully: Hitler was a CATHOLIC not an atheist. He was a fanatically, frothing-at-the-mouth Catholic that felt that he was doing God’s work by killing almost six million Jews.
Adolf Hitler was as much a christian as Hussein was a muslim and Kei-Shek was a buddist!
JUST because someone SAYS they are this or that about themselves does not MEAN they are that. We all know of wolves in sheeps clothing and cannot for a second think that is what they truly are.
There has to be PROOF by actions to know if it is true or not. Hitler’s actions were NOT of a christian by the standards set by Christ. But then neither are MANY leaders christian by that criteria. But PIETY is GOOD for politics. Always has been since shamans came around. The leader professes the shaman is right and the shaman supports the leader. Its been there ever since there was religion.
Is it true, look at the pudding. There’s the proof. If atheists place faith
into Hitler being a real christian, then they can also believe in ANYTHING. Ergo just as retarded as they claim others are.
Cursor_
Does anyone but me think that these gatherings are just a bunch of kids who can’t get laid and are fearful of intimacy with the opposite sex, probably harbor homo erotic desires and need an excuse to just say no to everything? I mean what normal kid — especially in high school — wants to go to camp meetings like this? Fishing in a lake has to be more fun than a Christian pep rally with a bunch of jacked up fundamentalists throwing their hands in the air and swooning over the exhortations of some know-it-all jaggoff.
The year is 2007, check the calendar.
#7, Lauren, I read your post twice. Good post, and excellent points!
huh. let me toss this out there for a minute – why pick on “religion” as being particularly destructive? an intellectually-honest person tracing the history of destructive ideologies would have to put nationalism/patriotism at the top of the list. while the crusades and the inquisition were nasty pieces of work, they pale in comparison to … well, the vast majority of the wars ever fought, and certainly every war in the last 200 years, the bloodiest two centuries in human history.
“My country right or wrong” is no less of a surrender to external forces and no less irrational than “Thy will be done.” but for some reason, lots of knives out for the latter and virtually none for the former. I find this puzzling.
#37
Hitler was a practicing Catholic. He went to church regularly, consulted with priests and wrote extensively about his beliefs in Mein Kampf. He ruled over the former Holy Roman Empire. Hitler was considered by many, including the Pope, as being very pious.
If we are going to go down the road of stating that people are Christian only by how closely they follow the ideals set down by their prophet, then it should be clear that no Pope (with the possible exception of Peter) were or are Christian. No where does Jesus say anything about massive accumulation of wealth, consolidation of power or creation of “holy armies.” Furthermore, we need only reach back into the Bible to find numerous examples of accepted, even encouraged torture and brutality to support the argument that Hitler was doing “God’s will” in a way consistent with Christian beliefs.
Thus, your argument that Hitler was not a Christian simply because he acted in ways contrary to Christianity is empty. You cannot logically (granted I realize I’m talking to a religious person where logic is not highly regarded) argue that all bad people that claimed to be Christian are not “really” Christian and thus claim Christians are actually “good” while at the same time claiming that bad people of other beliefs are evidence that those beliefs are bad. You are attempting to revise history to fit your view of the world. Sorry that simply doesn’t work. Hitler was a Christian just as the Crusaders and the Inquisition.
“Do unto others as you would have done unto you.”
“A man cannot serve two masters”
“Love thy God and love thy neighbor.”
“Judge not, lest ye be judged.”
So many of you point to people who do despicable things in the name of Christ. But, of course, if they are not doing what he said to do, they are engaging in a perverse kind of slander. He warned us;
“Many will come crying “Christ, Christ” but they will know me not.”
Why are you so surprised? Coming in the name of an ancient saint is evil’s favorite tactic. It always happens. That is why we should elevate people by the quality of their beliefs and actions, and work hard to remember what those beliefs and actions actually were. Do otherwise, and be deceived.
BTW, that web site is profoundly creepy. It’s like an unintentional parody of the aesthetic in the british 1984 movie. All red, white and black, with flags. *shakes his head* The upsides of evil are that they are predictable in a broad sense, and they don’t cooperate too well. Don’t loose heart.
#1 has it right.
Why do people get upset when “Christian” (I put it quotes because the terms is more nominal then an actual description) assemble or rally to a cause.
Last I recalled “Christianity” is not a requirement in this country? Last I recall “Liberals” can have their own rally? Which group is being the hypocrite here?
As far as intolerance, each group set its rules for inclusion. I’ve meet more militantly intolerant Liberals then in any other group. That is certainly my read of the postings here.
Liberals tend to be some of the most angry people in the world, always looking for a cause, because they have no cause of their own. They exist just to be angry, because they don’t fit in anywhere else. So they always throw stones, hence the working definition of a liberal.
I love when people talk about homosexuality being wrong and then only talk about anal sex.
Newsflash, nearly half of all homosexuals don’t have anal sex. Moreover, there are lots of heterosexuals who like anal sex.
There are a whole lot of Christians who aren’t judgmental assholes. There are also a lot of atheists who aren’t judgmental assholes.
Unfortunately in both cases the extremists are teh ones who make the most noise.
#43 noname writes about liberals, saying “They exist just to be angry, because they don’t fit in anywhere else. So they always throw stones, hence the working definition of a liberal.”
At least when these people you’re calling liberals throw stones, it’s only a figure of speech. When people of faith throw stones….. well, you’ve read the Bible — it’s a blood sport 😉
Maybe I’ll beg off with the same excuse proffered by some of the Christians in this thread. Those aren’t really true liberals doing those non-liberal things, just as the “Christians” who killed so many people in God’s name weren’t really true Christians.
Um, can a Christian tell me why God didn’t send a savior like Jesus to the North American Indians or to the Orient?
#43
[Liberals] “exist just to be angry, because they don’t fit in anywhere else. So they always throw stones, hence the working definition of a liberal.”
I’m always fascinated by the American English usage of the word liberal.
The Oxford Dictionary defines liberal as “willing to accept or respect behaviour or opinions different from one’s own; open to new ideas”.
Reading some posts here, one might assume that the definition would be closer to “bright red, raving communist”.
When and why did this innocent little word become so debased and distorted – or does this tell us something about the centre of gravity of American political opinion?
I went to the Battle Cry web page. They have a count down running. What is it counting down to? The Rapture???
In the end, all these teens will get drunk and wake up with a sore anus.
#46 “Um, can a Christian tell me why God didn’t send a savior like Jesus to the North American Indians or to the Orient?”
Well the Mormons think Jesus came to North America and I remember seeing adds in the back of magazines which claimed to reprint “recently unearthed documents of the time Jesus spent in the Far East!”
#37,
If atheists place faith into Hitler being a real christian, then they can also believe in ANYTHING. Ergo just as retarded as they claim others are.
If it requires placing “faith” then they aren’t atheists. It would be those that place “faith” in things that can believe in anything regardless of how irrational or “retarded” (geeze, how juvenile that word is, typical Christian reaction?). That would include the religious wing nuts.
I don’t care that Hitler was Catholic or Stalin was atheist. They were bad people who had their own values and human life wasn’t one of them. The only justification for killing is in self defense, something both the Bible and Koran do in spades, with their god’s justification.
Yes, Mr. Fusion, that is a good point; violence is only useful in countering violence already in motion. Up to the point at which another has irrationally chosen to kill you you should do anything to prevent violence, but thereafter. . .do you want to give others the impression that violence is a good way to solve problems? To live by the sword is to die by it.
But back to the argument at hand; would you say that “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.” is not a whorthwile standard? For that one was indeed repeated by another wise sage, in the east, and seems to be a standard that some tribes of North America held to as well. If that is too much faith for you, then do as I have done, and try it on an experimental basis. Does this way of living solve more problems, or create them? In my life, it has cost me time, but never failed to enrich the lives of others, nor my own life. This is but my own experience, but there is nothing to say that a bit of experimentation is not whorthwhile in your own case. Having faith is only the first step; living by that standard gives you experience which backs it up.
Keep in mind, that while I have faith in wise men and their teachings, the fact that I have a broad mind and a tendency to see the best aspects of all philosophies would lead these “Culture Warriors” to label me an agnostic or atheist. None the less, I can’t see the value in having no faith at all. It is rather like not trusting anyone’s experience but one’s own, combined with a deep cycnicism that not only stereotypes and labels people, but judges them as irrational as well. Indeed, I tend not to think that such a thing as having ‘no’ faith is even possible. For instance, for science to proceed one must have a certain faith in peer review and the editors of the journals to keep balderdash out of the discourse, and allow in all repeatable phenomena. But how many scientists in the audience bother to repeat all of the experiments underpinning their work before proceeding? Is faith really so irrational as having to discover everything oneself?
#52, Li,
You make compelling arguments about faith. For the simple reason that we are incapable of proving every point, we must have some faith. Yet, my faith is all based upon something physical or provable. I can’t prove that my wife has never had an affair, yet I have the utmost trust that our relationship is and has always been strong enough to make that improbable.
To have trust that others have performed their job is fundamental in our society. When one of the people that report to me say they completed a task I take them at their word. I don’t need to verify. The same is when I read a piece of research. Only if I am more then interested would I ever research the citations provided. I trust the peer review to do their jobs. Yet, I want all those citations in case I want more information on that specific thought. All this is based on trust, not faith. Trust requires something verifiable as a base. Faith merely requires an explanation without having any foundation.
Most arguments here dealing with faith tend towards religious faith. There is no proof or evidence for their belief other then what they believe. This is the faith many people find dangerous and destructive. I recommend you re-read post #17 by None.
Morality is not owned by any one group. Nor can following that morality make you a follower. To follow non violence isn’t a faith based idea, it is a matter of self preservation. If we kill everyone, then the species will die off. The same may be said about assault, theft, or any anti-social behavior fitting into group dynamics. It is for the sake of the group or society that we have common morals.
“Well the Mormons think Jesus came to North America ”
So where’s the documentation and stories of god’s visit to the North American Natives? Why did the Arabs deserve such up close and personal service while the rest of the world then and now get a mishmash of scribblings or get ignored? How could a God make such a mess in spreading his message? A god so powerful as to create the universe, yet so inept at giving instructions to his “children”. A god so inept that he/she/it is unable to appear to us and can only send one messenger to a privileged few, and incompetent enough to get himself killed.
…It all seems so believable. Where do i sign up?
(geesh, not “indians” as I stated earlier. I played cowboys n’ indians when i was little … old habit 🙂 )
#53, Mr Fusion… nicely said.
#52, #53
I agree with you and wanted to add that there is a between faith and trust in an educated guess for which you have assessed the risk of being wrong. I cannot prove that my wife loves me however all evidence regarding her behavior and what empirical information I can gather lead me to conclude at this moment that she does. That is far different than blind faith based on known falsehoods or logical fallacies such as religion.
I disagree with you on non-violence. Non-violent protest is a means to an end just as violent protest. Non-violent protest is especially effective against civilized opposition and nations where open debate is allowed to take place. However, it should be clear that non-violent resistance has never been proven to be effective against unprincipled, totalitarian regimes. It has nothing to do with self-preservation per se. It comes down to what is the most effective and least costly method against your opponent. Non-violent protest against Hitler would have resulted in extermination.
Damn..typing too fast..that should read: “…there is a difference between faith and trust…”
#55 & 56, Thank you.
#56, I agree with your non-violence point. Good point. I was looking at violence against society such as murders and genocides. Of course non-violent protest will only work in societies that have a conscience. Otherwise it may become a matter of self defense.
#56, Of course non-violent protest will only work in societies that have a conscience. Otherwise it may become a matter of self defense.
Did the white Southern racists have a conscience when MLK confronted them with pacifism? No.
Did the British colonists have a conscience when Ghandi confronted them with pacifism? No.
Pacifism is the most powerful when there is absence of conscience because it nurtures and demands it of your enemy — which creates the possibility of real change for the better.
Love thy enemies – the last word in true Christianity, if you can find a religion that actually believes that Jesus meant it!
#60 This is the secret. The only true Christians aren’t very ‘religeous’ as it now means, as that means exclusion and judgement, which is contrary to loving everybody. Saying “I am saved and you are going to hell.” is taking God’s work and making it our own. But few churches avoid this fatal hubris.