Hate the belief, not the believer

[Hoopington]

My point was that some people just have their beliefs and even though those beliefs are terrible it's none of my business, but some people use their beliefs to justify hideous actions. So, I wonder if at that point I am justified in blaming the person instead of just the religion. Should people be held responsible for their actions even when they were driven by well meaning religious intentions based on their personal beliefs?

Hate only harms you, your hate has no real effect on the one you hate, so why do it. For those such as ISIS our hate want change them and could possibly inspire them.

GC

---

So let's have a quote so we know who you're talking about, and then let them explain themselves. Min doesn't count, he hates everyone.

I'm not going to go looking for those posts, if you do not believe me fine, if you do fine. I'm not trying to lie about this, but you be the judge.

GC

"Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgement you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you."

Yet on nearly every post I see of yours, this is exactly what you are doing. Where in his post does he even appear to be hateful?

You do this a lot, seems to me to be a little projection. You come onto an atheist forum, as a christian, and because shock horror, they question your beliefs......, on said atheists forum, you accuse them of being full of hate.

Being able to quote chapter and verse does not translate to understanding, it seems to me you have completely lost your books message.

[TubbyTubby]

For those such as ISIS our hate want change them and could possibly inspire them.

I hate to be pedantic, and your spelling is generally OK but can you make a note that the word is 'won't' and not 'want' in this instance.

You always use the wrong spelling with this word and it sometimes makes the sentence appear to mean the opposite of what you intended. Other times it just reads as jibberish.

If you can manage this my life would be complete, as I would be the only forum member to have taught you anything, ever.

[Godscreated]

I don't literally mean to hate them. I just say it because I took a popular Christian phrase "hate the sin, not the sinner" and made it secular. I am trying to get a feel on how far a person can go action wise and I can still say "well, yea, but they're deluded by their beliefs. It's not their fault".
At what point does the personal responsibility kick in? I just...I have a bad habit of making excuses for people who do crappy things to me. Usually there's a pretty clear line, but when it comes to religion I have a harder time.

The way I see it is just because it's not their fault the way they are does not mean that one cannot reasonably hate them (or rather dislike/detest them) for the stuff they may do to others.

I don't have to hold anyone personally responsible for anything in order to have a strong dislike of the person. If that person kept unapologetically abusing me to no end, I could care less about whether they could help it or not. What they did was continually invoke unpleasant feelings in me towards them through their actions that I cannot but detest them ... and also feel pity for them as well.

Why is it that the Christian is always at fault for the way one feels, could it not possibly be that what's said actually pricks a nerve of guilt.

GC

[Mister Agenda]

So let's have a quote so we know who you're talking about, and then let them explain themselves. Min doesn't count, he hates everyone.

I'm not going to go looking for those posts, if you do not believe me fine, if you do fine. I'm not trying to lie about this, but you be the judge.

I don't think you're deliberately lying. I think you're habitually uncharitable in interpreting other people's posts and frequently misunderstand what people are actually saying. So with you, my default on such matters is to presume you're mistaken. That you're willing to make such a serious accusation yet unwilling to back it up doesn't incline me to think my assessment is inaccurate.

The charitable thing for you to do would be to be very cautious in throwing around accusations of hatred, but if there is one thing being a Christian clearly hasn't done for you, it hasn't made you charitable.

And before you go on about how generous you are, see '2' below.

char·i·ta·ble/ˈCHerədəb(ə)l/
adjective
1.of or relating to the assistance of those in need.
2.apt to judge others leniently or favorably.

[Godscreated]

For those such as ISIS our hate want change them and could possibly inspire them.

I hate to be pedantic, and your spelling is generally OK but can you make a note that the word is 'won't' and not 'want' in this instance.

You always use the wrong spelling with this word and it sometimes makes the sentence appear to mean the opposite of what you intended. Other times it just reads as jibberish.

If you can manage this my life would be complete, as I would be the only forum member to have taught you anything, ever.

You set yourself above everyone, so your statements for me are only that, self elevating. I take what people write and figure out what their saying despite the mistakes and carry on, but not you, when you're left with nothing to argue you will find something to use to belittle others, good luck in life with this approach. I never claimed to be good with words and I probably never will, but when one tries to use their brain and find what was said they help themselves out. I will try and remember to stop and think about want and won't, but if I were you I wouldn't hold my breath, oops, two negatives in one sentence, twice, forgive me word master.

GC

[Mister Agenda]

Why is it that the Christian is always at fault for the way one feels, could it not possibly be that what's said actually pricks a nerve of guilt.

GC

That's certainly a fantasy you seem to cherish, but you rarely say anything here that ought to make anyone but you feel guilty. You're one of the number one enforcers here of the idea that Christianity can't possibly be the true religion. Fortunately we've recently gotten a Mormon who makes Christianity seem more moral than do you.

---

You set yourself above everyone, so your statements for me are only that, self elevating. I take what people write and figure out what their saying despite the mistakes and carry on, but not you, when you're left with nothing to argue you will find something to use to belittle others, good luck in life with this approach. I never claimed to be good with words and I probably never will, but when one tries to use their brain and find what was said they help themselves out. I will try and remember to stop and think about want and won't, but if I were you I wouldn't hold my breath, oops, two negatives in one sentence, twice, forgive me word master.

GC

Is it the Jesus in you that makes you so defensive? And thanks for providing an outstanding example of interpreting someone's post uncharitably.

[TubbyTubby]

I hate to be pedantic, and your spelling is generally OK but can you make a note that the word is 'won't' and not 'want' in this instance.

You always use the wrong spelling with this word and it sometimes makes the sentence appear to mean the opposite of what you intended. Other times it just reads as jibberish.

If you can manage this my life would be complete, as I would be the only forum member to have taught you anything, ever.

You set yourself above everyone, so your statements for me are only that, self elevating. I take what people write and figure out what their saying despite the mistakes and carry on, but not you, when you're left with nothing to argue you will find something to use to belittle others, good luck in life with this approach. I never claimed to be good with words and I probably never will, but when one tries to use their brain and find what was said they help themselves out. I will try and remember to stop and think about want and won't, but if I were you I wouldn't hold my breath, oops, two negatives in one sentence, twice, forgive me word master.

GC

Oh for fucks sake. It was just a bit of advice for a repeated mistake (with a touch of sarcasm admittedly). I did say your spelling was generally OK. You don't need to dismantle my whole personality from one comment.

And for the record, I've given up arguing with you.

[KevinM1]

I don't literally mean to hate them. I just say it because I took a popular Christian phrase "hate the sin, not the sinner" and made it secular. I am trying to get a feel on how far a person can go action wise and I can still say "well, yea, but they're deluded by their beliefs. It's not their fault".
At what point does the personal responsibility kick in? I just...I have a bad habit of making excuses for people who do crappy things to me. Usually there's a pretty clear line, but when it comes to religion I have a harder time.

Why not have a discussion with them about how they make you feel they may not be aware of how you feel.

GC

This is probably the only thing I will ever agree with GC about. If you haven't honestly expressed how hurt you are by these people's actions, you should. If you have, and they persist, or if you can't due to circumstances, then... *hug*

Regarding your larger question, people should always be held accountable for their actions, IMO. Intent is only part of the equation. Like the saying goes, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions*." It shouldn't matter that harmful actions are stemming from good intentions; harm is still being done.

*No, GC, we still don't believe in hell. The saying is a metaphor illustrating that the thought behind a deed doesn't excuse the deed itself, and how people tend to simply rely on meaning well instead of doing well.

[Brian37]

Yes hate the belief, not the believer. I would also hate it if I had a friend walking around repeatedly claiming that the New York Yankees won the Superbowl.

Human rights are a given, even the right to make absurd claims. But no one is under any obligation not to respond to those claims. Any claim that has teeth to it, can withstand criticism, blasphemy and ridicule. Anyone demanding a taboo to their claims is someone to run from. It is not saying skeptics need to be dicks in every context all the time. Just to say that without the ability to challenge claims all you have are the insecure demanding you don't bruise their egos.

It should be more important to humans that they have reliable data and be willing to give up on bad claims.

[Losty]

Why not have a discussion with them about how they make you feel they may not be aware of how you feel.

GC

I can't get into details. This is all from a purely emotional stand point as I have zero contact with these people now. Somehow they still find ways to hurt me from a distance.

These are people who have known me my entire life. Family. They have endangered my life and the lives of my children. They are a threat to us themselves. They've kind of been a threat to me my whole life.

But let's say I could sit down and discuss with them. How do you tell a person what they're doin hurts you when what they're doing is telling you the abuse you suffer is a result of your not being a good enough Christian, trying to use your kids as leverage for blackmail to convince you to stay with a husband who has tried to kill you, tried to take your kids on several occasions, given your personal information to your exhusband, tried to find you even after you left and changed your number? These things hurt me, but I shouldn't have to tell them. It should be obvious. I am just lost somewhere inside my mind struggling against my loving forgiving nature that tells me I am wrong for blaming them. My conscious tells me it's not their fault and I should love them anyways. My brain tells me they're horrible people and I have every right to blame them because I was subjected to religion and abuse from a young age and I would never do this to anyone.