Bible Discussion: Don't Blame CHRISTIANS For The Hate Of The RRR Cult's PSEUDO-Christians.

Don't Blame CHRISTIANS For The Hate Of The RRR Cult's PSEUDO-Christians.
Posts: 28

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2 3   Next  (First | Last)

Craig Chilton
2004-04-25 13:26:58 EST

The sensible, fair-minded and tolerant CHRISTIANS in
America want **nothing** to do with the hateful agendas of
the ignorant, PSEUDO-Christian losers of the RRR Cult.

The former comprise about 99% of America's Chrisrians,
and the RRR cultists comprise less than the reamaining 1%.
Some of the 99% *passively* sympathize with some of the
RRR's objectives, but are FAIR enough to not so much as
lift a finger to help them.

And tens of millions of *actual*, non-RRR-cult Christians
are Pro-Choice with respect to abortion, and support the right
of gays to marry their same-sex partners. I'm just ONE of those
tens of millions of people, and i've been setting that example
in here for many years, now.

Please DON'T blame *actual* Christians for the loath-
some and ignorant hatefulness and bigotry of the cultists
who dishonestly pretend to be, or who have been CONNED
into thinking their stance is Biblical.

The Bible appointed NO Gestapo to attempt to enforce
its precepts (or worse, its MISperceived precepts) upon
society in general.

There is NOTHING Christian about the RRR Cult.


Craig Chilton <xanadu222@mchsi.com>

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

INSIGHT on our Warmonger-in-Thief ---

http://homepage.mac.com/webmasterkai/kaicurry/gwbush/dishonestdubya.html

AND...

http://www.blackboxvoting.com/

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

SPQR
2004-04-27 09:33:28 EST
x*2@mchsi.com (Craig Chilton) wrote in message news:<4090f1ea.56453114@netnews.mchsi.com>...
> The sensible, fair-minded and tolerant CHRISTIANS in
> America want **nothing** to do with the hateful agendas of
> the ignorant, PSEUDO-Christian losers of the RRR Cult.
>
> The former comprise about 99% of America's Chrisrians,
> and the RRR cultists comprise less than the reamaining 1%.
> Some of the 99% *passively* sympathize with some of the
> RRR's objectives, but are FAIR enough to not so much as
> lift a finger to help them.
>
> And tens of millions of *actual*, non-RRR-cult Christians
> are Pro-Choice with respect to abortion, and support the right
> of gays to marry their same-sex partners. I'm just ONE of those
> tens of millions of people, and i've been setting that example
> in here for many years, now.
>
> Please DON'T blame *actual* Christians for the loath-
> some and ignorant hatefulness and bigotry of the cultists
> who dishonestly pretend to be, or who have been CONNED
> into thinking their stance is Biblical.
>
> The Bible appointed NO Gestapo to attempt to enforce
> its precepts (or worse, its MISperceived precepts) upon
> society in general.
>
> There is NOTHING Christian about the RRR Cult.
>
>
> Craig Chilton <xanadu222@mchsi.com>
>
> ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
>
> INSIGHT on our Warmonger-in-Thief ---
>
> http://homepage.mac.com/webmasterkai/kaicurry/gwbush/dishonestdubya.html
>
> AND...
>
> http://www.blackboxvoting.com/
>
> ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*


So -- tell me -- when do the REAL Christians stand up as a group and
denounce the radical "religious right?" So long as they do not do so,
they are complicit and are sinning by silence.

>>>>
SPQR
<<<<

Ninure Saunders
2004-04-27 12:01:12 EST
In article <2baf42ad.0404270533.43f1e5f1@posting.google.com>,
P*9@hotmail.com (SPQR) wrote:

-*2@mchsi.com (Craig Chilton) wrote in message
news:<4090f1ea.56453114@netnews.mchsi.com>...
-> The sensible, fair-minded and tolerant CHRISTIANS in
-> America want **nothing** to do with the hateful agendas of
-> the ignorant, PSEUDO-Christian losers of the RRR Cult.
->
-> The former comprise about 99% of America's Chrisrians,
-> and the RRR cultists comprise less than the reamaining 1%.
-> Some of the 99% *passively* sympathize with some of the
-> RRR's objectives, but are FAIR enough to not so much as
-> lift a finger to help them.
->
-> And tens of millions of *actual*, non-RRR-cult Christians
-> are Pro-Choice with respect to abortion, and support the right
-> of gays to marry their same-sex partners. I'm just ONE of those
-> tens of millions of people, and i've been setting that example
-> in here for many years, now.
->
-> Please DON'T blame *actual* Christians for the loath-
-> some and ignorant hatefulness and bigotry of the cultists
-> who dishonestly pretend to be, or who have been CONNED
-> into thinking their stance is Biblical.
->
-> The Bible appointed NO Gestapo to attempt to enforce
-> its precepts (or worse, its MISperceived precepts) upon
-> society in general.
->
-> There is NOTHING Christian about the RRR Cult.
->
->
-> Craig Chilton <xanadu222@mchsi.com>
->
-> ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
->
-> INSIGHT on our Warmonger-in-Thief ---
->
-> http://homepage.mac.com/webmasterkai/kaicurry/gwbush/dishonestdubya.html
->
-> AND...
->
-> http://www.blackboxvoting.com/
->
-> ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
-
-
-So -- tell me -- when do the REAL Christians stand up as a group and
-denounce the radical "religious right?" So long as they do not do so,
-they are complicit and are sinning by silence.


qite a few of us do "stand up as a group and -denounce the radical
"religious right? " on a regular and consistant basis.

We just can't seem to get the press coverafe and.or access as the
"religious right:.

When the so-called liberal press wants a "christian" viewpoint, do they
contact the World Coubcil of Churches?

The President of the United Chirches of Christ?

The Society of Friends (Quakers)?

No, they don't contact anyone like them..they contact people like Jerry
Falwell, or Pat Ribertson..the Vhristian Colaition and the like.

We can scream our heads off..and sometimes we do, but even YOU can't hear
us if the press/media ignores us.

Ninure Saunders aka Rainbow Christian
http://Rainbow-Christian.tk

The Lord is my Shepherd and He knows I'm Gay
http://Ninure-Saunders.tk

My latest Poll
Who would Jesus vote for?
http://www.network54.com/Hide/Votelet/34458


My Yahoo Group
http://Ninure.tk

My Online Diary
http://www.ninure.deardiary.net
-
Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches
http://www.MCCchurch.org

To send e-mail, remove nohate from address

Eric Bohlman
2004-04-27 16:30:00 EST
R*e@Rainbow-Christian.tk (Ninure Saunders) wrote in
news:RainbowChristiannohate-2704041115280001@h-69-3-218-136.chcgilgm.dyna
mic.covad.net:

> We just can't seem to get the press coverafe and.or access as the
> "religious right:.
>
> When the so-called liberal press wants a "christian" viewpoint, do
> they contact the World Coubcil of Churches?
>
> The President of the United Chirches of Christ?
>
> The Society of Friends (Quakers)?
>
> No, they don't contact anyone like them..they contact people like
> Jerry Falwell, or Pat Ribertson..the Vhristian Colaition and the
> like.
>
> We can scream our heads off..and sometimes we do, but even YOU can't
> hear us if the press/media ignores us.

I've got a very strong hunch as to why that is. The media have, in recent
decades, gotten extremely lazy and cheap. They expect others to do their
work for them. Why do you think so much time and space is devoted to
coverage of celebrities and entertainment? It's because the celebrities'
PR people deliver pre-packaged, almost-ready-to-run stories to the media,
stories that require only minor editing. Most of what today's media runs
is slightly gussied-up press releases. Even a lot of the news is really
just corporate or government PR (Reagan got to be the "Teflon President"
because the media knew that if they covered him favorably, they'd have a
steady diet of ready-to-run "stories" delivered to them from the White
House at little or no cost).

People like Falwell, Robertson, Dobson, et.al. *know* that. They've got
slick, cheap-to-run "news" packages ready for the media whenever there's a
controversy. Media outlets hardly need to spend any staff time (and
therefore money) to run the RRR response to a story. But the mainline
churches haven't yet bought into commercial PR culture. They've got the
old-fashioned expectation that the media are actually going to have
reporters contact them and do real interviews and shooting. IOW, expect
the media to spend money covering the story. Things ain't like that
anymore.

Covering the RRR's perspective on a story is a simple matter of making a
phone call and then punching a couple of codes into a satellite receiver.
A few minutes later, you've got your footage. Covering the mainline
perspective involves sending out a whole crew, maybe putting them in a
hotel, directing, and editing. All by highly-paid staff. It's an easy
decision for a bottom-liner.

So the problem is really that the mainline and liberal churches have to
start marketing themselves as if they were selling cars or soft drinks.
They have to start doing what used to be the media's work for them. They
can't turn up their noses and sniff that Madison Avenue stuff is beneath
them, or inappropriate for a religion. The landscape's changed. It's
pretty disgusting, but it's the truth. In today's media culture, the only
ways to be a newsmaker are to commit a serious crime or to be a news
producer yourself.

So if, say, the UCC hopes to get its perspective on, say, what's going to
happen in MA on May 17 on national TV, it's gotta be prepared to call the
networks and say "We've got an interview with our president ready to uplink
to you. Here's the password to download all the time codes you need to cut
out our interviewer's audio and video and dub in your own talking head,
and the script for him to read."

Matty
2004-04-28 01:22:53 EST
<snip>
> -So -- tell me -- when do the REAL Christians stand up as a group and
> -denounce the radical "religious right?" So long as they do not do so,
> -they are complicit and are sinning by silence.
>
>
> qite a few of us do "stand up as a group and -denounce the radical
> "religious right? " on a regular and consistant basis.
>
> We just can't seem to get the press coverafe and.or access as the
> "religious right:.
>
> When the so-called liberal press wants a "christian" viewpoint, do they
> contact the World Coubcil of Churches?
>
> The President of the United Chirches of Christ?
>
> The Society of Friends (Quakers)?
>
> No, they don't contact anyone like them..they contact people like Jerry
> Falwell, or Pat Ribertson..the Vhristian Colaition and the like.
>
> We can scream our heads off..and sometimes we do, but even YOU can't hear
> us if the press/media ignores us.

But then again, what gets the ratings, a moderate christian talking in a
considerate manor over the issues or some nutcase from the right screaming and
whining about every problem they have in the life.

Its the old story, the squeaky wheel will always get the oil and unfortunately
since people are always attracted to the weird and obscure, hence the reason
why the religious right get so much air time.

Mind you, that is the US, in any other country, they're lucky to get a
30minute segment on public television. The last televangelist in NZ was
brought before the broadcasting standards authority and told his anti-gay,
anti-women agenda was completely and utterly inappropriate and that he either
had to fix his "show" up or expect to see his show off the air.

He towed the line, his audiance base shrunk to almost nothing and has now
subsequently been removed from telelevision.

The only thing you now see on TV in the way of religious shows in NZ is
"Praise Be" which is a, IIRC 1hour show, which televises parishes around NZ
singing hymms.

Matt
--
My blog: http://kaiwai.blogspot.com/

"You don't have to live next to me, Just give me my
equality" - Nina Simone (Mississippi Goddam)

"Science without religion is lame, religion without
science is blind." - Albert Einstein

"A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a
statistic." - Joseph Stalin

"Death solves all problems - no man, no problem." -
Joseph Stalin

"There are no morals in politics; there is only
expedience. A scoundrel may be of use to us just
because he is a scoundrel." - Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

Matty
2004-04-28 01:27:45 EST
Eric Bohlman wrote:

> RainbowChristiannohate@Rainbow-Christian.tk (Ninure Saunders) wrote in
> news:RainbowChristiannohate-2704041115280001@h-69-3-218-136.chcgilgm.dyna
> mic.covad.net:
>
>
>>We just can't seem to get the press coverafe and.or access as the
>>"religious right:.
>>
>>When the so-called liberal press wants a "christian" viewpoint, do
>>they contact the World Coubcil of Churches?
>>
>>The President of the United Chirches of Christ?
>>
>>The Society of Friends (Quakers)?
>>
>>No, they don't contact anyone like them..they contact people like
>>Jerry Falwell, or Pat Ribertson..the Vhristian Colaition and the
>>like.
>>
>>We can scream our heads off..and sometimes we do, but even YOU can't
>>hear us if the press/media ignores us.
>
> I've got a very strong hunch as to why that is. The media have, in recent
> decades, gotten extremely lazy and cheap. They expect others to do their
> work for them. Why do you think so much time and space is devoted to
> coverage of celebrities and entertainment? It's because the celebrities'
> PR people deliver pre-packaged, almost-ready-to-run stories to the media,
> stories that require only minor editing. Most of what today's media runs
> is slightly gussied-up press releases. Even a lot of the news is really
> just corporate or government PR (Reagan got to be the "Teflon President"
> because the media knew that if they covered him favorably, they'd have a
> steady diet of ready-to-run "stories" delivered to them from the White
> House at little or no cost).

Hence the reason I've always been happy about having a publicly funded
broadcaster which ensures that it never slips into the situation of pandering
to the lowest common denominator and running shows simply to get the ratings
or advertisers.

Just take the BBC as an example of a broadcaster who produces quality
programming, same goes for Radio Netherlands and DW-TV.

Maybe what the US needs is the American equivilant of the BBC, fully tax payer
funded; take back the $9billion given to Israel each year and use it to setup
a properly funded public broadcaster.

Matt
--
My blog: http://kaiwai.blogspot.com/

"You don't have to live next to me, Just give me my
equality" - Nina Simone (Mississippi Goddam)

"Science without religion is lame, religion without
science is blind." - Albert Einstein

"A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a
statistic." - Joseph Stalin

"Death solves all problems - no man, no problem." -
Joseph Stalin

"There are no morals in politics; there is only
expedience. A scoundrel may be of use to us just
because he is a scoundrel." - Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

RainLover
2004-04-28 09:43:05 EST
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 15:27:45 +1000, Matty <kaiwainz@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

>
>Hence the reason I've always been happy about having a publicly funded
>broadcaster which ensures that it never slips into the situation of pandering
>to the lowest common denominator and running shows simply to get the ratings
>or advertisers.
>
>Just take the BBC as an example of a broadcaster who produces quality
>programming, same goes for Radio Netherlands and DW-TV.
>
>Maybe what the US needs is the American equivilant of the BBC, fully tax payer
>funded; take back the $9billion given to Israel each year and use it to setup
>a properly funded public broadcaster.
>
>Matt

The USA will never have an equivilant to the BBC. This is a hypocritic puritanical society that
gets so mired down in politics that Americans would never allow "their" taxes to fund an opposing
view.

If you need evidence of that, just look at the NEA (National Endowment for the Arts)... After 20
years of having its funding cut, all that's left is its name and a guy sitting behind a rickity desk
in a bad neighborhood NEAR Washington D.C. Why? Because those damn artists do some art that some
people don't like.

James, Seattle, Washington, USA, Earth



Matty
2004-04-28 11:08:49 EST
RainLover wrote:

> On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 15:27:45 +1000, Matty <kaiwainz@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>>Hence the reason I've always been happy about having a publicly funded
>>broadcaster which ensures that it never slips into the situation of pandering
>>to the lowest common denominator and running shows simply to get the ratings
>>or advertisers.
>>
>>Just take the BBC as an example of a broadcaster who produces quality
>>programming, same goes for Radio Netherlands and DW-TV.
>>
>>Maybe what the US needs is the American equivilant of the BBC, fully tax payer
>>funded; take back the $9billion given to Israel each year and use it to setup
>>a properly funded public broadcaster.
>>
>>Matt
>
>
> The USA will never have an equivilant to the BBC. This is a hypocritic puritanical society that
> gets so mired down in politics that Americans would never allow "their" taxes to fund an opposing
> view.

That's a disappointment considering that with the money wasted so far by this
president, the US could have the best public broadcaster on the planet;
funding the best documentaries, comedies (without the need to resorting to
overtly rude language (double entendres)) short features films.

A *REAL* culture in the US would actually develop instead of this plastic
hollow version what we see right now; McDonalds, Coca Cola and the president
with people waving little flags equaling that of what you see in North Korea
when the "Great Leader" visits the "people".

> If you need evidence of that, just look at the NEA (National Endowment for the Arts)... After 20
> years of having its funding cut, all that's left is its name and a guy sitting behind a rickity desk
> in a bad neighborhood NEAR Washington D.C. Why? Because those damn artists do some art that some
> people don't like.

And to think that in NZ people complained about $150million a year spent on
the arts. Here we are, 2 years later with NZ dance companies now touring
Australia with sell out crowds. At first I was skeptical when I saw the plan,
but atleast the money is going somewhere it is needed rather than the other
bottomless pits that exist in the governments budget.

Btw, the government is still there, and no complaints have been raised. In
otherwords, the people are happy now that it is $150million well spent.

What I would like to see is another $200million used to fully fund the NZSO
(New Zealand symphony orchestra) and the establishment of a ballet and
operatic company.

Matt
--
My blog: http://kaiwai.blogspot.com/

"You don't have to live next to me, Just give me my
equality" - Nina Simone (Mississippi Goddam)

"Science without religion is lame, religion without
science is blind." - Albert Einstein

"You don't need to be 'straight' to fight and die
for your country. You just need to
shoot straight." - Barry Goldwater, (Ret. AF general)

Citizen
2004-04-28 12:33:06 EST


Matty wrote:

> Eric Bohlman wrote:
>
>> RainbowChristiannohate@Rainbow-Christian.tk (Ninure Saunders) wrote in
>> news:RainbowChristiannohate-2704041115280001@h-69-3-218-136.chcgilgm.dyna
>>
>> mic.covad.net:
>>
>>> We just can't seem to get the press coverafe and.or access as the
>>> "religious right:.
>>>
>>> When the so-called liberal press wants a "christian" viewpoint, do
>>> they contact the World Coubcil of Churches?
>>>
>>> The President of the United Chirches of Christ?
>>>
>>> The Society of Friends (Quakers)?
>>>
>>> No, they don't contact anyone like them..they contact people like
>>> Jerry Falwell, or Pat Ribertson..the Vhristian Colaition and the
>>> like.
>>> We can scream our heads off..and sometimes we do, but even YOU can't
>>> hear us if the press/media ignores us.
>>
>>
>> I've got a very strong hunch as to why that is. The media have, in
>> recent decades, gotten extremely lazy and cheap. They expect others
>> to do their work for them. Why do you think so much time and space
>> is devoted to coverage of celebrities and entertainment? It's
>> because the celebrities' PR people deliver pre-packaged,
>> almost-ready-to-run stories to the media, stories that require only
>> minor editing. Most of what today's media runs is slightly
>> gussied-up press releases. Even a lot of the news is really just
>> corporate or government PR (Reagan got to be the "Teflon President"
>> because the media knew that if they covered him favorably, they'd
>> have a steady diet of ready-to-run "stories" delivered to them from
>> the White House at little or no cost).
>
>
> Hence the reason I've always been happy about having a publicly funded
> broadcaster which ensures that it never slips into the situation of
> pandering to the lowest common denominator and running shows simply to
> get the ratings or advertisers.
>
> Just take the BBC as an example of a broadcaster who produces quality
> programming, same goes for Radio Netherlands and DW-TV.
>
> Maybe what the US needs is the American equivilant of the BBC, fully
> tax payer funded; take back the $9billion given to Israel each year
> and use it to setup a properly funded public broadcaster.
>
> Matt


I is called PBS Matt.

http://www.pbs.org/

It can be quite good too, unfortunately, watching it is considered to be
a sign of beign boring. They don't generally cater to the short
attention span crowd that only seem to zone in when you talk about
people having sex in trees.








Citizen
2004-04-28 13:02:19 EST


RainLover wrote:

>On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 15:27:45 +1000, Matty <kaiwainz@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Hence the reason I've always been happy about having a publicly funded
>>broadcaster which ensures that it never slips into the situation of pandering
>>to the lowest common denominator and running shows simply to get the ratings
>>or advertisers.
>>
>>Just take the BBC as an example of a broadcaster who produces quality
>>programming, same goes for Radio Netherlands and DW-TV.
>>
>>Maybe what the US needs is the American equivilant of the BBC, fully tax payer
>>funded; take back the $9billion given to Israel each year and use it to setup
>>a properly funded public broadcaster.
>>
>>Matt
>>
>>
>
>The USA will never have an equivilant to the BBC. This is a hypocritic puritanical society that
>gets so mired down in politics that Americans would never allow "their" taxes to fund an opposing
>view.
>
>If you need evidence of that, just look at the NEA (National Endowment for the Arts)... After 20
>years of having its funding cut, all that's left is its name and a guy sitting behind a rickity desk
>in a bad neighborhood NEAR Washington D.C. Why? Because those damn artists do some art that some
>people don't like.
>
>James, Seattle, Washington, USA, Earth
>
>
>

Well - we can at least say that americans seem to disagree to a huge
extent, bigger country, bigger disagreements? Consider that. Welcome
to the land of gridlocked politics.



Page: 1 2 3   Next  (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron