I don't get it. What's your problem with this guy? He's Christian? Maybe you posted a link to the wrong entry?

He was just bitching about being given shit for being a Christian, that Christians face persecution too. That's as valid of a reason to complain as any other, I reckon. I don't neccesary agree with the guy on all accounts, but hey, he's mostly just trying to communicate the meaning that Christians take shit, too.

I don't see where he mentions homosexuals.

Sure, he says he's ready to die for his beliefs. But he doesn't say he's gonna be taking out other motherfuckers in the process.

In fact, the guy said nothing at all inflammatory. Don't be hatin'.

I don't get it. What's your problem with this guy? He's Christian? Maybe you posted a link to the wrong entry?

Oyyy... *smacks forehead* I don't have a problem with him at all. In fact, I'd probably like him if I ever met him in person. Read the disclaimer, then keep reading this comment. ;)

The point I was trying to make was only very tangentially related to his post... I mainly put it up there to show what got me started on this train of thought. Sadly, I have a bad habit of going off on wild tangents in LJ entries. :)

He was just bitching about being given shit for being a Christian, that Christians face persecution too. That's as valid of a reason to complain as any other, I reckon.

I absolutely agree that it is wrong to be given shit because of your religious beliefs. It's wrong, it's evil, and it's nasty. I agree with him on this. That was in fact what this rant was about. :)

When I said "people like him start Crusades", I was partially wrong... what I should have said was, "people who have strongly-held beliefs like his, and try to push them down other people's throats; they are the ones who start Crusades". That's not to imply he was pushing his opinion down anyone's throat; it's his journal, he can say what he wants.

(Incidentally, that's also why I posted my own entry, instead of replying to his.)

I don't see where he mentions homosexuals.

He doesn't; I was just using it as an example of one of the things that seems to push so many religious peoples' hot buttons these days. (I realize I didn't do a very good job of pointing it out as a generic example, either.) I've lost track of the number of times I've heard conservative Christians bitch and moan about gay rights (and no, I'm not even gay). I also know (having been raised in a more liberal, but still religious family) that the conservatives do not speak for all of Christianity. My frustration is mainly directed at the conservatives (or fundamentalists, or bigots, or whatever you want to call them).

but hey, he's mostly just trying to communicate the meaning that Christians take shit, too.

Oh, I know what he's trying to communicate...that's not really the issue. My issue is with Christians who feel it's their God-given right to force Christianity on the rest of the world (and thus force the rest of the world to take shit for not being Christian). A "shining" example of this behavior is the Campus Crusade for Christ; a college club with a chapter at Cal Poly. This club is so large here that they can't even fit all of their members in the Performing Arts Center (an auditorium which can hold several thousand people).

They are a group of very evangelical Christians (First Baptists and the like) who feel it is their God-given duty to get anyone and everyone to see Truth(tm)(R)(C). I have a big problem with that. This organization (and yes, I have been to several of their meetings) seems to exist for two purposes. First, to meet to discuss and reaffirm their faith, and second, to spread the Good News(tm). The first is great, the second, to me, is morally wrong. The CCC (and most of the Christians I know here) engage in the second on a frequent basis.

In fact, the guy said nothing at all inflammatory. Don't be hatin'.

If you think there is hate involved here, I think you need to reread this, or I need to rewrite it; one of the two. ;) Besides, just because it's not "inflammatory" (for some value of inflammatory) doesn't mean that I can't (and don't) have an opinion on it.

I can see this entry needs a rewrite, but I'm lazy, so I'll just leave this comment here as an explanation and hope I haven't confused the issue.

Morally, what gives the greatest number of people the greatest happiness, is right. What hurts people, is wrong.

Those are not mutually exclusive; what makes the greatest number of people happy can easily hurt a minority. Unfortunately, moral issues are rarely black and white. As a wise /usr/bin/fortune once said, "Life is full of concepts that are poorly defined. In fact, there are very few concepts that aren't. It's hard to think of any in non-technical fields."

I know, but it's a balancing thing (as is everything else which is seemingly black-and-white). You'll never be able to "do no wrong", but you can minimize the amount of wrong you do, in the course of trying to do good.

We actually discussed this topic in CSC 300 today. In this society, in general, a certain amount of personal injury (e.g. fatalities on the highways) is acceptable when there is a much greater social good to be had from the danger. That's why speed limits are still set at 65 (as opposed to 25, with a corresponding increase in the structural integrity of the cars).

Yes, people die on the highways, but on the whole, the damage caused to society by the loss of those people is much more than offset by the benefits the highway system brings.

I don't necessarily *agree* with this example, but it does serve as a good illustration of the balances involved.

Very thought provoking. You have always seem really good at that. :-) *hugs*