The Mail and 'Christianophobia'

oboogie · **Posted:** Tue May 01, 2012 9:14 pm

Malcolm Armsteen wrote:

“I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ.” Gandhi

Discuss...

Or to put it another way

"Jesus was all right, but his disciples were thick and ordinary. It's them twisting it that ruins it for me."
John Lennon

The very Christian Klu Klux Klan issued a fatwa on him for that.

Malcolm Armsteen · **Posted:** Tue May 01, 2012 9:17 pm

jgazu - I'm with you on all of that, except I've never knowingly met anyone who believes the bible is literally true - and only a couple of Muslims who believe the Koran is.
Which I suppose was my point, really.

As for Gandhi, the Christians he was objecting to were the ones in South Africa and India who were oppressing his people. He also wanted Christians to take the 'good bits' and work them up into a socially responsible faith. Like Buddhism.

Buddhists like the socialist Christ, too.

oboogie · **Posted:** Tue May 01, 2012 9:22 pm

lord_kobel wrote:

oboogie wrote:

Jesus was the first socialist. The clue's in the beard you know.

The first? Really? Everyone knows the greeks had far superior beards...

You're right of course, beards you could lose a badger in. Radical syndicalists the lot of 'em. Especially the gods I think you'll find.

davidjay · **Joined:** Tue Feb 17, 2009 8:24 pm **Posts:** 3816

Malcolm Armsteen wrote:

jgazu - I'm with you on all of that, except I've never knowingly met anyone who believes the bible is literally true .

I've talked to Jehovah's who say it is. Which leaves them wide open to the reply, "Luke 10:7."

oboogie · **Posted:** Tue May 01, 2012 11:28 pm

Outroar wrote:

Malcolm Armsteen wrote:

Oh dear.
I quoted Mohandas Gandhi, a quote which seems apposite to the discussion in hand. I then invited people to discuss it.
Is it so terribly difficult to understand?

Of course it is. Why else would anyone challenge any of your ideas? Clearly they don't understand something and need to be patronized. Fortunately, being condescendingly smug is your whole schtick.

Hang a minute. Let's see if I've got this right.
You misread a post and failed to notice it was a quote for discussion - rather than Malcolm expressing his own view.
Malcolm points out your error and that makes him "smug", not just on this occasion but always? Really? How does that work?
Anyway he wasn't being smug, he was being sarcastic. It's different.

If you don't like it, there's a really simple answer: before dashing off a reply, make sure that you've read and understood the post you're replying to. That way you won't look so daft.

Outroar · **Joined:** Fri Apr 02, 2010 4:25 pm **Posts:** 517

oboogie wrote:

Outroar wrote:

Malcolm Armsteen wrote:

Oh dear.
I quoted Mohandas Gandhi, a quote which seems apposite to the discussion in hand. I then invited people to discuss it.
Is it so terribly difficult to understand?

Of course it is. Why else would anyone challenge any of your ideas? Clearly they don't understand something and need to be patronized. Fortunately, being condescendingly smug is your whole schtick.

Hang a minute. Let's see if I've got this right.
You misread a post and failed to notice it was a quote for discussion - rather than Malcolm expressing his own view.

At no point did I claim Gandhi's quote was Malcolm's, I simply pointed out that Ghandi's and Malcolm's ideas of the true nature of Christians are somewhat contradictory, and asked how they could be reconclied. Perhaps I mistakenly assumed that Malcolm, having cited the quote and having a picture of Ghandi over his desk, would place some credence in it as others have. Maybe he thinks it's bollocks. Or maybe the ideas are less contradictory than I'm making out.

In any case, I neither failed to notice the quote was Ghandi's or say any such thing, so apparently I'm not the one mis-reading things. I won't invite Malcolm to "bugger off and learn to read" though. I already called him smug.

Malcolm Armsteen · **Posted:** Wed May 02, 2012 7:05 am

Your post made that assumption quite clear.
You also clearly hadn't read my earlier posts about the changes in perception over the last 40 years with regard to the literality of the bible.
You were then insufferably insulting.
What do you expect?

Outroar · **Joined:** Fri Apr 02, 2010 4:25 pm **Posts:** 517

Malcolm Armsteen wrote:

Your post made that assumption quite clear.
You also clearly hadn't read my earlier posts about the changes in perception over the last 40 years with regard to the literality of the bible.
You were then insufferably insulting.
What do you expect?

I wasn't insulting until you pulled the whole, "Oh dear. You just don't understand" thing, which I took to just be a generally condescending comment. It makes more sense now I realise you thought I misunderstood the source of your quotation. I knew where the quote came from, which is why I didn't know what you were on about.

I had read some of the previous discussion but I suppose I had my own agenda.

You do come across as condescending sometimes. Sorry I called you smug.

Messianic Trees · **Joined:** Fri Mar 18, 2011 10:50 pm **Posts:** 2830

Doctor fired for quoting from the bible and emailing prayer to colleagues loses his job battle

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z1tn276ccq

Bones McCoy · **Joined:** Mon Aug 16, 2010 9:08 am **Posts:** 7321

Messianic Trees wrote:

Doctor fired for quoting from the bible and emailing prayer to colleagues loses his job battle

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z1tn276ccq

There's much more serious news to get concerned about.
I hear they've appointed one of those speech defect guys as England manager.

Timbo · **Posted:** Thu May 03, 2012 2:16 pm

Bones McCoy wrote:

Messianic Trees wrote:

Doctor fired for quoting from the bible and emailing prayer to colleagues loses his job battle

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z1tn276ccq

There's much more serious news to get concerned about.
I hear they've appointed one of those speech defect guys as England manager.

Ahhh yes. Plitkle Krektness strikes again.

Patrick100 · **Joined:** Mon Mar 05, 2012 11:38 pm **Posts:** 600

Messianic Trees wrote:

Doctor fired for quoting from the bible and emailing prayer to colleagues loses his job battle

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z1tn276ccq

As I posted earlier , there is more to this than met the eye of the Mail.

Quote:

The Daily Mail and the Telegraph picked up the story in March 2012 when Dr Drew told an employment tribunal that he was unfairly dismissed on the grounds of his religious beliefs. The Daily Mail ran with the headline "Christian doctor 'sacked for emailing a PRAYER to hospital colleagues to raise their spirits'".
However, when Sue James, current chief executive of Derby's hospitals was called to give evidence, she revealed that Dr Drew produced a "toxic environment" at the hospital by constantly raising complaints against his co-workers. Mrs James said: "For two and a half years we had a relationship that wasn't working."
Dr Drew emailed a prayer to colleagues to try to "motivate his department". But Mrs James told the employment tribunal that Dr Drew's religious references were "highly marginal" in the investigation. She told the hearing: "It was about the verbosity and length of his emails. He deconstructed every sentence and sent it to so many people."
Mrs James said she was soon being sent numerous emails from Dr Drew complaining about the report's findings. She said: "I was the chief executive running the hospital and David was taking up one day of my personal time a week. We needed to move forward."
In reaching its unanimous decision, the employment tribunal this week said it had found no evidence that Walsall Healthcare NHS Trust or the members of an independent panel that investigated Dr Drew were influenced, even subconsciously, by a prejudice against Christians. The tribunal said there was no need for Dr Drew to refer to himself as a Christian or to make religious references in professional communication if they are considered inappropriate and if they hinder proper communication.

http://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2012/ ... t-tribunal

Silkyman · **Joined:** Thu Mar 24, 2011 9:31 am **Posts:** 758

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ds-newsxml

The Land Of The Free.

TonyHoyle · **Joined:** Thu Apr 07, 2011 11:48 pm **Posts:** 211

More like..

Land of the Free*

* For PLU. Everyone else should be hanged/shot/burned.

Malcolm Armsteen · **Posted:** Wed May 09, 2012 1:54 pm

* for a given value of 'free'.

The Mail and 'Christianophobia'

Who is online