It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Unfair criticism of the Christian religion...

page: 7
20
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 03:43 AM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 



What is there to misunderstand, misinterpretate or twist in this statement of yours? You are in a generalizing way postulating the absolute existence of a 'god', which in my book is pure fantasy, cooked up by you and other christians. You take this fantasy of yours so much for granted, that you can't even imagine, that a majority of mankind doesn't share it.


And you're "in a generalizing way postulating the absolute" non existence of God. Which in my book is pure fantasy. Cooked up by you and other atheists. And you take that fantasy so much for granted that you can't even imagine that a majority of mankind actually shares a belief in God. See, pot meet kettle, you are both black.


Either as a demon from the blackest part of the dungeon dimensions, who lusted for blood and power. Or alternatively as some kind of other non-human entity, who like the european robber-barons pretending 'religion' to take over the Americas, has pretended 'religion' to take over mankind.

Citation needed. Oh, you're just making stuff up now out of spite. Credibility is sinking fast.

You hate the God of the bible and Christians...k got it. Now how about not generalizing and stereotyping all Christians into your nice little box of angst you've build for us. I have never forced anyone to believe anything and I don't "take over anything anywhere I can". So you're wrong here. But It appears at this point your purpose is not to discuss, but to just attack Christians and bring 'unfair criticism' thereby legitimizing the topic of the thread.


edit: added words for clarity

[edit on 22-8-2010 by Chillimac]




posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 04:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Tiger5
 



Well the Xtian mindset is one of being one of the chosen people.

You clearly don't understand CHRIStianity. We are not chosen. We are not special Susys. We are terrible, sinful people, that have made a decision to love God and by his grace and mercy he watches out for us. Assuming of course the 'Christian' in question isn't just a mouth breather poser.


I remeber wastin time on a Xtian OP asking about a chosen religion she did not seem to be able to have any form of two way dialogue just the bible sday thi sor that. Such acts can hardly be seen to be endearing.

Hey, I remember this one time I talked to a militant atheist and she seemed to be incapable of two way dialogue, just the bible is crap, God is a fairytale. Such acts can hardly be seen to be endearing.


Their inital hostility make them fair game so bring it on!

The irony of this statement is amazing. See, your threatening a hostile confrontation, while condemning.....hostile confrontation. Brilliant.

I think the fact that you would rather defy the english language and refuse to spell Christ is pretty telling.



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 07:24 AM
link   
Even though you made a superb statement they'll try to deligitimatize it just by saying you believe in God as if that makes you intellectually inferior.



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chillimac
I think the fact that you would rather defy the english language and refuse to spell Christ is pretty telling.


lol. Whenever I see that, I suppress the urge to ask them if their inability to write "Christ" indicates that they are ashamed of Jesus, or merely afraid of him.

It does seem telling that a lot of atheists are angry and, in many cases, immature, bigoted and ignorant, but I think it comes from a two part frustration. I believe that many of them are sincere in not believing, and that's okay, but those who can't just say "I don't believe" and let it go at that, those who wish to be evangelical about it, run into:

1) There seem to be few compelling positive arguments for atheism. Though I've asked many times, the only reply I've seen to date was someone who claimed time savings from "not praying and going to church and stuff." One of the reasons, I suppose, is that many potential positives that I can sort out seem kind of superfluous and superficial (as in the "time savings" fellow.)

2) Therefore, one needs to supplement those with negative arguments against faith, but few atheists are theologians, so they're arguing from some other point of view, and that's just ineffective. Dawkins may be a brilliant biologist, but you can't argue against God through biology, so his theological and philosophical arguments are rudimentary and easily dismissed.

That just seems to make 'em all the madder, and, to be honest, I would probably be just as frustrated, though I'd either just give it up, or I'd go back and see where I'd gone wrong in my argument, and why, and who knows where that would take me. The typical evangelical atheist, though, is either unwilling to do that, or just thinks that if he bangs his head against the wall enough times, someone will take notice.



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 11:18 AM
link   
Re: Chillimac

Your comment:
"And you're "in a generalizing way postulating the absolute" non existence of God. Which in my book is pure fantasy. Cooked up by you and other atheists. And you take that fantasy so much for granted that you can't even imagine that a majority of mankind actually shares a belief in God. See, pot meet kettle, you are both black."

Answer:
Where on earth did you get the impression, that I'm an atheist? You and I have had contact before, and you may remember, that I'm neither an atheist nor a theist. There ARE other options, e.g, agnosticism, but unfortunately agnosticism doesn't exactly define my position. I'm not postulating an absolute non-existence of the god-concept, only of the entity you call 'God', which may or may not be the OT Jahve I referred to earlier (for me OT and NT 'god' is difficult to identify as the same entity).

What majority of mankind shares a belief in 'God'? Or did you mean 'gods' in general, including Zeus, Oden, Brahma, the great spirit of native americans etc? As far as I have been able to determine 30-33% of mankind are christians, generously including the app. 90% passive christians of Europe, former Sovjet and at least some South-american countries. 33% is hardly a majority.

Your comment (on my calling Jahve a bloodlusting and powercrazed demon):
"Citation needed. Oh, you're just making stuff up now out of spite. Credibility is sinking fast."

Answer:
Lev 1:3-17; 4:5-7; numbers 18:17-19; deut 12:27. All about 'god's' commands on ritualised specific bloodsacrifice (not just dead animal bodies)

Gen: 4:4-6; gen 8:20. Two examples (amongst many) of animal sacrifice.

Deuteronomy 2:25: All nations shall be terrorized by the followers of Yahweh.

Exodus 20:5: I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

Nahum 1:2: God is jealous, and the Lord revengeth; the Lord revengeth, and is furious.

I prefer to call the entity behind all this a demon. If you feel like calling it 'God', it's your choice.

Your comment:
"...Now how about not generalizing and stereotyping all Christians into your nice little box of angst..."

Answer:
I have rectified my generalization by adding the word 'often' to my criticism of christians doing this or that in my former post.

Your comment:
"You hate the God of the bible and Christians."

Answer:
I certainly hate Jahve, as I hate Hitler, Stalin, mayan gods and that crowd. And in general my tolerance level isn't very high concerning missionaries or lobbyists from such directions. But I don't hate all christians; some of the people closest to me have been rather fundamentalist christians. Passive christians I consider somewhat silly, but as long as they leave me in peace, I don't make noises.

Your comment:
"I have never forced anyone to believe anything and I don't "take over anything anywhere I can". So you're wrong here. But It appears at this point your purpose is not to discuss, but to just attack Christians and bring 'unfair criticism' thereby legitimizing the topic of the thread."

Answer:
I take it, that you are not a passive christian? And you do support 'the book'? How much responsibility does that give you? But I don't believe, you personally are invasive or violent.





[edit on 22-8-2010 by bogomil]



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 11:35 AM
link   
Re: Mars....

Your comment:
"Even though you made a superb statement they'll try to deligitimatize it just by saying you believe in God as if that makes you intellectually inferior."

Answer:
I believed, that christianity after 325 was about faith. This does ofcourse not exclude intellectual perspectives completely, but I don't think I've ever heard reasonable arguments explaining the textual confusion and selfcontradictions in the bible, nor why there are 34.000 different christian groups, nor why religious text are so heavily screend by various groups of authority through history, nor why such much violence have been supported by the bible.

I do not think, that believing in a god makes anyone intellectually inferior.



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 01:29 PM
link   
Re: adjensen

I agree with you concerning the attitude and competence of most active atheists, but being critical to christianity myself, I can maybe offer a better explanation of the hostility.

In practically all ideologies there will be a group of hotheads, expressing their fundamentalism on 'the cause' through militant methods, and if opposing 'doctrines' meet, the militants will almost unavoidably clash. Even inside ideologies, when revisionism creates schisms.

For the more moderate idealists, 'doctrines' usually isn't such a big problem, except when they (the doctrines) manifests in a broad social context. I will use my own liberal european country as an example, but it's rather typical of most of Europe.

Just 20 years ago our national active christians made up 5-10% of the population (today is 5-6%), but they were like a swarm of grasshoppers. Everywhere, making 'social noises' for five times their number, messing with everything they could get away with, infiltrating political parties etc. and generally being a pain in the posterior. Eventually our strong political left (and don't believe I support THEM either) so to speak weeded the christians out from keypositions, separated state and church and made religion a private business.

This resulted in a christian political coalition, which ofcourse still tries follow the old patterns, but it's disarmed these days, and everybody is happy (except for the christians).

But in the average a-religious citizen here, there's still an un-ease about christians. The feeling is, that IF christians got the chance, they would take us back to the bad old times (the christian coalition sends out signals of wanting this all the time), and as little as we want a new Sovjet or nazi-state here, we also don't want a return to the christian bid for domination. That the US christian-right is beginning to evangelize in Europe doesn't make matters better.

This is part of my motivation for joining religious debates. But I have the added incitement of specializing in the field of combining metaphysics with science, and as such I've participated in many forums. And sadly enough, when I start an interesting communication with someone, some christian turns up, trying to highjack the thread and sidetrack it.

So a few years ago I decided to manifest my own attitude of: So far, but not further. And I have a rather small marginal of tolerance towards christian demagogy, when I so to speak send the ball back.

I can only apologize to those active christians, who are willing to join in a general christian introspection and meet on common ground. But such individuals don't turn up too often.





[edit on 22-8-2010 by bogomil]



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by bogomil
I agree with you concerning the attitude and competence of most active atheists, but being critical to christianity myself, I can maybe offer a better explanation of the hostility.


I personally find the mixing of faith and politics to be unfortunate, and contrary to Christian beliefs. One who truly follows the teaching of Christ will inform others of his message, correct misstatements of those who do not believe and/or understand the faith, answer questions, and leave it to the other people to work out their relationship with God. Coercion, force, or legislation is not the proper way to bring others to Christ.

I have never voted for a person because they claim to be a Christian, and I never will.

I have seen many people on this forum, and other places, state that they don't believe in God and that in the instance where they are wrong, they say that they will "stand up to him" and argue that they were a good person. The scripture says that every knee will bow to him, and I think that's accurate...

I have also seen many people put up an argument about God being good, and that we just don't understand, and he will forgive disbelief, because for some people, the lack of tangible evidence is a block too big for them to move. I can see the point of that, and I hold out hope that so many good people who have chosen to reject God will be given the opportunity to change their minds.

But for the evangelical atheist, you will not only have to explain your disbelief, you will also need to justify your trying to turn other people against him, and I suspect that's another matter entirely.

That's not a fear based thing, that's just practical reality. If there is no God, your promotion of disbelief doesn't make any difference. If there is a God, you've declared yourself his enemy, and you darned well better hope that he's a lot nicer than you make him out to be.



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 01:25 PM
link   
Re: adjensen

Your comment:

"That's not a fear based thing, that's just practical reality. If there is no God, your promotion of disbelief doesn't make any difference. If there is a God, you've declared yourself his enemy, and you darned well better hope that he's a lot nicer than you make him out to be."

Answer:

I'm recognizing this, called Anselm's ....??? Well, in any case this seems logical at first, but actually it's very close to a doublebind. By very close I mean, there actually IS a counterargument.

Because if there's no God (I'm talking about a specific god, not just in general) this has consequences for the people believing in him. Sometimes they use this imaginary god as an excuse for whatever egotistical intents they have, alternatively such a belief can prevent them from entering a 'true' path towards 'reality' (what you maybe would call God). In either case promotion of disbelief does make a difference.

I don't doubt that OT Jahve exists at one or another level, either as an individual or as a principle (it's impossible to be quite precise here in a few words), but I totally reject the 'job description' christianity has given him. Partly on the ground, that cosmos isn't that much of a smooth, wellfunctioning system, so as an architect 'god' botched it. I don't think I'm one of his favourites, but I can always appeal to higher powers, in- or outside me.

This is an opinion based on science, but I hope you know me well enough to understand, that I don't bring in science in a condescending way.





[edit on 23-8-2010 by bogomil]



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 


If you are thinking of Anselm's argument, no, that's not the reference. It's more of a refutation of Pascal's Wager.

I disagree with you that an evangelistic atheist stands much of a chance of getting anyone to disbelieve, given that few positives of atheism can be articulated, and so, left with harping on negatives, their audience will tend to dig in their heels and no one's mind is changed. People come to (and leave) faith on their own personal terms, not generally because someone talks them out of it.

A simple case against Gnosticism is that God is not an elitist, who reserves salvation and enlightenment for the few who sort it out, those clever enough to become knowledgable. To the contrary, the Christian salvation and good news is open, free, and available to anyone who wants it. It is for the learned and the ignorant, for the wealthy and the poor, for the sick and the well.

Similarly, I would rather disagree your statement about the nature of the Universe. In the whole, it runs surprisingly well, in fact. Apart from the bits that we, as caretakers, manage to screw up, that is -- but that's kind of the point, isn't it?



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 03:23 PM
link   
As others have said; and I must agree 100 percent, that others problems do not lie within Christianity as a religion. They lie within the church itself. There is a big difference between Christian teachings and the actual actions of the church throughout the ages. A HUGE DIFFERENCE.

The Inquisition alone is enough to keep people feeling negative toward the church for another 200 years. Add in some child molesting, Pope hypocrisy and a myriad of other morally unethical behavior and there you have it. A church founded on loving your brother until someone realised "hey we can charge them for their soul's purification! We can control them too!"

[edit on 23-8-2010 by spinalremain]



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 03:35 PM
link   
It looks like I'll have to take the unpopular position and say that the problem does come from the religion.

"But Jesus had some really great ideas about peace and love and all of that!"
Some might say that, I hope I'm not constructing a straw man here though.

Well, sure he did, but he also said that thinking about committing a sin is just as bad as committing it.

My problem with the religion lies in many of the moral teachings of the Bible and the Christian religion, which are compounded by the actions of the followers of the religion.

It's not a great basis for morals, it's not that great of a read, and it's a horrible history/science book.



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Well, sure he did, but he also said that thinking about committing a sin is just as bad as committing it.


That's not quite what he said. What he said in Matthew 5 was, effectively, if you look at a married woman lustfully, you have sinned. "Committing adultery in your heart" isn't the same thing as actually carrying it out, but it's still a sin.

Why? Because sin can be summed up in failing to follow Christ's commandments of "Love God, love everyone else" and lusting after another person's wife is showing a lack of love, for the husband, if not the woman as well.

Christ's teachings are not about superficiality. In fact, that's one of the big things that he was fighting against -- the Pharisees who went through the motions, did the things that were expected of them, and felt justified in the law, regardless of how they treated others and what was in their hearts.

We are all sinners. We all fall short of what we could be, what God wants us to be. Christ was merely pointing out that, even if one avoids the physical act of adultery, he still fails to live up to those expectations if his thoughts are along those lines.


It's not a great basis for morals, it's not that great of a read, and it's a horrible history/science book.


I certainly agree that anyone who looks to the Bible for their science lessons is looking in the wrong place.



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 07:10 AM
link   
Re: adjensen

That's it, 'Pascal's Wager', thanks. Being somewhat fossilized, my memory is an untrustworthy servant.

Concerning the chances of atheists converting religionists, I thought, that we already agreed that the average atheist arguments aren't that good. And that the same can be said about average religionist argumentation. Both parties insist on arguing on 'home-ground' and being those, who make the rules. This makes communication impossible and dungthrowing or violence follows.

But we're both beginning to repeat ourselves now, so I'd rather continue to build on what exists of a dialogue. I have tried (my bad, if this hasn't come through) to be clear on the point, that an underlying common epistemological basis is a necessity for communication. And that implies an introspective openness and a willingness to question doctrines.

My basic education was in hard emipiral science (on something like college level). At university I changed to social sciences, which added and enhanced some facets of my growing 'map' of existence. After some years I eventually arrived to the opinion, that empirical science is as much of a doctrinal beliefsystem ('scientism') as e.g. many religions are.

1/ As a methodology for finding 'truth/reality', scientism is severely limited by its selfdefined parameters, which in a completely dogmatic, exclusive way denies 'data' outside hard-science parameters.

2/ As part of a social context, scientism propagates for its conclusions, just as any other belief-system does. With the exact same shortcomings, e.g. disregarding consequences. To my knowledge more than half of the world's scientists are involved in big-money or power-grabbing activities, where ethical, social or 'truth'-seeking considerations are of secondary importance.

So naturally I have on both counts distanced myself from scientism as being the ultimate 'map', just as I distance myself from religion on the same grounds. Humans are imperfect (whatever that means in different contexts), but to create circular, self-proving 'maps', re-inforced by doctrines, is no way to 'truth/reality'. Neither as a personal tool, nor in social contexts.

Example: If scientism (pretending to be THE methodology) is selling out to e.g. the professional warprofiteers, without ethical considerations, this demonstrates, that it as a 'map' of existence is very incomplete. An important dimension of existence is ignored.

The exact same critic can be raised against practically all religious or political 'maps'. If you're 'saved' and support the the 'map' generally, you are, even as one of the 'good' guys, co-responsible for the 'bad' guys, sharing and supporting the same 'map'.

Hitler did present some ideas, which weren't stupid (it's many years since I read 'Mein kampf', and it's illegal here now, so memory...), and several more ideas, which were atrocious. If you voted FOR Hitler (as many germans did), can you say: "I only voted for SOME of his ideas" (as many germans did later)?

Or: How can priests from the same religion 'bless' soldiers on opposing sides, by giving assurance of having 'god' on your side? This is the same as scientists helping to produce weapons to both sides.

All belief-systems, presented as a whole based on common basic assumptions, are responsible for weeding out 'misuse' (be it epistemological or social). You, adjensen, has chosen to interpretate the bible, possibly only NT, as a loving, caring, tolerant and non-hierarchial 'map'.

The rest of us out here, not really caring about christianity's 34.000 inner schisms, see a beliefsystem originating from a book, which apparantly can be interpretated any way, according to personal inclination or the-powers-that-be. Ranging from total brutality to everlovingness. It's a completely reasonable attitude to question all the basic doctrines of christianity, which has erupted in violence continuously for 2000 years. (Alternatively I don't see much loving/caring manifested by christians. As compared to the violence), unless one counts: "I'm exposing you to my missionary zeal, FOR YOUR OWN GOOD" as loving/caring.

So, critics of christianity aren't willing to play the game on christian homeground, or seeking detailed knowledge about christianity's changing manifestations, we just see a basic (often brutal) belief-system, which all christians defend generally, whilst quibbling amongst themselves on doctrinal details.



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 07:20 AM
link   
My own opinion is it is warranted justice. I have no major problem with the bible but rather the church and the interpretations of the bible. The actual bible is so vague and so long that you can prove almost any argument with just a quote.

I Disagree 100% with the churches teachings. They church burned thousands in the name of god slaughtered and raped "heathens" and pagans because they did not follow the word of god. Homosexuals get beaten because they are not following gods orders, and instead love some one of their same sex.

God is suppose to be merciful yet he condemns those who do not follow his word to hell? is that merciful? Unbaptized babies go to hell because they are from sin? in what universe is a baby a sinner they are innocent, plain and simple.

I am not a follower of the bible I follow a religion me and my friend created that is simple and cannot be misconstrued, like the bible. Love your friends like your family and hold your family above all else. Punish those who wrong you so they will never wrong you again. And Protect your family with all that you have. 3 simple rules to live by, no hell no heaven, just live your life how you want to.



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 07:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Xiamara
 


I certainly agree with how the Christian church has been a tool of death and destruction, It has been used to spread fear and to hold people back from exploring science and the understanding of other faiths.

I sometimes wonder being a Christian myself, yet a mystical gnostic Christian. If the church did not allow the parable of "you reap what you sow" upon itself for the actions that the church has done in the past.

We could also look at the modern church, especially the protostant side, how money and greed seems to be a standard umong evangelist.

Jesus said, to do unto others as you would want to be treated. To give and not to worry about recieving, to not worry about wealth and how much you have, but instead how much can you give. Not to the rich as in rich tv envangelist, but to the poor and downtrodden.

I think that if the teachings of Christ were taught in there pure form and not clouded by the denominations that carry them, more people may see that Christianity realy isnt as bad as many make it out to be.



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 07:46 AM
link   
reply to post by humbleseeker
 


I agree Christ's teachings were for the good but have become so twisted that its now to serve the church as a corporation. Jesus was a good guy, I think he was a human with a goal in life and he's been over glamorized by the church. I think he walked on water but it was Ice, he had some neat Criss Angel mind freak thing going on with the water into wine and he didn't rise from the dead.

I'm not a beliver that there is ONE god and one true religion and I think if Jesus were alive to see what his idea had become he'd be sickened. I see Jesus as accepting, a little pushy with the religion, but I could see him accept someone for who they are and what they practice.



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 08:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xiamara
Jesus was a good guy, I think he was a human


This is a contradictory statement. If Jesus was just a person, then he was NOT a good guy, he was a liar of the worst sort. He claimed to be God. He claimed to forgive sin. He claimed to be the only way that we can come to the creator God. Jesus was Jewish, and all of these are the worst forms of blasphemy imaginable.

If Christ was just a person, he deserved the torturous death he got. Do you think that he deserved it?


I'm not a beliver that there is ONE god and one true religion and I think if Jesus were alive to see what his idea had become he'd be sickened. I see Jesus as accepting, a little pushy with the religion, but I could see him accept someone for who they are and what they practice.


Whether we are aware of what it is, or whether it even exists on Earth anymore, if there is a "true" religion, then there is only one.

Christ taught that there are only two commandments, "Love God and love everyone else". That, along with accepting his sacrifice for you (which he'd didn't deserve, but he took willingly for our benefit) is all that you need to do. Even the most casual observer will note that your admonition of "accept someone for who they are" is nicely covered by that. If you want to be hating on the gays, or hating on the Jews, or intolerant of anyone, you are not in compliance with Christ's commandments.

Your cited beliefs, by the way, constitute a philosophical way of life, not a religion, as you state that you have no theological basis for it. The statement "Punish those who wrong you so they will never wrong you again" is not only contrary to Christ's teachings (which is fine, if you're not a Christian,) it is also morally ambivalent and, as has been demonstrated so many times over the centuries, is ineffective -- "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" inevitably will wind up with a blind and toothless world.



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 08:31 AM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


I can tell you are a christian, and appear to be a fundamentalist one. No I am not religious As I said my religion is based on a compromise. I pray to a goddess, not a god. I Choose to stand up to my enemies and not let them beat me. I'd choose the bible's satan over god.

I think what is done is done. Christ was a man just a man, he may have been the son of god, he may not have been if I remember correctly he never said he was god just the son of god. And this was explained in the bible, something I believe was a human creation and cannot be taken as history. So Jesus is Jewish who cares, its a religion. Religion is what you believe. If I pray to the goddess Athena or Zeus that is my religion and it is right to me and that is what matters. NO one can take your religion from you.

So I will not be swayed from my religion I believe int he goddess and the fact that there are multiple gods, christian, Muslim Buddhist and so on and so forth. Believe what you will I believe what I will.



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 08:34 AM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 


As I am not an evangelist, I (and most non-evangelicals) see my responsibility as making sure that people are aware of Jesus' story in the Gospel, what his teaching is, and what you need to do to be "right with God." Beyond that, I don't really care what you decide to do. I am not a proselytizer, if you tell me to bugger off, I'm not going to keep coming back to say "okay, how about now?" I will correct misstatements made about my faith and answer questions, but I have little interest in converting you. That's completely between you and God.

I deplore those who think that using force, legislation or coercion are legitimate pathways for bringing people to Christ. At best, it would be a hollow faith. At worst, you're in clear violation of Christ's commandments and risk condemnation yourself. Similarly, I dislike the approach of those who believe that fear is a sufficient motivator.

At its core, Christianity is a personal religion -- it's a relationship between God and I, and that extends out to my relationship with the rest of the world. But it effectively ends judgement, because the Christian who holds to Christ's message recognizes that, while we all have our prejudices and biases, in the end, your relationship to God, or the homosexual's, or the Muslim's, or anyone's, is YOURS, it is not mine. If God has issues with your behaviour, that's between you and he, not me.

Contrast "check box Christians" with a person who truly tries to follow Christ's way, and a lot of those objections to Christianity fall away.




top topics



 
20
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join