Slamming the Christians

[Amethyst]

Another way it's obvious that they don't really believe it, is because of the way they live. If they really really believed this, then they would be everywhere, trying to spread the gospel. They'd be outside the supermarkets, they'd be in the parks, they'd be going door to door every day.

 

When I was a Christian, I was a firm believer of "actions speak louder than words." (I still am, but not in the same context).

 

Our society has also changed so that there are non-soliticiting laws now. If you go to a supermarket, hard core evangelism (or at least handing out Jack Chick tracts) might be illegal and you could have to pay a fine for that. It's also against many workplace discrimination rules -- even if it's not against the law, it may be in the workplace's code of conduct. So it is understandable that Christians don't preach everywhere, although there are some that will, no matter what the rules are. These are the kinds of crazies who show up at college campuses and preach fire and damnation to women who wear makeup and jeans. Because, you know, god forbid any woman doesn't submit to men and wear nothing but dresses all her life.

[Alice]

Again, you're taking only one of my examples and ignoring the other.  Take the stronger example of the person who clings to life.  According to Christian dogma, nothing is greater than going to be God.  It's salvation via Jesus Christ.

 

Jesus even says that Christians should love him as though they hate their own families.  If you're a Christian, God is more important, and Earth is terrible.  Period!  End of discussion!

 

So why do Christians cling to tenaciously life?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'm sorry - I thought I'd answered that - I wasn't deliberately ignoring one. I thought I gave some suggested reasons in developing the 'prison' analogy and also some in describing my Father's feelings as he was dying.

 

(He beleived quite wholeheartedly that he was going to a 'better place' - the 'sin' and suffering of the 'world' made him weep at times - but the world was also full of people he loved and would soon not see grow and develop. We were grieving for the loss of one man - he was preparing to say goodbye to EVERYONE he loved, even though he truly beleived he'd get to see at least most of us again one day)

 

My Father would speak of longing to 'go to his maker' some days - then cry when his youngest grandson clasped a little hand round one of his fingers.

 

Christians - even fundamentalists - have human emotions. That's one reason they hang onto life.

[Mr. Neil]

And let's not forget the most obvious indication that Christians don't believe what they claim to believe. They try to find ways to disqualify the laws of Moses. They don't seem to understand what the word "forever" means. "Death by stoning" doesn't mean what it says. Slavery is right there in the Bible, and yet they weasle their way around these verses.

 

If they actually believed this stuff, one would think that they'd be much more cautious about wildly interpretting scripture like that. What they're doing is potentially blasphemous! God shouldn't need human clarification for his own words.

[Mr. Neil]

Christians - even fundamentalists - have human emotions. That's one reason they hang onto life.

That ignores what I said. According to Christian dogma, being with God is more important. Period. If they grieve for their families, they're not following the "love me as though you'd hate your own parents" dogma preached by Jesus. They're putting their families above God, and that is blasphemous.

[Alice]

And let's not forget the most obvious indication that Christians don't believe what they claim to believe.  They try to find ways to disqualify the laws of Moses.  They don't seem to understand what the word "forever" means.  Death by stoning doesn't mean what it says.  Slavery is right there in the Bible, and yet they weasle their way around these verses.

 

If they actually believed this stuff, one would think that they'd be much more cautious about wildly interpretting scripture like that.  What they're doing is potentially blasphemous!  God shouldn't need human clarification for his own words.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You seem to see things in very tight little boxes.

[Amethyst]

They're putting their families above God, and that is blasphemous.

 

I don't think they would see it that way. They would see it as loving one another, which their god commanded them to do.

[Mr. Neil]

You seem to see things in very tight little boxes.

You seem to argue for the sake of arguing.

[Alice]

That ignores what I said.  According to Christian dogma, being with God is more important.  Period.  If they grieve for their families, they're not following the "love me as though you'd hate your own parents" dogma preached by Jesus.  They're putting their families above God, and that is blasphemous.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

What is sad is that my Father would have agreed with you ... he berated himself for his reluctance to leave when he's so obviously been sent his 'release' papers.

 

Just because a christian struggles to do the things the Bible says he should do - doesn't mean he doesn't believe them.

 

My issue with with your words at the start was that you were stataing that responses such as grief at parting suggests that christians don't believe in the destination. I cannot see the 'reasoning' in this. If I understand what you seem to be saying - then I think it is an untrue assumption.

[Alice]

You seem to argue for the sake of arguing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I guess this might seem like a small side issue to you. In amoungst all the wealth of criticsms that can be levelled at fundamentalist christians I don't like to see erroneous ones that are based on assumptions.

 

Maybe I am a bit pedantic at times.

 

I propbably feel this quite acutely - because I've been in a grieveing situation and had a 'non-believer' say 'whatcha all getting so upset about - don't you really think you'll all be together one day then?'

 

To me - that's such a ridiculous and heartless conclusion to reach.

[Ouroboros]

Wow, Interesting thread! Such a good way to start the morning!

 

I must say there are good points in all what you’re saying. And what Hesitent are saying about “missing your loved ones”, makes sense. And at the same time I agree with MrNeil how every Christian (even the fundamentalist) doesn’t act 100% to how someone would act if they believed the Bible to be an inerrant book from God.

 

Like the other thread we had, saying that it actually would be better to kill babies early on, so they never have a chance to sin, and therefore are guaranteed a trip to heaven.

 

And this is the reason why I was against death penalty as a Christian, I truly believed that someone could meet Jesus and be made good, so why have death penalty and shorten their life and not give them time enough to repent? And American is practically the only western world country that has death penalty, and has the largest Christian population. It doesn’t make sense, someone is evil, do evil things, and Jesus can help them, and then make sure they don’t get the chance to meet Jesus! WTF!

 

Or take the conflict of spreading the gospel, if someone never heard the gospel, God will deal with them in a different way, and they would be tried depending on the knowledge they had, because they never heard the “happy news”. Of course not all Christians believe this, but in those cases when I hear this argument from a Christian, I tell them “Then you should shut up and never tell anyone the Gospel, because when you do, and they chose not to believe, they will have a guaranteed ticket to hell, because of YOU!” It’s better to not tell anyone the Gospel, and God can deal with each one of us on a personal basis, if we been good or bad.

[Mr. Neil]

I propbably feel this quite acutely - because I've been in a grieveing situation and had a 'non-believer' say 'whatcha all getting so upset about - don't you really think you'll all be together one day then?'

 

To me - that's such a ridiculous and heartless conclusion to reach.

And yet you just keep going back to this point as though it was my entire argument, yet it wasn't. Hesitent, just as I call into question the behavior of Christians who act inconsistantly with their faith, so must I call into question your insistance to answer only one point and not address the other. You seem bound and determined to contradict me regardless of what I say. I have very little patience for that.

 

Your entire rebuttal to my point about the guy who avoids death was to criticise my analogy of the guy in prison, but you really haven't addressed the question. Why is the Christian going out of his way to avoid death? Why do Christians care about longevity of life? Now, I'm not saying they should be suicidal or carefree, but Christians seem really intent on extending life for as long as they can. All I'm saying is that if they're going to a better place, living life to its absolute fullest wouldn't be such a priority.

 

And I'm not suggesting that people who lose loved ones shouldn't grieve. Of course they'll grieve, but that's not the point! It's that they grieve as though these people are gone for good. If they truly had faith in salvation, then there'd be a silver lining to death, because it's the ultimate glory. This should be cause for celebration! That person is going to Heaven, and that's wonderful! Sure, they'd miss those loved ones, but wouldn't they also be happy for these people? If your child goes off to college, you may miss them, but aren't you also happy for them? YES!

 

So while you may grieve when grandma dies, you should also be happy that she's ascended to Heaven.

 

Being with God is more important than anything else, and the Bible even says so. I mean, what are you not understanding? I'm not being heartless, nor am I suggesting that they shouldn't grieve. I'm simply taking the claims of Christians and contrasting them with their behavior, and I find it inconsistant.

 

But I'll give you another example using Romans 1. Christians will always tell you that God has revealed himself in everything. Yet if they think they have evidence of theism, whether it be from faith healing or some form of miracle performed by a church member, they'll jump at the chance to announce that God's miracle has been revealed to them. Well by doing so, they've shown that they didn't have faith, because they should already have had divine revelation. They don't need visual confirmation of their faith.

 

...Actually, I'll have to make a mental note of that, because I can use that against Gastrich. He's all about evidentialism.

 

And of course, eventually these events are debunked by people like James Randi, and the people who claimed to have witnessed the power of God feel foolish. But the point is that if they actually had divine revelation, they wouldn't have needed those miracles in first place.

[Alice]

And yet you just keep going back to this point as though it was my entire argument, yet it wasn't.  Hesitent, just as I call into question the behavior of Christians who act inconsistantly with their faith, so must I call into question your insistance to answer only one point and not address the other.  You seem bound and determined to contradict me regardless of what I say.  I have very little patience for that.

 

Your entire rebuttal to my point about the guy who avoids death was to criticise my analogy of the guy in prison, but you really haven't addressed the question.  Why is Christian avoiding death?  Why do Christians care about longevity of life?

 

And I'm not suggesting that people who lose loved ones shouldn't grieve.  Of course they'll grieve, but that's not the point!  It's that they grieve as though these people are gone for good.  If they truly had faith in salvation, then there'd be a silver lining to death, because it's the ultimate glory.  This should be cause for celebration!  That person is going to Heaven, and that's wonderful!  Sure, they'd miss those loved ones, but wouldn't they also be happy for these people?  If your child goes off to college, you may miss them, but aren't you also happy for them?  YES!

 

 

Being with God is more important than anything else, and the Bible even says so.  I mean, what are you not understanding?  I'm not being heartless, nor am I suggesting that they shouldn't grieve.  I'm simply taking the claims of Christians and contrasting them with their behavior, and I find it inconsistant.

 

But I'll give you another example using Romans 1.  Christians will always tell you that God has revealed himself in everything.  Yet if they think they have evidence of theism, whether it be from faith healing or some form of miracle performed by a church member, they'll jump at the chance to announce that God's miracle has been revealed to them.  Well by doing so, they've shown that they didn't have faith, because they should already have had divine revelation.  They don't need visual confirmation of their faith.

 

And of course, eventually these events are debunked by people like James Randi, and the people who claimed to have witnessed the power of God feel foolish.  But the point is that if they actually had divine revelation, they wouldn't have needed those miracles in first place.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I keep coming back to the bit I disagree with you on! The bit you keep saying I'm not answering and therefore I keep having another try! (that's assuming the two lines of argument were christians grieving about saying goodbye to another and chrsitians holding onto life being the second ... or is there something else I've missed that's bugging you?

 

I think I have now made several attempts to answer the 'why would a christian hold onto life' bit.

 

I posted again after the one extending your prison analogy -and both posts were aimed at giving reasons why a christian would want to hold onto life.

 

From the prison analogy ...

 

because they believe that God has a plan for their life and intends to 'use' them to save others - becuse that's where God wants them to be until he send the 'release papers' - because the world is full of people they love and who they want to see grow and develop.

 

From the additional posting ... I gave examples of why my Father struggled with a desire to hold onto life ...

 

I agree that the Bible tells them they should love God more than their family - just because they 'fail' in this level of detachment doesn't mean they don't believe they should!

 

Most of the christians I know do say that their grief is 'different' when it is over someone they believe was a christian. (although I'm not sure that anyone is qualified to say whether someone 'experiences' grief in the same way as the next person or not)

 

The reason why I'm focusing on these aspects of your argument are these are the ones I care about - and these are the ones where I think you are wrong about christians.

 

I agree with you that there are inconsistencies in christian dogma and doctrines and the Bible, some of these inconsistencies might point to the fact that it's possible that some christians who claim to hold such beliefs don't really believe them .... sometimes it might just mean they have the kind of brain in which inconsistent sets of belief can co exist.

 

but a christian who wants to hold onto life ... I don't agree that this suggests he or she doesn't really believe.

[Mr. Neil]

I keep coming back to the bit I disagree with you on!

Yeah, but the point that you keep disagreeing with me on was a point that I wasn't trying to make. I wasn't saying that people shouldn't have sorrow. I was saying that should at least see some silver lining to death, and you keep avoiding that point.

 

 

The bit you keep saying I'm not answering and therefore I keep having another try! (that's assuming the two lines of argument were christians grieving about saying goodbye to another and chrsitians holding onto life being the second ... or is there something else I've missed that's bugging you?

Grief, or the lack thereof, was not the argument. The glorification of going to Heaven was.

 

Again, if your child goes to college, surely you would miss them, but would you not also be happy? Yep.

 

 

I think I have now made several attempts to answer the 'why would a christian hold onto life' bit.

 

I posted again after the one extending your prison analogy -and both posts were aimed at giving reasons why a christian would want to hold onto life.

 

From the prison analogy ...

 

because they believe that God has a plan for their life and intends to 'use' them to save others - becuse that's where God wants them to be until he send the 'release papers' - because the world is full of people they love and who they want to see grow and develop.

Misaligned analogy. A Christian clinging to life would be more like a prisoner avoiding his scheduled release.

 

I think the point has again been cleverly avoided and side-stepped. I'm sorry, but I don't know why you're doing this. I still think you're arguing for the sake of arguing.

 

I think it's plainly obvious when a Christian is fighting off death. Why isn't he, instead, embracing impending death as "his time"? When you start having a heart attack and you call 911, are you not deliberately trying to avoid your demise? How come none of them interpret this as God's call? They should be happy that God has reached out to them to take them to the kingdom of Heaven. What on earth are they so afraid of? ...beside the obvious.

 

Again, look at the Muslims. They understand the glory of ascention. They can't wait to get outta here. Death is the greatest thing that could ever happen to you, because you go to an eternal paradise.

 

But Christians, who have the exact same reward for being faithful, behave very differently in the face of death. They run away from it, avoid it, and do whatever it takes to stay here. Surely this is the result of progressive western culture! It's the only explanation for Christians trying to avoid the hand of God.

 

 

I agree that the Bible tells them they should love God more than their family - just because they 'fail' in this level of detachment doesn't mean they don't believe they should!

The Bible doesn't just say that they should love God more. It says they should love him as though they hate their families.

 

The fact that they do fail at all is entirely the point, because the one thing that the Christian faith is founded on is self-serving salvation. Christians are supposed to do moral things not because they're the right things to do, but because it'll keep them out of Hell. If they fail, then they're doing something less than what they're theology dictates. They're doing something decidedly secular.

 

Let's get right to the point. This is about the claim that Christians have about their faith. I don't expect Christians to be inhuman. After all, that would be cruel and heartless. But the point is that by being good natured, caring, loving people, they are doing less than what the Bible wants of them, and therefore, they do not have faith in what they claim to have faith!

 

It's really as simply as that.

 

 

Most of the christians I know do say that their grief is 'different' when it is over someone they believe was a christian. (although I'm not sure that anyone is qualified to say whether someone 'experiences' grief in the same way as the next person or not)

Again not the point! I know they should have grief. Whether they have one type of grief or another is irrelevent. I'm not arguing against that. You disagree with something that I'm not saying. The point is that according to Christian theology, death is a good thing, because you ascend to the kingdom of Heaven. Sure, they're going to miss their family members, but they should also be happy for them. It should be cause for celebration! A saint has gone home. Yet I don't know a single Christian who reveres the ascention of a loved one.

 

 

The reason why I'm focusing on these aspects of your argument are these are the ones I care about - and these are the ones where I think you are wrong about christians.

Again, an aspect that has nothing to do with what I'm saying. I know I'm repeating myself a number of times in one reply, but I'm hoping that you'll get it this time.

 

 

I agree with you that there are inconsistencies in christian dogma and doctrines and the Bible, some of these inconsistencies might point to the fact that it's possible that some christians who claim to hold such beliefs don't really believe them .... sometimes it might just mean they have the kind of brain in which inconsistent sets of belief can co exist.

 

but a christian who wants to hold onto life ... I don't agree that this suggests he or she doesn't really believe.

I'm sorry, but I've given several reasons why it does. None of which you seem willing to address.

[Alice]

Yeah, but the point that you keep disagreeing with me on was a point that I wasn't trying to make.  I wasn't saying that people shouldn't have sorrow.  I was saying that should at least see some silver lining to death, and you keep avoiding that point.

Grief, or the lack thereof, was not the argument.  The glorification of going to Heaven was.

 

Again, if your child goes to college, surely you would miss them, but would you not also be happy?  Yep.

Misaligned analogy.  A Christian clinging to life would be more like a prisoner avoiding his scheduled release.

 

I think the point has again been cleverly avoided and side-stepped.  I'm sorry, but I don't know why you're doing this.  I still think you're arguing for the sake of arguing.

 

I'm sorry that it seems as though I keep avoiding the point you were trying to make and that it seems like I am arguing for the sake of arging. The former wasn't deliberate and the latter isn't true.

 

I guess it comes down to our different experiences of christians facing death.  I don't know any who haven't (in amoungst their sorrow at parting)  seen the silver linning you speak of.

 

I have tried to give examples of the 'struggle' I've witnessed in christians - not wanting to say goodbye versus their belief a 'better place' awaits them.

 

The 'reason' I've entered into this discussion with you is that this is an area which really interests me - the interplay between our 'emotions' and our 'intellect'. I guess I do not agree with you that an emotional response that appears inconsistent with a 'belief' means that the person doesn't really believe.

 

(I really believe a healthy diet is good for for me. Does the fact that I scoffed 3/4 of a packet of chocolate hobnobs yesterday mean that I don't really believe in the healthy diet after all?)

 

I really don't think that in this instance I'm arguing for the sake of it - it is possible that the reason it feels to you as though I've side stepped the main issues (and thank you for the 'cleverly' word!!) is simply because what is important to me is different to what is important to you.  I'm now quite fascinated by that fact you think I've been side stepping. I think so often when this kind of frustration creeps into a discussion it's simply because the starting points are so different.

 

I think it's plainly obvious when a Christian is fighting off death.  Why isn't he, instead, embracing impending death as "his time"?  When you start having a heart attack and you call 911, are you not deliberately trying to avoid your demise?  How come none of them interpret this as God's call?  They should be happy that God has reached out to them to take them to the kingdom of Heaven.  What on earth are they so afraid of?  ...beside the obvious.

 

My experience has been that many christians do embrace death when 'their time is up'.  I think all sorts of things impact on how christians approach death - one big factor in the western church is the current preoccupation with teaching on 'healing' and I think that is sometimes in conflict with teaching about the afterlife.[/I]

 

Again, look at the Muslims.  They understand the glory of ascention.  They can't wait to get outta here.  Death is the greatest thing that could ever happen to you, because you go to an eternal paradise.

 

I think my experience of muslims facing death may also be different from yours - those I have known have experienced the same struggle I have witnessed in christians.

 

But Christians, who have the exact same reward for being faithful, behave very differently in the face of death.  They run away from it, avoid it, and do whatever it takes to stay here.  Surely this is the result of progressive western culture!  It's the only explanation for Christians trying to avoid the hand of God.

The Bible doesn't just say that they should love God more.  It says they should love him as though they hate their families.

 

Yes it says they 'should' ....

 

And I think that you are right about western culture having a big impact on the way they react - this would certainly explain perhaps why my experience has been different to yours .. the more time I spend here the more time I realise that USA christianity is very different from British christianity.

 

The fact that they do fail at all is entirely the point, because the one thing that the Christian faith is founded on is self-serving salvation.  Christians are supposed to do moral things not because they're the right things to do, but because it'll keep them out of Hell.  If they fail, then they're doing something less than what they're theology dictates.  They're doing something decidedly secular.

 

Let's get right to the point.  This is about the claim that Christians have about their faith.  I don't expect Christians to be inhuman.  After all, that would be cruel and heartless.  But the point is that by being good natured, caring, loving people, they are doing less than what the Bible wants of them, and therefore, they do not have faith in what they claim to have faith!

 

It's really as simply as that.

Again not the point!  I know they should have grief.  Whether they have one type of grief or another is irrelevent.  I'm not arguing against that.  You disagree with something that I'm not saying.  The point is that according to Christian theology, death is a good thing, because you ascend to the kingdom of Heaven.  Sure, they're going to miss their family members, but they should also be happy for them.  It should be cause for celebration!  A saint has gone home.  Yet I don't know a single Christian who reveres the ascention of a loved one.

Again, an aspect that has nothing to do with what I'm saying.  I know I'm repeating myself a number of times in one reply, but I'm hoping that you'll get it this time.

I'm sorry, but I've given several reasons why it does.  None of which you seem willing to address.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I guess it does come down to very different starting points - you do not know a single christian who reveres the ascension of a loved one - and I do.

 

It may be that this whole discussion has been over a misunderstanding - I did think that you were saying christians shouldn't feel sorrow when they part from a loved one.

 

I am glad that you are not saying their sorrow at parting indicates that they do not really believe in an after life.

 

It appears that you are saying a lack of any joy whatsoever at the thought of the afterlife indicates they don't really believe that there is one.

 

Well - I haven't encountered any christians like that but I guess it could mean that ... although to me that assertion would be an 'assumptive' one - because I'm not convinced that our emotional responses dictate the validity of our chosen beliefs ... I'd be really interested to discuss that with you further but I'm guessing that your area's of interest are somewhat different to mine!

 

As to any other possible motivations for arguing this point - I am a little prone to feeling protective of anyone or any group I feel it being treated unfairly. I may have misinterpreted your comments as having a 'go' at grieving christians. My motivation was that I thought your comments were unfair.

 

You end by saying that you have given several reasons why a christian holding onto life does indicate they don't believe and your view that I have failed to address these.

 

I think I have addressed them.

 

Does this come down to - you think 'true' beliefs are seen in the emotional reactions people have to situations?

[dogmatically_challenged]

To clarify my post to Christians from another thread. Being blunt is one aproach that discourages dodges to questions. Why treat them any other way if all your going to get is dodges?

From Why do U remain a Xian thread

 

My post from another thread.

Tap and SOIL are pretty decent people as fundies go. Thats an understatement. I think we got a better class of Christians that are regulars here at E-C than I see in RT. They may be dodgers who prance about in fantasy land, but they are still good sports when it comes to the toungue lashings dished out here.

 

Still, I enjoy some of vanesa's posts to Christians. I can't help it. I want to treat Christians like that sometimes even though a few of them don't deserve some of the things said to them. Some of the things that is. It is possible to like people who you think are perpetuating bigotry when you realize that they just can't see how they are connected with what the asshole fundies do. Not while they are wearing thier jesus glasses anyways.

 

Tap wrote:

Wow. That's a shocking post to me, DC.

 

Dictionary.com

2 entries found for Chauvinism.

chau·vin·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (shv-nzm)

n.

Militant devotion to and glorification of one's country; fanatical patriotism.

Prejudiced belief in the superiority of one's own gender, group, or kind: “the chauvinism... of making extraterrestrial life in our own image” (Henry S.F. Cooper, Jr.).

 

Dictinary.com

2 entries found for Bigoted.

big·ot·ed ( P ) Pronunciation Key (bg-td)

adj.

Being or characteristic of a bigot: a bigoted person; an outrageously bigoted viewpoint.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

bigot·ed·ly adv.

 

[Download Now or Buy the Book]

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

 

 

Bigoted

 

adj : blindly and obstinately attached to some creed or opinion and intolerant toward others; "a bigoted person"; "an outrageously bigoted point of view"

 

As far as fundies go even the nicest Christians are bigots. Sorry for being blunt but there it is. Scripture teaches bigotry even in the new testament. Jesus is a chavinist and a bigot and if a person who can not admit that jesus can be wrong under any circumstance then that person is a bigot. Shall we look for a thread or start a thread were bigotry in scripture is discussed? I know which Christians will be a no show. It could also mean that Christians will have to look at how blind and outragious thier beliefs are.

 

Me

1) Tap and SOIL are pretty decent people as fundies go. Thats an understatement. I think we got a better class of Christians that are regulars here at E-C than I see in RT.

How will Christians answer when asked if homosexuality is a sin and is worthy of punnishment? That being a nonchristian is worthy of punnishment? Is nonbelief a sin? Do unbelievers in christ deserve punnishment? What about fornicators? ( which I am) , do I deserve to be punnished by god? Punnishment is for wrongdoers and sin is evil according to scripture. Practicing Homosexuals, Fornicators and people of other faiths who are unrepentant: Are they evil and deserve punnishment according to scripture? If so, do you agree with what the bible says about these unrepentant "sinners" no matter the circumstance? The bible gives no exceptions in regards these kinds of "sinners" they are evil. If the answer is yes that you do support the judgments found in scripture then you are a bigot and it doesn't matter if you don't like the judgments found in scripture.

 

The Christian can not admit that people of other faiths have equally good reasons for disbelieving in Christianity as Christians have of disbelieving in other religions. They can not admit that worshiping other gods is not worthy of punnishment..yet thier beliefs are based on blind faith alone just like the other religionists in the world. A Christians reasons for believing that worshiping other gods is a sin and deserves punnishment; are hypoctritical and intolerant which is what a bigot is. There is no nice way to point these things out.

 

Dictionary.com

Bigot

 

n : a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own

 

 

 

Christians are bigots if they believe these are "sins" and are worthy of punnishment because they refuse to say that they may be wrong about supprting the judgements found in the bible . The Christian concept of sin attacks the very nature of some people and for no good reason. This fits the definition of bigot. To say these are sins ---> is intolerant and narrowmindedly so.

 

Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

 

Me

2)They may be dodgers who prance about in fantasy land

It may not be very flattering to point this out, but it is an accurate statement. Certain Christians here run and hide when faced with the facts because they have no logical answer to give. They run before it will get awkward for them.

 

Me

3) I want to treat Christians like that sometimes even though a few of them don't deserve some of the things said to them. Some of the things that is.

Being blunt isn't fun but honest opinion is something I feel is necessary when it comes to Christian beliefs.

 

Me

4) It is possible to like people who you think are perpetuating bigotry when you realize that they just can't see how they are connected with what the asshole fundies do. Not while they are wearing thier jesus glasses anyways.

 

If you agree with biblegods/biblewriters judgments without exception and by sandbagging/dodging evidences that what is in the bible is wrong; then you are narrowminded...intolerant.

 

Defending a persons very nature that is not harmful to themselves or others against superstitious taboos is NOT splitting hairs. Sorry. But this does not mean that I can't have feelings for nice Christians. I view Christians as victims of thier own beliefs. I just get flustrated sometimes with people who are so blind, dodgy

... and narrow minded. People who refuse to honestly test thier beliefs and world view.

[Amethyst]

How will Christians answer when asked if homosexuality is a sin and is worthy of punnishment? That being a nonchristian is worthy of punnishment? Is nonbelief a sin? Do unbelievers in christ deserve punnishment?

 

This might surprise you, but not all Christians believe homosexuality is a sin anymore. My parents don't, and my liberal Christian friends don't. They are educated enough to realize that it is genetic in nature, and that the Bible was wrong on it being a sin. They're also more Universalist in nature that they believe good people, regardless of whether they are Christains, jews, muslims, pagan, atheist, agnostic, whatever, go to heaven. But they still call themselves Christian, I think because they are afraid of the reaction from family & friends if they do not. It's all they've ever known, and they think that Universalism is a cult, so they don't want to go to a Universalist church. Yes, they're cherry pickers and yes, in the eyes of the fundies, they'd go to hell. But if they were fundies, they wouldn't be my friends.

[dogmatically_challenged]

This might surprise you, but not all Christians believe homosexuality is a sin anymore.  My parents don't, and my liberal Christian friends don't.  They are educated enough to realize that it is genetic in nature, and that the Bible was wrong on it being a sin.  They're also more Universalist in nature that they believe good people, regardless of whether they are Christains, jews, muslims, pagan, atheist, agnostic, whatever, go to heaven.  But they still call themselves Christian, I think because they are afraid of the reaction from family & friends if they do not.  It's all they've ever known, and they think that Universalism is a cult, so they don't want to go to a Universalist church.  Yes, they're cherry pickers and yes, in the eyes of the fundies, they'd go to hell.  But if they were fundies, they wouldn't be my friends.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That's them. But they too are sandbaggers and still perpetuate bigotry just by saying that the bible is the word of god. They virtually deify a book that is bigoted.

[Totallyatpeace]

That's them. But they too are sandbaggers and still perpetuate bigotry just by saying that the bible is the word of god. They virtually deify a book that is bigoted.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Thanks for your thoughts, DC.

 

Just want you to know I read this but somebody else can take the bait.

 

Tap

[dogmatically_challenged]

Thanks for your thoughts, DC.

 

Just want you to know I read this but somebody else can take the bait. 

 

Tap

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

My intentions are not sinnister. Can you show me that I am wrong here? I can be corrected...by anyone if they have good points. I can be wrong, but right now I do not think I am.

 

Keep in mind Tap the bible is putting me on trial and is not forthcomming of evidences that a god deems me evil, as well as others, so my intentions are not sinnister at all.

[Totallyatpeace]

My intentions are not sinnister. Can you show me that I am wrong here? I can be corrected...by anyone if they have good points. I can be wrong, but right now I do not think I am.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I came to the conclusion a long time ago that it is pointless to discuss matters and expect change when one side believes in God and the Word of God and the other does not believe in God nor his Word.

 

What I have tried to do here is clearly explain what the Christian faith believes when I am asked. Not that long ago I was cornered here on what I personally believe and was very honest in my responses.

 

DC~ I never felt you were being sinnister. Really.

 

Tap

[dogmatically_challenged]

I came to the conclusion a long time ago that it is pointless to discuss matters and expect change when one side believes in God and the Word of God and the other does not believe in God nor his Word.

 

What I have tried to do here is clearly explain what the Christian faith believes when I am asked. Not that long ago I was cornered here on what I personally believe and was very honest in my responses.

 

DC~ I never felt you were being sinnister. Really.

 

Tap

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well I am relieved that you realize I am troubled with my beliefs right now and nothing more.

 

This is in answer to your highlites of my post from another thread. You were shocked at my post. Well, was it ever a secret that I view your beliefs in the bible to be pure fantasy? You do not stick around in a thread long enough to answer the tough questions. It apears to me that you are prancing about in fantasy land based on that.

 

As far as being decent as far as fundies go I believe that you do not like some of the judgments given in scripture. I also see from your posts that you believe that you are equally a sinner. You are willing to degrade yourself equally with other sinners. That shows you are a caring person and do not enjoy the fact that we evil and are gonna burn according to your book. Nonetheless, what I have posted in this thread still stands even though you do not like certain judgements givin in scripture. It seems logical to me even though I do not like the thought. I can't ignor the plight of other people in this country which owes thier persecutions to scripture.

[Totallyatpeace]

This is in answer to your highlites of my post from another thread. You were shocked at my post. Well, was it ever a secret that I view your beliefs in the bible to be pure fantasy? You do not stick around in a thread long enough to answer the tough questions. It apears to me that you are prancing about in fantasy land based on that.

 

DC~ I have never meant to not answer a question directed at me. To be honest, life is just very busy for me right now and when I do have some down time here, I am generally relaxing my brain from a day at work. (Word Association Game)

 

I have tried to be honest in my responses and don't feel that I have danced around anything. If you want to ask me something specific, then ask me one question at a time. However, I try very hard to be aware of the feelings of others so don't expect me to condemn somebody here because of my beliefs. It will never happen.

 

You do not stick around in a thread long enough to answer the tough questions.

 

It depends on if it is discussion that will lead to understanding or if it's just vain babbling and hurling of insults. I'm intelligent enough to know how to spend my time wisely. I don't have a lot of room for negativity in my life because of the nature of what I do outside of this web site. In other words, I am in control of my own environment.

 

I am always willing to learn. Take for instance the hell doctrine. Instead of giving me a thrashing for believing in hell, Zoe Grace gave me some links to study up on so I can weigh what I believe carefully.

 

I'm still studying that.

 

You make it sound as if because you have determined in your own mind that there is no God or that Christianity is absolutely false.....that everyone else should automatically believe that too. Each person is on their own path and will come to their own conclusions................ in time.

 

Tap

[dogmatically_challenged]

DC~ I have never meant to not answer a question directed at me. TO be honest, life is just very busy for me right now and when I do have some down time here, I am generally relaxing my brain frm a day at work. (Word Association Game)

 

I have tried to be honest in my repsonses and don't feel that I have danced around anything.

If we ask about your brand of dogma then I believe you are honest and not dodgy and you tell us what you understand the bible to say. However you never tackle tough questions put to you(It is true that sometimes these questions are offtopic but not always), which would show that the bible is not a coherent book. Which shows that it is riddled with unsupported claims and has evidence against what is written in the book. This is your right of coarse.

 

If you want to ask me something specific, then ask me one question at a time. 

There is no denying that every Christian here is bombarded with questions and ad hominem attacks. You know were the one on one debate section is though. You can pick your people.

 

However, I try very hard to be aware of the feelings of others so don't expect me to condemn somebody here because of my beliefs. It will never happen.

If you believe in all the judgements given us by scripture then you are condemning people as well as yourself. You are willing to degrade yourself equally which to me is proof that you genuinely hurt for people and recognoze that no one is perfect. That makes you extremely decent for a religionists. Many other religionists love to point the finger.

 

Yet there is a difference between using reason to decide what is good or evil and believing based on blind faith. There is a difference. And there are consequences.

 

It depends on if it is discussion that will lead to understanding or if it's just vain babbling and hurling of insults.

Understanding is not sweeping problems under the rug for the sake of an illogical, bigoted story that lacks evidence.

 

Also you know were the one on one section of this forum is. Choose your people who are not prone to ad hominem attacks.

 

I'm intelligent enough

This is not about intelligence, it is about something else. Intelligent people can defend thier beliefs with mere logical fallacies just like anyone else. This is very human. But it is also very human to put aside biases and look critially at the evidence. No matter. It is human to error.

 

to know how to spend my time wisely. I don't have a lot of room for negativity in my life because of the nature of what I do outside of this web site. In other words, I am in control of my own environment.

No doubt. You are in control of whether or not to test your beliefs. Debate is not negative if those who are having such dialogue are working together without sandbagging or dodges. Changing your worldview is very painful but growing pains are necessary to real growth.

 

I am always willing to learn. Take for instance the hell doctrine. Instead of giving me a thrashing for believing in hell, Zoe Grace gave me some links to study up on so I can weigh what I believe carefully.

 

I'm still studying that.

Well what can I say against that? Nothing except that I don't quite have you pegged like I thought. I was in error on some of what I said. I apologize. But whether or not there is a hell is not pertinent to whether or not I am evil as scripture says I am.

 

You make it sound as if because you have determined in your own mind that there is no God or that Christianity is absolutely false.....that everyone else should automatically believe that too. Each person is on their own path and will come to their own conclusions................ in time.

 

Tap

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Agreed. I definetly can be impatient with people. I will try to learn from this.

[Mike D]

Unfortunately many people here are very raw and out right cruel to many Christians on this site.

Hi Eponymic,

 

I guess this thread is a little old but thought I would put my 2 cents in. I guess I can see where you are coming from, but I think the main purpose of this site is for people either leaving Christianity or seriously questioning it, who are seeking satisfactory answers about Christianity that they can't/don't get from their fellow Christians. If that's what someone is here for, I don't think it will matter how people act. As an example, when I was a still a Christian I remember visiting some atheist message boards (this was before I even knew about exchristian.net), and I was thinking wow atheists seem really bitchy to me. But it didn't matter because bitchy or not, in my mind they were right. I wasn't seeking friends I was seeking the truth - and if I got it that's all that mattered to me.

 

I think it is pretty easy to tell who is here geniunely seeking answers or even for a friendly discussion, and who is here just for a confrontation, or to "stir the hornets nest" as I recall one Christian poster here from the past had so eloquently put it. If a nest of angry hornets is what they are looking for, I am sure we can accomodate them

[Mr. Neil]

Hesitent, I haven't even read your response yet, because quite frankly, I don't see what's difficult to understand about my point. I'm tired of trying to clarify it for you. What I'm going to try to do is explain it to you a different way. If you get it, good. If you don't, then I don't care...

 

Consider the Bible. This is something that Christians take as fact, but they don't treat it as fact. Hardly any of them do. They claim one form of faith, that the Bible is the ultimate source of truth and moral value. But then when you bring to their attention some of the attrocious things that both God and Jesus do, they suddenly switch gears and say that they now have faith that whatever it is the Bible is saying, it must be good in some way. By saying that, though, they render their first statement meaningless, and thus reveal that they don't actually have faith in anything!!!

 

Consider this another way. You wouldn't treat gravity the same way. You wouldn't try to adjust your understanding of gravity just because the idea of you going splat when jumping off a building didn't appeal to you. You take gravity as an objective truth, for better or for worse, but Christians, despite claiming that the Bible is a source for objective truth, never treat it as such.

 

They have no faith in the Bible. You don't treat objective truth by making the uncomfortable parts go away or believing that the bad parts aren't really that bad. If you do, then you don't really believe in that which you claim to believe.