I see a lot of Christian haters on this forum.

Post Reply New Topic

EVERY other? It could just be my ignorance here, but I don't recall ever seeing a Buddhist scriptural mandate encouraging Buddhists to persecute anybody. It seems to me Buddhists and Hindus were historically MUCH more prone to attacks from persecutors--most often Muslims--than they were actually party to any persecution itself. Have they ever acted in self-defense? Sure. But bloodshed is, to my knowledge, not a dictate of the religion itself.

I know for a FACT that this is the same for Christians. Where in scripture are CHRISTIANS instructed to persecute others?


No doubt. But where in the Bible are Christians called to do this? If you can't find a Biblical source for followers of Christ to deliberately, knowingly, willfully engage in atrocious persecution of other peoples, then that should tell you that those professing Christ either were deceived, unaware of proper Biblical teaching, or they weren't REALLY Christians. They certainly weren't very Christ-like, were they?


Pagans in the near east, in Canaan, were known to be guilty of horrible religious practices and, according to the Bible, God DID call upon the Jews to eradicate them upon the conquest of Canaan post-Exodus. At this time and all other times, the people of Israel were instructed to consult God first before engaging in any kind of military action. They very often did NOT, and they suffered the consequences. Beyond that, they themselves were persecuted by the Assyrians and the Chaldeans (Babylonians). If you read the Bible, you'll note their conquest was a limited campaign to a relatively tiny area of land, and by the early kingdom they gained control of their neighbors while still granting their neighbors sovereignty. Any execution of theocratic justice was limited to the nation of Israel, and they were never instructed to expand their influence beyond that immediate area of the near/middle east. Pagans seem to have an even LONGER history of persecution of Jews from the Egyptian period, the Assyrian and Babylonian captivity, and the persecution of Christians during the early church.


I'm sure there are still areas of the world where Christians still persecute Muslims. But for the most part this is not the case. Christians continue to be routinely and systematically persecuted in the Middle East by Muslims, just as they have been for centuries.


Sure. But again, where is it written in the Bible that Christians are instructed by Jesus to do this? Rather, it IS written of the Jews, "Those who bless you will be blessed, and those who curse you will be cursed."

The Jews are not faultless, either, however. Sure, the conquest of Canaan was a mandate from God. But it nevertheless stands as what many today would consider persecution. I'd go even further to call it genocide. I don't believe this to be an anti-Jew statement, btw. It's honest, and anyone who tries to whitewash the Bible of those things that person doesn't like for whatever reason doesn't really believe it. But what we DO know about Judeo-Christian relations is the religious leaders of Jesus' day were not friendly towards His teachings--to the effect that they held expedited or informal trials in order to do away with Him quickly. The Jews put early Christians to death for teaching the gospel. Groups of Hellenistic Jews even followed Paul around to have him thrown out of many of the places where he taught.


Oh? Native Americans were known for territorial wars amongst themselves. The Mayan civilization imploded long before the Spanish arrived, one theory being invasion from foreign tribes--not entirely unlike the collapse of ancient Rome. This might not have been the MAIN cause, of course. But there is considerable evidence that the religious and wartime practices of these peoples were especially brutal.


This is something I know little about, to be honest. I never thought of African Natives as being especially disaffected by Christian religiosity. Or are you referring to the slave trade? Where are Christians commanded to secure slaves for themselves? The issue of slavery itself is a whole other discussion. Biblical slave laws only reflect the corruption of sin in the lives of humankind and thus the tendency of people to think of others as chattel property. What the Bible establishes is that it is wrong to keep slaves for yourself from your own people, that involuntary servanthood is preferable to incarceration in a nomadic society, that there are situations in which a slave might swear fealty to a master and other preferential conditions such as professional servants. The Bible provides for their freedom. African slavery does not reflect any wrongdoing on the part of the Africans or any reason why Africans should have been trafficked in the first place. In fact, Christians are encouraged to purchase their own freedom IF POSSIBLE, or if not then act as a positive witness to the freedom one has from sin because Jesus purchased our spiritual freedom with His blood. So why would Christians want to enslave ANYONE?

I can think of no reason, nor can I think of any Biblical mandate that suggests we should. As a matter of fact, most places in the world where some form of Christianity has flourished have abandoned the institution of slavery. It was white, Christian abolitionists who were the most vocal about ending it in America. The African slave trade is the only negative impact I can think of that professing Christians had on them as a people group. You'll have to point me in a different direction if that wasn't what you meant.

You listed a number of groups of people and religions supposedly disaffected by Christians. I won't argue that people calling themselves Christians did these things. I will argue, however, that those people do not represent foundational Christianity very well at all. They are Christian in name only. What's interesting is that if you look at the bigger picture, it was rather Christian missionaries living side-by-side with various cultures throughout the world learning their customs, religious practices, and languages that give us the most information on how these ancient peoples lived and what they were like. They did not seek to destroy them or force conversions, but rather evangelized these people in such a way that they could come to knowledge of Jesus willingly. More often Christians preserved knowledge of these people.


Again, I don't dispute that there have been many claiming to come "in the name of Jesus" who have done horrible things. But it seems to me their actions are clearly poorly justified in light of what the Bible actually says.


It depends. I'm not opposed to state religion, strictly speaking. I AM, however, opposed to the influence governments have on religion. It's just best they don't mix.

I think a lot of the problems you're describing stem from the single act of the marriage of church and state. Blame Constantine. Tradition is that he had all his soldiers convert to Christianity after he converted, and I think that's a pollution of the proper understanding of what Jesus teaches. If you aren't a willing servant of God, you aren't a servant of God at all.


I'm not getting into the whole debate about dinosaurs, transition fossils, and evolution. I'm sick of the whole thing, and I mean I'm sick about it from both sides. I mean, really... There are any number of ways evolution/fossil record can be harmonized with the first chapter of Genesis. All ancient cultures have some understanding or mythology about seemingly fantastic creatures, and I just can't understand how this would be if NOTHING at all resembling these creatures IN THE SLIGHTEST never even existed. Even "Leviathan" and "Behemoth" make an appearance in the Bible. "Sons of God," "Nephilim," and "giants" make their appearance in the OT. Do you really think human beings couldn't have been AT ALL familiar with dinosaur-like creatures? You want us to accept dinosaurs but then mock those who even entertain the thought that AT LEAST at one time something like dragons might have existed--possibly within the lifetimes of early human beings? This is where the whole things just gets silly, in my opinion. Say what you want about it, agree or disagree with me, but I just think there are more worthwhile things to discuss.



OK, but at the root of this is that the issue of homosexuality hinges more on personal opinion/bias than anything else. You can't legitimately debate that the Bible agrees with the homosexual practice. It lumps homosexuality with ancient Canaanite pagan temple sex rituals. It cannot be tolerated in a Hebraic theocracy, which was the point of the OT. The NT confirms that the intent extends to behaviors done in private as also being immoral. There's no way in Christianity that this can be "fixed." All a Christian can do is remain consistent with Biblical teaching. Never once are CHRISTIANS commanded to persecute gays. NEVER. In a free society, though, the will of the people determine whether something is socially acceptable or not and hence the legal status that they believe it deserves. If that society is driven by Christian thinking (Biblically consistent, of course, since not all self-professed Christians are consistent), then it stands that the will of the people is that homosexuality is immoral and shouldn't be tolerated. If that's what society wants, that's the way it has to be. Society, of course, is often fickle. But if Christians are free to speak their minds, they are bound to reflect Biblical teaching in expressing their opinions.

So whether or not you support homosexuality is not a Biblical thing, because the Bible clearly states that it is immoral. It's a personal preference or opinion. I'm not talking about the idea that you can choose to be homosexual or the idea that you're born homosexual. I'm talking about whether you believe it's good and proper behavior, acceptable, tolerable, etc. If you choose to support a homosexual agenda, that's a choice you make.

Regarding that choice, the way I see it there are two paths one might take: On the one hand, there is the idea that if you have homosexual attractions then your friends should support you, show tolerance, accept you, and love you "the way you are." You should feel encouraged to come out. The problem as I see it is Christians are properly instructed that homosexuality is immoral behavior and that they must speak out against it. Rightly so. However, the real problem is that telling someone who is struggling with these feelings, being caught between morality and immorality, between Christ and the world, is not showing them love and support. And I think this runs contrary to Biblical teaching regarding loving one another just as Christ loves us. Such a person NEEDS love and support, and rather than finding that love and support in the church all he might find is what seems to him hatred and contention. The gay community fills this void, so it's easier to reject the "typical" Christian attitude and maybe even the whole religion altogether in favor of an openly homosexual lifestyle within the greater, overarching support of the gay community.

On the other hand, someone persistently feels homosexual attraction but IS a faithful Christian, loves his church, his community of believers, and has a deep desire to follow Biblical teaching. In this case, the attraction is UNWANTED. I don't doubt at all that this can be exacerbated by environment, society, or even genetics. Regardless, the person is dealing with feelings he does not wish to have. I think it is the responsibility of Christian friends and the church community to provide support, maybe even some form of therapy, to deal with this kind of pain and confusion and to help this person live a moral life consistent with Biblical teaching. That involves acceptance, love, patience, and empathy rather than rejection and ridicule.

Of course, somewhere in the middle are those who, for WHATEVER reason, accept homosexuality as their personal lifestyle and couldn't care any less about Biblical teachings. They're gay, believe they always have been (NOT getting into that debate), and have chosen to live openly as homosexuals. I'm not going to say whether I think they chose to be gay, but I can say they chose to respond the way they did in openly pursuing it. It's a mistake to say there are absolutely NO choices at all, and it's especially a mistake for one to feel totally resigned to live a certain way if that's not what they ever really wanted. The Bible certainly does not speak favorably about those who mislead believers away from their faith.


Understood. And I never suspected that was your intent. I think it may be possible, though, that you haven't completely understood the facts of Christianity or how what you often see relates to the Bible. I think the relationship is obvious: People call themselves Christians but do not know, understand, or even really follow the Bible if they do know and understand it. I think that speaks more about how people are in general, though, rather than Christianity and the Bible specifically. Even when we're talking about something clearly indicated by the Bible as morally wrong such as homosexuality, it ignores that God loves ALL people without regard to their sinful condition. I would agree that Christians better serve Jesus if they honestly take the time to understand His teachings as well as the hearts of the sinners they purport to minister to.


Sure. But again, that has to do with personal preference or bias. I'm going to assume here that you are sympathetic to the cause of homosexuality. Whether you change your mind on this is entirely up to you. You and I might agree that Christians probably need to at least adjust their approach to homosexuals. And many of us ARE coming to an understanding that homosexuals have not been treated consistently with the words of Christ and are now trying to minister to those specific needs. Unfortunately, though, supporters of homosexual behavior cannot change the Bible (and it still be the Bible). Nobody said Christianity was an easy religion, though it might be easier than SOME religions. It is sad to me that a personal bias that favors homosexuality is all the grounds some need to reject the faith. But it is what it is, difficulties and all. In order to fully follow Jesus, one must accept Biblical morality while still showing the kindness and dignity He showed to ALL sinners, all in the spirit of humility and devotion to the Father.

Sorry but this is too long of a post for me to reply to each individual thing you said. You have brought up some really good points, but I'm going to try to answer some of them with this old saying:

"The Road to Hell is paved with good intentions"

I think that saying can be applied to religion too. Did the Bible say Christians had to persecute these people? No. Did they do it anyways because they felt God wanted them to? Yes.

I'm not saying religion is completely evil, but history shows that the followers have always twisted their own teachings around to justify doing some really mean things to other people even when it's supposed to go against their beliefs. That's just the way it has always been with religion, I think when you have the wrong person who does the preaching, the followers tend to do not-so-nice things because of that person. The same thing can be applied to governments and their leaders.

Edit: Also maybe you're right, I don't have a full understanding of Christianity or other religions which I guess is why I come across as ignorant sometimes. I just know from personal experience what I had to put up with from the church I attended as a child and why I chose to become an athiest.

No problem...I just get wound up sometimes...


Agreed.


Absolutely. Also good to know you understand one of the key messages of the Bible--rather, one HUGE thing that the Bible does NOT say, and that is especially relevant here.


I don't buy that for one second. I think that the human heart is inherently prone to wicked desires. When people are of a heart and mind to do something, they're going to do it and they need no justification for it. They just can't always do it alone. So they twist things around to make it SEEM as though there IS some justification in order to win someone over to their agenda. And I think this is primarily the cause of the Crusades.

When you look at how the first crusade went down, people seemed to be really excited about it and were united behind a divine cause: To aid their brothers and sisters in the Holy Land. I believe the end result might indicate a divine approval.

It was only in subsequent wars, not to mention the failure of the first crusaders to completely neutralize the enemy, that Europeans figured out, "Hey, there's RICH stuff over there!" So I think those wars were certainly motivated by greed rather than a true desire to protect the people living there. We know from history that Jews were slaughtered in addition to their occupiers. As a pseudo-Christian "Holy War," the whole thing was doomed.


I disagree that it has ALWAYS been that way. However, would you agree with me that IF it hasn't ALWAYS been that way, it certainly never has taken very long to happen? Heresies were already being hinted at in Paul's letters, and those letters were being written by the A.D. 60's.

Christianity is not inherently corrupt. But you are right that people twist things around to get whatever they want. I'm proud of the church I attend, but that's not to say that I and my family haven't been badly abused by certain members there. I'll spare the details, but anyone who's spent much of their life in church knows how cliquish things can get--just something that happens when a lot of people regularly get together. Those people who tried to hurt us ended up moving away, for unrelated reasons, of course. But I get the pride of knowing that we outlasted them. Those kinds of people often are the cause for division in churches, getting rid of good people they feel threatened by, and in some cases loss of faith. Sorry, but I have no sympathy for those kinds of people. We can honestly say that we stood our ground, though, and not everyone can say that about their church experience. We have a dear friend who felt she was forced out of her church, which she really loved, because some close friends of hers were being mistreated by a deacon's wife. The short version is that a woman started an addiction recovery support group within the church, meanwhile she took in her daughter's boyfriend who had come from a broken home. The guy talks to the pastor at this church because he's interested in becoming a preacher. Meanwhile the deacon's wife was spreading rumors about this family. So the pastor asks the boy outright if he's having sex with this girl. Because they're all living in the same house, they take away the addiction recovery group and put someone else in charge, and the whole church just became a hostile environment for our friends. They all went there separate ways after that. The fact that it would happen at all is appalling. And it's not like we're in some isolationist, crazy cult or anything--we're talking about Southern Baptists here!

So, yeah, stuff happens, but that's going to happen anywhere, any time people decide to get their own ideas about things and use any ideology of their choice to justify their actions. And you are right--the same thing applies to governments and their leaders. The question, though, is this: Do you have a BETTER idea? lol Governments HAVE to exist to maintain law and order. So... In terms of organized religion and government, the alternative very often is worse than the original state. If you can take organized religion, like Southern Baptists, and examine whether their doctrine is consistent with some scriptural basis that can be easily understood, you don't have much to really be afraid of in terms of being misled. The alternative is something like the Manson family. Or the Branch Davidians. The problems only happen when PEOPLE are involved, so you end up just doing the best you can. For the most part, my experience has largely been positive.


You sound like this Mennonite lady I know, ironically enough.

Seriously, though--I don't really have a problem with the Mennonites in terms of what they teach. I just don't think they are bringing up their children to be very mature believers. And it's not really a very "inviting" church. The young lady I talked to, as you might expect, has no formal education beyond 8th grade and doesn't know anything beyond her own religion and the teachings of her church. I find it admirable to keep such an intense focus on God. However, I think it's an injustice to NEVER allow any kind of challenges to faith or to explore for yourself what challenges there may be. Where I live, people are mostly Christian believers of one flavor or another, so there's not really anything to debate about. Nevertheless, here I am on an internet forum that has more vocal atheists than vocal Christians.


Hey, I can relate to that. I've never given up my faith, but I pretty much stopped going to church in college. I got to a point in grad school where I just couldn't stand it anymore and found a church to attend. Like I said, my experience was mostly positive growing up. It was only later in life that I ever encountered someone INSANE enough to try to pick a fight with ME--and I'd really never done anything to provoke these people! Same thing with my wife. One minute everything is fine--next minute the children's "minister" (using that term loosely) is showing my wife the door. THAT is messed up. However, rather than get all defeated about it, we dealt with it in a non-aggressive way that still got people's attention and forced people to start asking questions. There was one almost semi-confrontational meeting with the pastor, after which we were told to stay quiet about everything that happened. We felt like it was a "blame-the-victim" moment. However, the parts of this situation I'm NOT mentioning here did have to do with possibly calling the police, and we let our intentions be well-known. When that meeting was over, we were unhappy about what was said to us. But nobody EVER messed with us like that again. We don't know who said what to who, but apparently they got the message.

There were other things after that, the lingering effects of it, that reinforced our bitterness about it, but LOTS of things have changed in just the last few months that have us really excited about worship.

Any time you deal with people, you risk getting burned. But that doesn't mean all people everywhere are like that. I wonder about your experiences specifically and how those experiences could have completely turned you against church. Seems to me it's "church" you dislike rather than a wholehearted rejection of God entirely. I'm not suggesting you become a Baptist like me, nor would I dare push any denominationally specific beliefs on you. But there are a lot of different Christians out there. Could be you just never found the right fit.

This is the true Gospel:

Immortality exists, and it's yours if you want it. But it's something you can not acquire yourself, it must be given to you.

It's that simple. You are the one that makes it complicated.

No it doesn't. Have you ever been to a morgue?


ruveyn

And if you are dead, you can't acquire immortality for yourself, can you? Think about it a bit, maybe it's not about that body in the morgue...

The soul? That part of us that supposedly lives on after death but we have no evidence for? That part of us which is apparently us, despite being demonstrably a product of the physical brain and capable of being changed or damaged through changes to the brain? Sorry, no. Show me a soul, and I'll believe. Until then I'm sticking with the more likely theory that the whole thing is a scam.

In response to the original post - I don't hate christians. I harbour some dislike to some people, some of which are christians, but not because of their christianity. I do, however, hate a lot of christianity itself. It has done an immense amount of harm since its inception and continues to do so.

Evidence, please?

You are probably correct, there is no soul, only the electrical and chemical program that we call consciousness. So, it's not a soul I refer to, or spirit, or whatever We are just a marvelous machine. So, what else might there be?

Must there be anything else?

We are all bodies and when we die we rot.

You have not experienced unpleaseant until you have had a whiff of cadaverine (gas put out by a decomposing body). It is unbelievable. To quote from Star Wars: And I thought they smelled bad on the outside.

ruveyn

I have smelled it. Did you vomit too?

I don't think you are interested in this news, so I won't pursue it.

If you really want to discuss message me and I'll tell you what I know.

I just want to say that I am a Christian and I love what I believe in. My only thing that really gets on my nerves is that a lot of my friends are very radical who try and really push their beliefs onto others and they won't back down. When I first met them, it freaked me out because I wasn't used to that lifestyle. I'm used to it now, but they annoy me still. I love them, but still, I feel uncomfortable around them when expressing myself.

I agree with that quote, which was apparently originated by a Christian monk. It also reminds me of the opinion Jesus had of the Pharisees.

If you, right after writing down that excellent quote, robbed a bank, would it cease to be true? Should I deny that it was true, because someone else who also thought it true did something bad?


Why say religion is evil at all if you're objecting to evil actions forbidden by it?

People frequently use religion as an excuse, and say they're only following their religion, when they really aren't.

Oh, I forgot, we are aspies and don't reach out. I'll collect some thoughts and post later.