Some Serious Questions

[XYZ]

Hi everyone.*I'm a humanist and I consider morals an integral and important part of my psyche. I like to help people. I came here because recently I have started to recognize some truly anti-loving behaviour from Christians and I'd like to ask some possibly controversial questions and to hear (hopefully logical) responses from different people belonging to different sects and denominations, because the idea of malice and ill-will somehow being in line with teachings of love baffles me. I also have some questions on a few of the general principles of christian religion, its history and othertIhings. I'm here to gain perspective and view opinion. Not to bash or argue or demean. These statements aren't personal attacks on anyone. They are my findings and queries from being in contact with people throughout my own life experience.

1. If Christianity is the only path to God, then how come there are so many different belief structures within Christianity? Doesn't that completely negate the reliability of all of them being paths to God? Or is it accepted that many forms within Christianity can lead to your destination in the new world?

2. Christianity as a collective religion encompassing its followers and clergy, historically, has gained a reputation for censorship, an unhealthy preoccupation with sex, privacy invasion, coersion, misogyny, violence, torture and the suppression of free speech among other evils. In more modern times, those practices seem to have lessened both in severity and frequency. But doesnt this change mean, considering that in bygone days, clergy and fellowship would consider such practices justified, that Christianity is in fact open to interpretation? Or is this change just a result of social pressure and more liberal law? Is it justified to torture a confession out of a homosexual or is it not? Where does the biblical stance lie if not in the interpretation of the individual? And given free reign on lawmaking, would the christian populace see us return to the more gruesome form of religion?

3. If Christianity revolves around the Jesus of the bible and followers are to emulate his loving, forgiving attitude, then why aren't strict fundamentalists and other harsh and literal denominations considered a religion outside Christianity? I have witnessed many professing christians becoming irate when asked for a favour , or opening the floodgates to judge one particular type of person, for instance, a gay man, while turning a blind eye to the fact that they are mobbing, upsetting and demeaning him which in itself, to my eyes, is morally wrong. How can it be correct to have one rule for the outsider (who must obey, and with haste) yet another for the christian, whom is allowed to express disdain and hatred freely?

4. Why is it that a place in the new world is the end-game goal for many christians, considering that its main protaginist, Jesus, advocated living a life for the sake of others rather than oneself? Isn't it just a very egotistical view to have thateverything you do is for your own end gain, while portraying a pretense of selfless behaviour?

5. Where is the logic in the following list of things that I have heard many Christians wish for;

A. The banning of lifesaving vaccines and blood transfusions that save millions of lives a year?

B. The re-establisment of the death penalty?

C. The banning of all contraception?

D. The criminalization of a woman taking the personal choice not to carry a child to term?

E. The criminalization of certain heterosexual sexual practices?

F. The criminalization of sex outside marriage and divorces?

G. The removal of many women's rights?

H. The suppression of scientific teaching in schools?


Wouldnt it befit the selfless, imperfect person to impose no verbal or physical restrictions on others yet to live and lead by example rather than try to force and stranglehold others into submission?

 

[thecreationtutor]

Hi everyone.*I'm a humanist and I consider morals an integral and important part of my psyche. I like to help people. I came here because recently I have started to recognize some truly anti-loving behaviour from Christians and I'd like to ask some possibly controversial questions and to hear (hopefully logical) responses from different people belonging to different sects and denominations, because the idea of malice and ill-will somehow being in line with teachings of love baffles me. I also have some questions on a few of the general principles of christian religion, its history and othertIhings. I'm here to gain perspective and view opinion. Not to bash or argue or demean. These statements aren't personal attacks on anyone. They are my findings and queries from being in contact with people throughout my own life experience.

1. If Christianity is the only path to God, then how come there are so many different belief structures within Christianity? Doesn't that completely negate the reliability of all of them being paths to God? Or is it accepted that many forms within Christianity can lead to your destination in the new world?

2. Christianity as a collective religion encompassing its followers and clergy, historically, has gained a reputation for censorship, an unhealthy preoccupation with sex, privacy invasion, coersion, misogyny, violence, torture and the suppression of free speech among other evils. In more modern times, those practices seem to have lessened both in severity and frequency. But doesnt this change mean, considering that in bygone days, clergy and fellowship would consider such practices justified, that Christianity is in fact open to interpretation? Or is this change just a result of social pressure and more liberal law? Is it justified to torture a confession out of a homosexual or is it not? Where does the biblical stance lie if not in the interpretation of the individual? And given free reign on lawmaking, would the christian populace see us return to the more gruesome form of religion?

3. If Christianity revolves around the Jesus of the bible and followers are to emulate his loving, forgiving attitude, then why aren't strict fundamentalists and other harsh and literal denominations considered a religion outside Christianity? I have witnessed many professing christians becoming irate when asked for a favour , or opening the floodgates to judge one particular type of person, for instance, a gay man, while turning a blind eye to the fact that they are mobbing, upsetting and demeaning him which in itself, to my eyes, is morally wrong. How can it be correct to have one rule for the outsider (who must obey, and with haste) yet another for the christian, whom is allowed to express disdain and hatred freely?

4. Why is it that a place in the new world is the end-game goal for many christians, considering that its main protaginist, Jesus, advocated living a life for the sake of others rather than oneself? Isn't it just a very egotistical view to have thateverything you do is for your own end gain, while portraying a pretense of selfless behaviour?

5. Where is the logic in the following list of things that I have heard many Christians wish for;

A. The banning of lifesaving vaccines and blood transfusions that save millions of lives a year?

B. The re-establisment of the death penalty?

C. The banning of all contraception?

D. The criminalization of a woman taking the personal choice not to carry a child to term?

E. The criminalization of certain heterosexual sexual practices?

F. The criminalization of sex outside marriage and divorces?

G. The removal of many women's rights?

H. The suppression of scientific teaching in schools?


Wouldnt it befit the selfless, imperfect person to impose no verbal or physical restrictions on others yet to live and lead by example rather than try to force and stranglehold others into submission?

1)Christianity is not a humanistic worldview - it is based on what the Bible says - it starts with God above all else
2)Christians, though redeemed by Christ, still are fallen - ie not perfect, they do not always do what is right etc
3)The Bible itself is not about good people, but bad people - being redeemed by a Good God
4)There are people in Churches that pretend to be Christians
5)there is no selfless person, in the end outside of Christ they are trying to merit favor - either with God, or man
6)Not all Science is equal, operational science is good unless it contradicts Scripture - historical Science is not actual Science because it is not testable, or repeatable
7)Biblically women are equal to men, they just have different roles
8) homosexuality is sin - Early america outlawed it
9)Criminalization of sin on unbelievers is what Pharisee's would do - it is the nature of the person that needs to be changed by the gospel, not a particular sin that I don't approve of

this is kind of a quick answer to bits and pieces of what you asked

humanism will always fail because of the evil that is done by humans - if you get rid of God - you still have the problem of evil

 

[Delija]

Qustions are very good,but i think it would be much better to make couple of threads then 10 questions in 1 thread.

 

[PopClick]

Hi everyone.*I'm a humanist and I consider morals an integral and important part of my psyche. I like to help people. I came here because recently I have started to recognize some truly anti-loving behaviour from Christians and I'd like to ask some possibly controversial questions and to hear (hopefully logical) responses from different people belonging to different sects and denominations, because the idea of malice and ill-will somehow being in line with teachings of love baffles me. I also have some questions on a few of the general principles of christian religion, its history and othertIhings. I'm here to gain perspective and view opinion. Not to bash or argue or demean. These statements aren't personal attacks on anyone. They are my findings and queries from being in contact with people throughout my own life experience.

1. If Christianity is the only path to God, then how come there are so many different belief structures within Christianity? Doesn't that completely negate the reliability of all of them being paths to God? Or is it accepted that many forms within Christianity can lead to your destination in the new world?

2. Christianity as a collective religion encompassing its followers and clergy, historically, has gained a reputation for censorship, an unhealthy preoccupation with sex, privacy invasion, coersion, misogyny, violence, torture and the suppression of free speech among other evils. In more modern times, those practices seem to have lessened both in severity and frequency. But doesnt this change mean, considering that in bygone days, clergy and fellowship would consider such practices justified, that Christianity is in fact open to interpretation? Or is this change just a result of social pressure and more liberal law? Is it justified to torture a confession out of a homosexual or is it not? Where does the biblical stance lie if not in the interpretation of the individual? And given free reign on lawmaking, would the christian populace see us return to the more gruesome form of religion?

3. If Christianity revolves around the Jesus of the bible and followers are to emulate his loving, forgiving attitude, then why aren't strict fundamentalists and other harsh and literal denominations considered a religion outside Christianity? I have witnessed many professing christians becoming irate when asked for a favour , or opening the floodgates to judge one particular type of person, for instance, a gay man, while turning a blind eye to the fact that they are mobbing, upsetting and demeaning him which in itself, to my eyes, is morally wrong. How can it be correct to have one rule for the outsider (who must obey, and with haste) yet another for the christian, whom is allowed to express disdain and hatred freely?

4. Why is it that a place in the new world is the end-game goal for many christians, considering that its main protaginist, Jesus, advocated living a life for the sake of others rather than oneself? Isn't it just a very egotistical view to have thateverything you do is for your own end gain, while portraying a pretense of selfless behaviour?

5. Where is the logic in the following list of things that I have heard many Christians wish for;

A. The banning of lifesaving vaccines and blood transfusions that save millions of lives a year?

B. The re-establisment of the death penalty?

C. The banning of all contraception?

D. The criminalization of a woman taking the personal choice not to carry a child to term?

E. The criminalization of certain heterosexual sexual practices?

F. The criminalization of sex outside marriage and divorces?

G. The removal of many women's rights?

H. The suppression of scientific teaching in schools?


Wouldnt it befit the selfless, imperfect person to impose no verbal or physical restrictions on others yet to live and lead by example rather than try to force and stranglehold others into submission?

One problem here is that Christians are people. People are imperfect, and they will mess up anything they are given the chance to mess up. The very word "Christian" means follower of Christ, and yet there is no limitation on who chooses to brand themselves with the "Christian" label.

There are some things on your list that baffle me as to why anyone would be against them (vaccines, for one) and others that are very subjective indeed (to what scientific teachings in schools are you referring?)

Ganging up on somebody who is gay or otherwise "sinful" is, unfortunately, something I have witnessed. A lot of people seem to not realize that it's futile and somewhat silly to expect anybody to follow the rules of a religion to which they do not belong. Believers within a church are to be treated differently than those outside, which is something that the bible very explicitly states. I'm guessing that individuals who ignore this particular instruction are the cause of much of your annoyance, because most of the bans/criminalizations you mentioned would, in my opinion, violate that order.

 

[XYZ]

I appreciate the replies so far and Ill take a bit of time to review. But Id like to point out to the person who said that people can't be selfless because we try to gain favour, that isn't inherently true in my experience. I've helped people because I saw that they needed help. Because I can imagine myself in their shoes needing this thing that they need and I don't like to see people stuck or suffering.

I wasn't trying to win their favour, I was supplying them with what they need because we all go through suffering and to alleviate someone's stress or to solve someone's problem is to make the world a slightly better place.

 

[kenisyes]

1. Almost all the worlds religions (devil worship and some forms of self-worship are the exceptions) led in the direction of God. If followed long enough, these paths eventually lead to Jesus, and thus to Christianity properly understood. The path to God is through Jesus. Christians all agree on that. But Jesus, like anyone, has many sides to His personality, teaching, power etc., hence differences among His followers. Playing up the differences is wrong, and it is one of the imperfect things about Christianity.

2-4. You are absolutely correct in these observations. The reasons behind them is that Christians do not do a good job of what they claim to aspire to.

5. There is no logic in Christians trying to force beliefs as laws. That is clearly counterproductive. But again, Christians do not often do a good job of what they claim to believe. In all fairness, Moslems seem as likely to want to impose Koran-based law on society, and in some countries, paganism is still the official law there. D and F and parts of E are all things imposed on Christians (but not on the world) as practices that interfere with following Jesus. The rest are based on incorrect readings of the Bible, and are not adhered to by the majority of Christians.

 

[XYZ]

Keniseyes your response was very well thought out. Not to demean anything in the general direction of your belief, youre obviously an intelligent man whom I suspect wouldn't follow a road unless you had thought deeply on it, but for the type of christian we were talking about; what would be the point in aspiring to something so seemingly unattainable if they are to view themselves then as better than the rest of the world?

Surely that failure to adhere to and self apply the rules they set others shows that an outward preaching of the biblical laws and statutes towards non-christians only serves to darken the image of a man whom is deemed by Christians, Muslims, Buddhists and even non-religious people as morally sublime. On the other hand, it's infinitely more reputable and even infectious to witness a quiet person who genuinely has a heart for giving than it is to witness a mass of preachers demanding the laws of their God be met.

 

[TheAristocat]

But doesnt this change mean, considering that in bygone days, clergy and fellowship would consider such practices justified, that Christianity is in fact open to interpretation?

Depends on what bygone days we're talking about. Latin was the language of the Bible and the clergy back in medieval times. Clerical positions were secular positions of power that carried secular responsibilities and benefits. See the interaction between popes and kings. What's more, the laity at large could not read Latin. Therefore they had little idea of what the Bible actually said. They had to trust people that would sell things like indulgences for a profit. If you want to blame Christians for this you can try. But I wouldn't blame Christianity.

B. The re-establisment of the death penalty?

Eye for eye; tooth for tooth. In my opinion it works for criminal law. If we were to take what I imagine you are implying to the extreme then we wouldn't punish anyone for anything they did. Can you imagine the corruption? I think these sorts of laws are healthy for a large, impersonal society.

D. The criminalization of a woman taking the personal choice not to carry a child to term?

What is meant by criminalization here? Pro-life isn't just popular among the religious crowd. In fact there's a pro-life atheist website. The killing of innocent human beings is generally frowned upon by the world. Why does one have to be religious or for that matter even Christian to oppose it?

F. [...] sex outside marriage and divorces?

Barring those scammers who should never be allowed the benefits of a legal divorce, who gets married with the intention to get divorced? Divorces hurt. I keep hearing from women about the ideal of commitment, how much they'd love to grow old with a man, have a family, etc. Divorces destroy that potential, end commitment, break families apart... If the same people who believed in God's laws of marriage believed in God's laws of love there'd be no reason to divorce. And in a world of love I don't see a reason for divorce. Maybe it's just love we all need to work on instead of accepting the idea of divorce.

The questions I haven't answered I either didn't feel applied or my awareness of those issues was lacking. But I hope I managed to answer some questions to your satisfaction.

 

[XYZ]

You make some decent points, Arisrocat.

But however impersonal society may be, belief is very much personal, particularly in christianity. Coincidentally, you are a christian and again, the following highlights the plethora of differences in what is deemed 'christian' theology, but didn't Jesus say that eye for eye and tooth for tooth should be turned over by 'show to them the other cheek?'

Not to argue but just to revisit the point of the first question that I asked in the OP.

I, personally, am not christian so the matter of scriptural interpretarion in order to direct my life makes little difference to me. I do, however believe in a set of morals that I adhere to myself and I do have my beliefs about the fundamental rights of humanity. I do not believe that someone else should be subject to them but there are things that I cannot stand.

I believe that people are equal. That I should treat them as such. That I should never kill another human being intentionally. That i should treat romantic love with all the respect it deserves. That variety of routine*is essential to my health. That enjoyment and happiness are things worthwhile for me to be pursuing provided that the means do not originate from a motive to deliberately quash someone else's enjoyment and happiness. I believe that everything in life can be seen differently by another person and so right and wrong in many circumstances can be arbitrary and subjective terms but only when more than one person's opinion is involved. That is why my rules are for myself to adhere to and not for me to impose on others. I believe that force (particularly physical) is a thing that should only be reserved for the rare, completely needing circumstances where I do need to apply it but I would always err on the side of non-force. I believe that each person has the right to do with their own body as they wish to do; I have my beliefs about how I should treat my own, and others have theirs. I believe that it is not my place to tell anybody how to live their lives, however I have found ways and means of making things easier, should someone wish to hear my experiences. I believe that encouraging my child to be the person that they are should serve them better in life than pressing them to conform to something that they are not.


These are all my beliefs. Things that I try to live by. My point is, this might be the first time Ive ever expressed them to someone else. Ive never*had reason to before. They are just things that I do, not things that I want to impose on anyone. I believe that each person should have the right to believe whatever they want ro believe but nobody should have the right to enforce their beliefs on someone else.

If abortion was banned, I would rally against the new law for the principal that if I were a woman I would not want anybody telling me what I can and cant do with my own body. If divorce was banned, I would do similarly. People's minds change and people grow up and move on and should have the right to do so freely, just as they should have the right to face the negative consequences. If a marriage is to last it will last regardless of whether divorce is legal or not. Anything else would just be pretendful misery.

If Christianity was banned I'd probably rally against that too to be honest.

 

[XYZ]

You know, I think that the laws and directions of society very much depend on the views of those with authority. Which is also why I lookforward to the day when personal belief , the way someone decides to live life, is not met with opposition from people who seek to conform others or for others to be moulded as they see fit.

The desire to exert control over people rather than accept them is, in my opinion, a trait that humanity could very much live better without because as long as someone is not infringing on someone else, what they do is their business. Personal belief is exactly that; personal.

If God gave us unique minds, why shouldn't we embrace them as individuals and give others the right and the space to embrace theirs?

 

[BananaPie]

Hi everyone.*I'm a humanist... Howdy. You look British, but your accent is atheist. I'm a sinner saved by God's pure mercy and holy grace.

4. Why is it that a place in the new world is the end-game goal for many christians... Humanists have Man at the center of their sphere, yet God has decided to create a New Jerusalem for all sinners surrendering to God's Sovereignty to dwell in harmony with God for eternity. You don't need to exist in the presence of God if you don't care for holy matters, but if you do, then only the grace and mercy of God can afford you a place on the Book of Life.

...considering that its main protaginist, Jesus, advocated living a life for the sake of others rather than oneself? The Humanistic way is the worship of Man, but in the beginning God created Man to be in fellowship with God, for God alone is holy and worthy to be worshipped and adored.

The Lord Jesus advocated the Way, the Truth and the Life there is in existing for God. Jesus came to reveal God to sinners, and to call such sinners to repentance. Jesus advocated the Kingdom of God on God's terms not on what mortals' opinion of righteousness may be.

Isn't it just a very egotistical view to have that everything you do is for your own end gain, while portraying a pretense of selfless behaviour? Indeed. Anything we do to replace God from being Creator and the Center of the Universe is already wrong and egotistical. Hence, the reason why Humanism & Psychology fail because rather than giving glory to God, humans rather worship themselves in whatever tradition they think they exist "better."

Or what? Did you actually believe that your morals were original to your carnal mind?

Remember that, according to the Bible, the best among us are still but filthy rags in light of the holiness of God. "For there is none righteousness, no not one," the Holy Bible states.

Jesus said that the greatest human born upon Earth is John the Baptist, yet, according to Jesus, saint John the Baptist, the Lord's first-cousin BTW, is the least in God's Kingdom...

...and John was beheaded during somebody's birthday party. Without the mind of Christ, we are all perverted, confused sinners perverting and confusing others one generation at a time.

 

[TheAristocat]

You make some decent points, Arisrocat.

But however impersonal society may be, belief is very much personal, particularly in christianity. Coincidentally, you are a christian and again, the following highlights the plethora of differences in what is deemed 'christian' theology, but didn't Jesus say that eye for eye and tooth for tooth should be turned over by 'show to them the other cheek?'

Not to argue but just to revisit the point of the first question that I asked in the OP.

I, personally, am not christian so the matter of scriptural interpretarion in order to direct my life makes little difference to me. I do, however believe in a set of morals that I adhere to myself and I do have my beliefs about the fundamental rights of humanity. I do not believe that someone else should be subject to them but there are things that I cannot stand.

I believe that people are equal. That I should treat them as such. That I should never kill another human being intentionally. That i should treat romantic love with all the respect it deserves. That variety of routine*is essential to my health. That enjoyment and happiness are things worthwhile for me to be pursuing provided that the means do not originate from a motive to deliberately quash someone else's enjoyment and happiness. I believe that everything in life can be seen differently by another person and so right and wrong in many circumstances can be arbitrary and subjective terms but only when more than one person's opinion is involved. That is why my rules are for myself to adhere to and not for me to impose on others. I believe that force (particularly physical) is a thing that should only be reserved for the rare, completely needing circumstances where I do need to apply it but I would always err on the side of non-force. I believe that each person has the right to do with their own body as they wish to do; I have my beliefs about how I should treat my own, and others have theirs. I believe that it is not my place to tell anybody how to live their lives, however I have found ways and means of making things easier, should someone wish to hear my experiences. I believe that encouraging my child to be the person that they are should serve them better in life than pressing them to conform to something that they are not.


These are all my beliefs. Things that I try to live by. My point is, this might be the first time Ive ever expressed them to someone else. Ive never*had reason to before. They are just things that I do, not things that I want to impose on anyone. I believe that each person should have the right to believe whatever they want ro believe but nobody should have the right to enforce their beliefs on someone else.

If abortion was banned, I would rally against the new law for the principal that if I were a woman I would not want anybody telling me what I can and cant do with my own body. If divorce was banned, I would do similarly. People's minds change and people grow up and move on and should have the right to do so freely, just as they should have the right to face the negative consequences. If a marriage is to last it will last regardless of whether divorce is legal or not. Anything else would just be pretendful misery.

If Christianity was banned I'd probably rally against that too to be honest.

Seems like you're saying that Christianity has far too many ways to be interpreted to begin with and that Christians should first agree with each other concerning their morals before they can impose those morals on society. But I think that just as your voice should be heard in any secular democratic process, so should everyone else's. If it is the majority will that divorce be allowed even if it ends up hurting society, then who can stop it but God? I'm only human.

I think each person has to attend to their own sense of morality and trust in the democratic process to uphold the ideals of that society. It's not up to me to support or fight for someone else's beliefs that I don't hold and may even view as morally wrong. I can understand where pro-choicers are coming from - that to impose on the woman is a violation of human rights. On this point I tend to agree. But I hope that you can at least understand where I'm coming from when I tell you that in my mind killing the unborn is an even greater violation of human rights since it is by definition a human being and it is not its freedoms that are in question but rather its very life.

I think you'll find in the Bible that parents had the power of life and death over their children so far as the exercise thereof was conformed to God's laws. This is something I believe in. That in a godly society people should have the right of choice. Be it as that may, we do not live in a godly society. And we have individuals who abort their children on a whim. I don't believe anyone who so grossly misuses their freedoms should be allowed to keep them. We have this same concept in America where criminals with a history of felonies are no longer granted the freedom to own a firearm. So, while I'm not wholly opposed to abortion, I am in favor of strongly regulating it so that social injustices are sharply curtailed.

 

[Cobus]

XYZ, my father had the hardest life of any person I EVER met, or read about... Yet he excelled in life, He was a VERY good sportsman, and also scholar. He was a rollmodel of note, and even today HE CANNOT harm any person. Yet he was treated VERY BAD by his parents... It is almost unbelievable that parents can neglect and harm a child that way... but then he was left at a boarding school in the Karoo for the whole of his senior schooling ... 5 years...

He had one teacher that BIBLEPUNCHED him BADLY... So much so that he HATED CHRISTIANS... Then I came to repentance... And I jumped in soul, body and spirit.... And i got to know JESUS, not the christians, JESUS CHRIST... And then my dad shared with me his "Church experience". It was worse than his childhood...


And while we were standing on a deck and looked out over the sea, I said to him.... Dad do not blame Jesus for what "Christians" do.... Dad read about Jesus and get to know HIM then tell me HE IS NO GOOD....


The things you do for people is not a SPECK what Jesus does for you... the only reason you CAN give, is because you also have favour with God. My dear friend, EVERYTHING on this world is there because God created it. God says he lets it rain on the believers and the non believers... So your gain is from HIM. And so is mine...


The people that need things NEED from all God gave in abundance... Let me just share one Scripture with you then you can have a crash coarse on the REAL Christians and their GOD JESUS CHRIST...

God says if a man is a thief, heshould stop stealing, and work with his hands what is GOOD, and then he should share with the NEEDY. Do you see how god operates? From thief to GOOD HEART GIVER... NOw that is the Lord Jesus and HIS TOTAL LOVING TRANSFORMATION...

 

[duewell]

1 a river can have many branches and still be part of the same river. i was surprised when i became a Christian that there was more than one bible to choose from. i await the day all Christians are one denomination.

2 Christianity as a religion would be great if it wasnt for all these people.. sadly many have done terrible things in the name of religion. i think we can agree from what we read to what was done that some people clearly are mis-using the bible to justify their own thoughts. if i hit you with a hammer in the head its not the fault of the hammer.

3 again this Christianity religion would be great if it wasn't for these people.. know what turned off my family to religion? the people in the church. people are going to be people with or without a religion. we hope religion will make us better people but its not always the case. sorry

4 yes it is and you will be glad to know that Jesus spoke of these kind of people in the bible. he pretty much said he would tell those kind of people, i never knew you, go away from me. we should do things because its the right thing to do. not because of promised payment. if you are only being good cause you are being paid for it, you might find that you were never really good in the first place.

5a, i dont understand why there are people out there that refuse medical treatment based on faith beliefs. i dont know any people that are wishing for that. its a terrible thing to hope for.
5b death penalty has been around a long time. by religious and non religious societies. sorry.
5c i have no idea why they do this other than outdated understanding. personal responsibility is a pretty big teaching of the bible and choosing to use or not use contraceptive is a responsibility that should be made on a personal level.
5d by your own words, a child, a child needs protection, even from their own parents. at least give the kid a chance to live and put it up for adoption. society needs to step up so this is the preferred option.
5e. sex is a physical action of a spiritual connection. not really my place to judge what two consenting adults do. i can implement this on my own actions its impossible to implement it on others. this could apply to most teachings.
5f its never stopped anyone before and it wont stop anyone in the future. see 5e.
5g using the bible to deny someone else their rights while keeping that right for yourself is terrible. history is full of examples where it does happen. religion or non religious societies have done it.
5h no idea why this happens other than people being close minded. i do wish schools had theology for 4 years teaching about the history of all religions. put your kids in a school where they teach what you want them taught.

it is not my place as a Christian to impose my beliefs on you in any way shape or form. i can only testify about how Jesus has changed me in the hopes that you will see how it can change you. religion shouldn't be used to put others into submission to other people. the bible teaches us to submit yourself to God. we hope that you do.

duewell
mark 4 v 11-13

 

[duewell]

You know, I think that the laws and directions of society very much depend on the views of those with authority. Which is also why I lookforward to the day when personal belief , the way someone decides to live life, is not met with opposition from people who seek to conform others or for others to be moulded as they see fit.

The desire to exert control over people rather than accept them is, in my opinion, a trait that humanity could very much live better without because as long as someone is not infringing on someone else, what they do is their business. Personal belief is exactly that; personal.

If God gave us unique minds, why shouldn't we embrace them as individuals and give others the right and the space to embrace theirs?

take away all of the religion of the words and society will still find justification to impose its will on other people. forcing them to live as the majority deems fit. religion isnt the problem. peoples desire to control others is the problem.

duewell
mark 4 v 11-13

 

[XYZ]

1 a river can have many branches and still be part of the same river. i was surprised when i became a Christian that there was more than one bible to choose from. i await the day all Christians are one denomination.

2 Christianity as a religion would be great if it wasnt for all these people.. sadly many have done terrible things in the name of religion. i think we can agree from what we read to what was done that some people clearly are mis-using the bible to justify their own thoughts. if i hit you with a hammer in the head its not the fault of the hammer.

3 again this Christianity religion would be great if it wasn't for these people.. know what turned off my family to religion? the people in the church. people are going to be people with or without a religion. we hope religion will make us better people but its not always the case. sorry

4 yes it is and you will be glad to know that Jesus spoke of these kind of people in the bible. he pretty much said he would tell those kind of people, i never knew you, go away from me. we should do things because its the right thing to do. not because of promised payment. if you are only being good cause you are being paid for it, you might find that you were never really good in the first place.

5a, i dont understand why there are people out there that refuse medical treatment based on faith beliefs. i dont know any people that are wishing for that. its a terrible thing to hope for.
5b death penalty has been around a long time. by religious and non religious societies. sorry.
5c i have no idea why they do this other than outdated understanding. personal responsibility is a pretty big teaching of the bible and choosing to use or not use contraceptive is a responsibility that should be made on a personal level.
5d by your own words, a child, a child needs protection, even from their own parents. at least give the kid a chance to live and put it up for adoption. society needs to step up so this is the preferred option.
5e. sex is a physical action of a spiritual connection. not really my place to judge what two consenting adults do. i can implement this on my own actions its impossible to implement it on others. this could apply to most teachings.
5f its never stopped anyone before and it wont stop anyone in the future. see 5e.
5g using the bible to deny someone else their rights while keeping that right for yourself is terrible. history is full of examples where it does happen. religion or non religious societies have done it.
5h no idea why this happens other than people being close minded. i do wish schools had theology for 4 years teaching about the history of all religions. put your kids in a school where they teach what you want them taught.

it is not my place as a Christian to impose my beliefs on you in any way shape or form. i can only testify about how Jesus has changed me in the hopes that you will see how it can change you. religio. shouldn't be used to put others into submission to other people. the bible teaches us to submit yourself to God. we hope that you do

duewell
mark 4 v 11-13

Genuinely the most understanding and rational response that I could have asked for. No defensive manoeuvers and answered each question directly and honestly. Thank you.

I agree with you on the varied theology education. Socialised media, TV, internet and booksmarts don't really prepare kids to be responsible, humanitarian, moral creatures.

 

[TheAristocat]

But however impersonal society may be, belief is very much personal, particularly in christianity. Coincidentally, you are a christian and again, the following highlights the plethora of differences in what is deemed 'christian' theology, but didn't Jesus say that eye for eye and tooth for tooth should be turned over by 'show to them the other cheek?'

Everyone has their own particular beliefs about the Bible, and when applied to the secular realm we can see that this is not a problem with Christianity but with how people view the world around them. As I've said before, there are atheists who are pro-choice and atheists who are pro-life. I can understand both sides of the argument, but I've chosen a path that makes the most logical sense to me.

In terms of Jesus' words my personal belief is that it was because the laws eye-for-an-eye and tooth-for-a-tooth existed that Jesus' teachings would be most effective. For instance, if these rules applied to us and I hit you and knocked out a tooth then you would suddenly gain legal power over me. You could choose to prosecute me at will, in which case I would lose my tooth as well. But if you chose to forgive me and overlook my evil act, then it's likely the violence would end there and I would come to think that you weren't such a bad person after all.

Far be it from us to apply this same philosophy to a serial killer, though. Technically the context of Jesus' words - as it relates to bodily injury - ends with cheeks and not innocent lives. So even if someone wanted to take his teaching to the extreme (i.e. obey the letter of his teaching rather than the spirit) so as to allow the criminally insane to murder at will, they would have little scriptural basis for it. I don't believe that he was trying to reform the national criminal laws of Israel that God had instituted but rather give people a teaching on a personal level.

Matthew 5:43 You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’

This is one in a long list of 'you have heard' teachings in the same passage, and I cannot find the exhortation to hate one's enemy anywhere in God's Law. That tells me that what Jesus was addressing was not the Law but rather long-held traditional beliefs. I actually believe that when he came he reinforced the Law - not only taught according to the letter but according to the spirit of it. I understand this probably doesn't mean a lot to you, but I still think it should be heard.

 

[Nick01]

Hi everyone.*I'm a humanist and I consider morals an integral and important part of my psyche. I like to help people. I came here because recently I have started to recognize some truly anti-loving behaviour from Christians and I'd like to ask some possibly controversial questions and to hear (hopefully logical) responses from different people belonging to different sects and denominations, because the idea of malice and ill-will somehow being in line with teachings of love baffles me. I also have some questions on a few of the general principles of christian religion, its history and othertIhings. I'm here to gain perspective and view opinion. Not to bash or argue or demean. These statements aren't personal attacks on anyone. They are my findings and queries from being in contact with people throughout my own life experience.

1. If Christianity is the only path to God, then how come there are so many different belief structures within Christianity? Doesn't that completely negate the reliability of all of them being paths to God? Or is it accepted that many forms within Christianity can lead to your destination in the new world?

2. Christianity as a collective religion encompassing its followers and clergy, historically, has gained a reputation for censorship, an unhealthy preoccupation with sex, privacy invasion, coersion, misogyny, violence, torture and the suppression of free speech among other evils. In more modern times, those practices seem to have lessened both in severity and frequency. But doesnt this change mean, considering that in bygone days, clergy and fellowship would consider such practices justified, that Christianity is in fact open to interpretation? Or is this change just a result of social pressure and more liberal law? Is it justified to torture a confession out of a homosexual or is it not? Where does the biblical stance lie if not in the interpretation of the individual? And given free reign on lawmaking, would the christian populace see us return to the more gruesome form of religion?

3. If Christianity revolves around the Jesus of the bible and followers are to emulate his loving, forgiving attitude, then why aren't strict fundamentalists and other harsh and literal denominations considered a religion outside Christianity? I have witnessed many professing christians becoming irate when asked for a favour , or opening the floodgates to judge one particular type of person, for instance, a gay man, while turning a blind eye to the fact that they are mobbing, upsetting and demeaning him which in itself, to my eyes, is morally wrong. How can it be correct to have one rule for the outsider (who must obey, and with haste) yet another for the christian, whom is allowed to express disdain and hatred freely?

4. Why is it that a place in the new world is the end-game goal for many christians, considering that its main protaginist, Jesus, advocated living a life for the sake of others rather than oneself? Isn't it just a very egotistical view to have thateverything you do is for your own end gain, while portraying a pretense of selfless behaviour?

5. Where is the logic in the following list of things that I have heard many Christians wish for;

A. The banning of lifesaving vaccines and blood transfusions that save millions of lives a year?

B. The re-establisment of the death penalty?

C. The banning of all contraception?

D. The criminalization of a woman taking the personal choice not to carry a child to term?

E. The criminalization of certain heterosexual sexual practices?

F. The criminalization of sex outside marriage and divorces?

G. The removal of many women's rights?

H. The suppression of scientific teaching in schools?


Wouldnt it befit the selfless, imperfect person to impose no verbal or physical restrictions on others yet to live and lead by example rather than try to force and stranglehold others into submission?

Thank you for the thoughtful questions. I'll do my best to answer them honestly and completely.

1. Because people are people. What you say of Christianity could equally be said of any issue you care to offer. Take climate change, for instance. Virtually every scientist with any background in climatology would say anthropogenic climate change is real. However, there is disagreement on the rate of change, the priority of certain drivers over others, timelines for change, and even the best methods of alleviating heating. However, we don't throw out the whole cause of truth simply because there are multiple interpretations. That would be silly

The same can be said of Christianity. There are multiple interpretations of Scripture, multiple views on particular moral activities, multiple approaches to mission, etc. While there are a variety of positions, some more different, some fairly similar, this does not prnounce on the truth or otherwise of the Christian faith. In fact, it's worth pointing out that even though there is this great diversity of positions, the fundemental bases of Christian faith - the existance of God, his Lordship over creation, the need of humanity for salvation, and the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ - are mostly consistent across Christian denominations.

The Bible teaches that salvation is through Christ alone. It does not say you must all agree on this or that secondary matter. We don't all need to agree on the same issues to be saved. However, that doesn't mean it's not worth discussing and reasoning our way towards why we believe what we believe.

2. Again, everything is open to interpretation. There were once -and in certain places still are - entirely secular justifications for slavery. Could I not equally use that as a reason to say humanism is entirely in the eye of the beholder? I will not claim that Christians are perfect people, and that there is only one way anyone could possibly read the Bible, because we're not and there is not. Again, however, I would say that while the Bible must necessarily be interpreted, there are more rational interpretations, and in some respects we interpret better than our forebears, and perhaps in other circumstances, we interpret worse. For the record, I would not argue for a 'return', as you put it, to more 'gruesome' days, on the simple grounds that while Christians should be involved politically, our job is not to create a Christian state, an idea that would have been totally foreign to Christians of the 1st Century.

3. Depending on who you're talking about, they are. I would certainly consider Westoboro Baptist Church, for one, to be outside the realms of orthodox Christianity. However, that does mean Christianity is meant to be a free for all love-in, where anything goes. The reality is, Jesus was often incredibly harsh to people, as well. He spoke more about hell and judgement than anyone else, at least in the New Testament. I would agree that bullying a gay man is totally out of line, but I can be loving and kind to a person without condoning their actions. Jesus himself was an expert at stepping that line. But I agree with your basic point - Christians are often very good at tolerating sin in their own ranks, and very bad at responding in a Christ like way to sin outside its borders.

4. Depends on which Christians you talk about. Certainly many Christians would not fall into the picture you paint of them there. Eternity with God is the end goal, yes, but Christ himself says "If any of you would come after me, he must take up his cross and follow." You can't have one without the other, precisely because that is how Jesus said it will be.

5. a) Very few Christians, in my experience, would be aggainst transfusions and vaccines. Literally, I can count on one hand the number of Christians I have met who would take that position (almost all are JWs). However, I have met people with no religion who are against vaccines.

b) I am against the death penalty, personally. Perhaps the situation is different in the UK to here, but most Christians here (and indeed most people) do not want the re-establishment of a death penalty. I can see the arguments for and against, but I think the Bible, which does not specifically proscribe a death penalty, would tend to lean away from it in the post-New Testament period. Incidentally, this is another scenario where I suspect plenty of people with no particular relgion would also be in favour of the death penalty, so I can't see why this issue should be broken down on religious lines.

c) I have no problem with contraception. The Bible doesn't specifically proscribe either way. But I assume the argument in favour of banning would run along the lines of life is sacred/sex and predominantly for procreation. I can see a certain logic in that, but you can uphold life and the importance of marriage and family while using contraception.

d) I don't believe in criminalising this (this again leads back to what I said earlier in regards to Christians not being called to create a Christian state), but I would tend to stand on a pro-life position. My reasoning being that the baby is not part of a women's body. It may be inside it, yes, but it is fundamentally and genetically a distinct being. The baby has no choice in whether it is aborted or not, even though it will continue to grow and develop under minimal conditions (food and oxygen). A large part of my problem with the current pro choice position is how arbitrary it is. The value of a human zygote/fetus/baby is almost entirely decided by other people. In any other circumstance, this would be immoral, but apparently not in this case.

For the record, I'm not entirely against abortion, but I think there must be specific circumstances in which it should be turned to. I would almost always fall on the side of education, contraception, and thenintensive support, love, care, and adoption rather than abortion outright.

e. Specifically?

f) I don't think this should be criminalised, even though I would say sex outside of marriage, and divorce outside certain circumstances, is wrong. Marriage is an important institution in Christian thought, emulating the relationship of Christ and his church, and we (Christians included) have often done a terrible job of upholding it. Ultimately, marriage is about committment and the promise and divorce in many cases is at its saddest when its simply about one or both parties not caring about the promise anymore.

g. Specifically?

h. Specifically? I assume you're talking about evolution? For the record, I don't have a total problem with evolution per se, but in schools it is often used to make an ideological, not scientific point, a la Dawkins, which is certainly not a given. People criticise Christians for espousing what they believe, but when an alternative secular ideology, which is itself questionable, is similarly taught to children in schools, no one cares.

As to your final point, it's a nice thought, but the reality is that society is about power and restrictions. A truly liberal society is impossible, both practically and theoretically. Indeed, the request to impose no verbal or physical restrictions on others is itself a restriction (although from a Christian perspective I would argue force is totally uncalled for in almost every conceivable scenario). Far better, it seems to me, to lovingly and truthfully discuss and debate, acknowledge difference, but as a requirement as a human being, be prepared to discuss what and why we believe and act the way we do.

 

[ThomistColin]

1. If Christianity is the only path to God, then how come there are so many different belief structures within Christianity? Doesn't that completely negate the reliability of all of them being paths to God? Or is it accepted that many forms within Christianity can lead to your destination in the new world?

Within the Church there is only one way to God and that is through Christ. This is held by all true Christian denominations, and those that deny it are espoused as apostates and lost to the Body of Christ.

2. Christianity as a collective religion encompassing its followers and clergy, historically, has gained a reputation for censorship, an unhealthy preoccupation with sex, privacy invasion, coersion, misogyny, violence, torture and the suppression of free speech among other evils. In more modern times, those practices seem to have lessened both in severity and frequency. But doesn't this change mean, considering that in bygone days, clergy and fellowship would consider such practices justified, that Christianity is in fact open to interpretation? Or is this change just a result of social pressure and more liberal law? Is it justified to torture a confession out of a homosexual or is it not? Where does the biblical stance lie if not in the interpretation of the individual? And given free reign on lawmaking, would the christian populace see us return to the more gruesome form of religion?

Does Reason enter into Faith? Yes. Because God created us with reason, and it is God who gives us faith. So, overtime man comes to realize the horrors of their ancestors, such as slavery, but that does not call into question the call of Scripture that those who own slaves be kind and merciful or those who are slaves to obey their masters. In neither of these cases is correctness of slavery argued, but supposes the world that has slavery and how a Christian is to act. Now, Christianity teaches the freedom of men and women, but do not confuse the moral choices in a situation for the morality of the situation.

3. If Christianity revolves around the Jesus of the bible and followers are to emulate his loving, forgiving attitude, then why aren't strict fundamentalists and other harsh and literal denominations considered a religion outside Christianity? I have witnessed many professing christians becoming irate when asked for a favour , or opening the floodgates to judge one particular type of person, for instance, a gay man, while turning a blind eye to the fact that they are mobbing, upsetting and demeaning him which in itself, to my eyes, is morally wrong. How can it be correct to have one rule for the outsider (who must obey, and with haste) yet another for the christian, whom is allowed to express disdain and hatred freely?

CS Lewis responds to this very question in Mere Christianity. I will paraphrase his response: Say there is an athiest named Jordan who is kind, has a good-nature, and never uses profane language, and that there is a Christian named Mary who is nasty, impatient, and has a foul mouth. The question you are asking is "Isn't Jordan espousing the beliefs of Christianity more than Mary?" But this is a false question, because there are no non-Christian Christians or Christian non-Christians. Instead ask, "How much kinder would Jordan be if he knew the Love of Christ, and How much worse would Mary be if she did not?"

4. Why is it that a place in the new world is the end-game goal for many christians, considering that its main protaginist, Jesus, advocated living a life for the sake of others rather than oneself? Isn't it just a very egotistical view to have that everything you do is for your own end gain, while portraying a pretense of selfless behaviour?

This would be true if we were to remain as we are. But instead, Christ calls for us to die to ourselves. By that very idea, while I am seeking eternal life, I am in fact seeking to be someone better than myself by dying to myself and becoming more like Christ. The point of this religion is not getting eternal life, but the re-establishment of the love bond between God and man as Father and child, Husband and wife, Spirit and flesh.

5. Where is the logic in the following list of things that I have heard many Christians wish for;

A. The banning of lifesaving vaccines and blood transfusions that save millions of lives a year?

These people fail to acknowledge that God created everything, and therefore the knowledge of healing is from His hands, and therefore are part of His plan. They deny and limit God to miracles, instead of realizing He is beyond nature to the point that nature is His to command, even if it be as if He has done nothing.

B. The re-establisment of the death penalty?

This is a political issue, one that enters into the realm of ethics. It is up to each person to find his answer on this, be they Christian or not.

C. The banning of all contraception?

Roman Catholicism speaks out against birth control, believing the seed to be as much a part of the life that is to come as the life that is. For this reason they speak out. Now many may not agree, but again this should be more of a choice of life than law.

D. The criminalization of a woman taking the personal choice not to carry a child to term?

Here we enter into the ethics of man and God. Is a FETUS a child? Does human life begin with fertilization or birth or in between? Many Christians believe it is at conception, and therefore to kill that life (even science will recognize it as life though maybe not as human life) is in the Christian morality murder.

E. The criminalization of certain heterosexual sexual practices?

Here I will agree, what a person does in their own home is between them and God.

F. The criminalization of sex outside marriage and divorces?

The same answer as E.


G. The removal of many women's rights?

This is against Christ. Women spoke freely before Him. However, I will not tell a woman within her own culture to remove her culture because it is unlike mine, but I would ask the same in return. Therefore, let woman have equal rights, and let the cultures live as they choose.

H. The suppression of scientific teaching in schools?

I have no problem with teaching evolution, personally I believe it was part of God's plan. I am an intelligent designer. I will teach those under my charge what I believe, I have no problem with science teaching what it believes. However, either in science class or in history class, I believe that the Creationist ideas at least be acknowledged as a theory that many people hold to, and that it is alright to hold to that theory, but that it is not in line with the evidence that is found in the fossil record.

Wouldnt it befit the selfless, imperfect person to impose no verbal or physical restrictions on others yet to live and lead by example rather than try to force and stranglehold others into submission?

I agree. Christ taught us how to live in oppression, but we have forgotten that those very teachings of humility should carry on after we have become the majority power in a group.

 

[kenisyes]

Keniseyes your response was very well thought out. Not to demean anything in the general direction of your belief, youre obviously an intelligent man whom I suspect wouldn't follow a road unless you had thought deeply on it, but for the type of christian we were talking about; what would be the point in aspiring to something so seemingly unattainable if they are to view themselves then as better than the rest of the world?

Surely that failure to adhere to and self apply the rules they set others shows that an outward preaching of the biblical laws and statutes towards non-christians only serves to darken the image of a man whom is deemed by Christians, Muslims, Buddhists and even non-religious people as morally sublime. On the other hand, it's infinitely more reputable and even infectious to witness a quiet person who genuinely has a heart for giving than it is to witness a mass of preachers demanding the laws of their God be met.

You are right, of course. There are many people who become Christian without really thinking what they are doing. In a sense, that is okay of course. It is God's project to transform us, and not our project to transform ourselves. But far too often, people embrace the transforming power of Jesus to get over some personal crisis, and then refuse to allow the power to work any further. The presence of Jesus in the world today is not as clear as it could be, as you yourself observe, and it does take some learning and some time to follow Jesus effectively. The point of aspiring to it, is exactly the same point as aspiring to go on a diet, or to stop smoking, (personal improvement) only with much greater consequences. Many, in fact probably most, professing Christians, have in fact, aspired, and then failed to follow through. As they get older, and develop new facets in their life, Jesus is not allowed to influence the new thinking, and they go astray. It is quite easy for them to organize in groups that reinforce their half-way commitment, and there have been many times when such groups have ruled a country, or even many countries. The fact that we are even discussing it here and now, proves they did not succeed in blotting out the truth from history, and this is just a testament to the power of God which can keep alive the truth in spite of them all.

It is not preached, but you will find it here at CC if you look for it. Many Christians, at age 50 or so, realize the futility of remaining with the institution, and operate on their own, more or less, connecting in small intimate networks, for the exact reasons you observe. The obvious problem, is that these people are not visible to the world at large, and they are the very people you hope to see. The institution remains at a lower level of response to the power of God, giving the wrong witness.