Why do people hate Christianity?

[kcchiefs6465]

I've never met someone who hates Christianity, per se.

Many have lost hope. Have seen things that are hard to understand. I trust that there is a higher power. And I trust that He [or They] will accept the world for what it is, what it has become. [depending on whether they are benovelent or malevolent] God, being infinitely wise and all seeing would have to had forseen how evil would have manipulated this world. He would undoubtedly know that it is hard to be a sheep amongst many wolves. [being nonviolent towards predatory individuals] I fear the Lord. In the same sentence, those who wish me harm get no sympathy should they cross a certain line. [my personal code, of sorts] I know that the Lord would understand.

 

[Republicanguy]

The religion is based on non truths, their is no reason to it. It dictates a way of life without question, to be satisfied with reality as it is. I find it disturbing that many on these forums believe in this ridiculous faith, yet champion Liberty with almost a rather cruel perception of how society should be. Dog eat dog mentality.

 

[erowe1]

The religion is based on non truths, their is no reason to it. It dictates a way of life without question, to be satisfied with reality as it is. I find it disturbing that many on these forums believe in this ridiculous faith, yet champion Liberty with almost a rather cruel perception of how society should be. Dog eat dog mentality.

The thing about people saying stuff like this is that, without exception, they themselves hold to religions based on nontruths with no reason to them. This irony heightens even more for those who think that their worldview is no religion at all and that it somehow came about by pure objectivity and reason without faith.

It is good that you did include your real problem with Jesus here, which is that you object to His dictating a way of life to you.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

The religion is based on non truths, their is no reason to it. It dictates a way of life without question, to be satisfied with reality as it is. I find it disturbing that many on these forums believe in this ridiculous faith, yet champion Liberty with almost a rather cruel perception of how society should be. Dog eat dog mentality.

How deeply have you actually studied the religion? If you've just listened to a few "fundamentalists" on TV or interacted with a few Protestants, you know nothing. You need to read the huge canon of literature created by the church fathers, Catholic and Orthodox. Ignore the rest for the most part, as they just "imitate" Christianity and have no connection to its roots.

“Parenthetically, I am getting tired of the offhanded smearing of religion that has long been endemic to the libertarian movement. Religion is generally dismissed as imbecilic at best, inherently evil at worst. The greatest and most creative minds in the history of mankind have been deeply and profoundly religious, most of them Christian.”
– Murray Rothbard

 

[heavenlyboy34]

The thing about people saying stuff like this is that, without exception, they themselves hold to religions based on nontruths with no reason to them. This irony heightens even more for those who think that their worldview is no religion at all and that it somehow came about by pure objectivity and reason without faith.

It is good that you did include your real problem with Jesus here, which is that you object to His dictating a way of life to you.

+rep

 

[heavenlyboy34]

The religion is based on non truths, their is no reason to it. It dictates a way of life without question, to be satisfied with reality as it is. I find it disturbing that many on these forums believe in this ridiculous faith, yet champion Liberty with almost a rather cruel perception of how society should be. Dog eat dog mentality.

If you understood the religion, you'd know this is false.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

How can you look at a baby and think he/she is an evil sinner that needs to be 'saved'? Sorry but the baby is perfect, it's you who's messed up.

That's a Calvinist thing, mostly made up.

And if it's a boy leave his prepuce/foreskin alone.

Agreed. That rite is highly irrational and usually not understood by modern folks. For Chirstians, it is supposed to be entirely spiritual (never physical), for jews and muslims, bris shalom is sufficient.

 

[Todd]

Why do people hate Christianity?

Most have never seen it..
They have seen political religion called "christian', they have seen a lot of misguided and downright evil people that call themselves "christian".

They have no understanding of Christ. only bad examples.

(they would probably like any Christians the actually met)

^ This is all you really need to know.

Jesus said there would be few true "Christians"

Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. Mat 7:14

So if you're turned off by "Christians". You've probably never really met a real one. I'd say it's a "you" problem not a "Christ" problem. I know this because I struggled with the hypocrisy of Christians issues myself and still do.

 

[erowe1]

That's a Calvinist thing, mostly made up.

No it isn't. Check out chapter 7 of Book 1 of Augustine's Confessions here.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/110101.htm

 

[heavenlyboy34]

No it isn't. Check out chapter 7 of Book 1 of Augustine's Confessions here.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/110101.htm

Ah, yes. I almost forgot Augustine's doctrine WRT that. Thanks. As I understand it, that's still controversial, though.

 

[erowe1]

Ah, yes. I almost forgot Augustine's doctrine WRT that. Thanks. As I understand it, that's still controversial, though.

This is from the Catholic Catechism:

1250 Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called. The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant Baptism. the Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P3K.HTM

 

[heavenlyboy34]

This is from the Catholic Catechism:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P3K.HTM

Indeed. But if this part were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth. is true, it makes Augustine wrong (or at least misunderstood while his writings were being passed around)...hence the controversy (among various other scholarly reasons).

 

[erowe1]

Indeed. But if this part were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth. is true, it makes Augustine wrong (or at least misunderstood while his writings were being passed around)...hence the controversy (among various other scholarly reasons).

That part is saying that if they did not baptize their infant they would deprive that infant of priceless grace. That sounds pretty Augustinian to me.

I don't think there's as much controversy here as you think.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

An Orthodox view of the subject.... http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/predestination.aspx
From Bishop Elias Miantios:
Divine predestination is one of the most inaccessible mysteries, locked in the abyss of divine reason and wisdom. The human mind, short on comprehension and limited in its ability to grasp concepts, will never be able to understand this mystery even if it studies and investigates it endlessly. Oh, you learned theologians, I know how you deliberate on divine predestination. You say: "predestination is the foreknowledge and preparation of God's good things by which those who are saved are unalterably saved; that it is the ascension of rational creatures to eternal life, and is the process of being chosen to grace and glory." Yet you do not understand that God foresees from the beginning all that people do within time, that this divine foreknowledge is stable, but the works of humans within time are free. How can we reconcile the unchangeability of God's providence with the free self-determination of intelligent creatures? How is it that the immutability of divine decisions does not lead to inevitability? Why is it beyond question and not subject to chance? We must remove ourselves as far away as possible from these questions and quandaries of the scholars. These questions do not edify, but only confuse the mind. These quandaries do not enlighten, but only darken the intellect. Brothers and sisters, in this realm which defies comprehension, we understand only one thing: Predestination is the combination of divine grace and human will of the grace of God which calls, and the will of man which follows this calling.
Once on His way to Galilee, Jesus finds Philip, and saith unto him, ‘Follow Me’. Philip believed and followed Him. We have found Him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph, declares Philip to his comrade Nathanael. In this way Philip is predestined to the honor of the apostleship and to the glory of the heavenly kingdom. This then, is what I will discuss today. I will attempt to prove two positions: first, that God desires to save each and every human, and second, that each human possesses all the freedom necessary to achieve salvation with the help of the grace of God. God desires, and if man desires also, then he or she is already predestined.
The teaching on predestination is a dogma of faith, based on the Sacred Scriptures. NoOrthodox Christian has any doubt in this. For whom he did foreknow, Paul clearly states, He also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of His Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom He did predestinate, them He also called: and whom He called, them He also justified: and whom He justified, them He also glorified (Romans 8:29,30). The book of divine foreknowledge is incomprehensible to us. In this book, those whom God loves, He inscribed to life, and those whom He despises—to death. Jacob have I love, but Esau have I hated, (Romans 9:13) says God Himself. Just as a potter can make a worthy vessel or an unworthy one from the very same clay, likewise almighty God glorifies as valuable certain of His creatures, while rejecting others as unnecessary. Therefore hath He mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will He hardeneth (Romans 9:18). God acts according to His own will. Who can contradict Him? Yet, is there then some sort of falsity in God? No, there is not! In our effort to understand this point, take as an example the teachings of St. Paul. His teachings are deep and exalted. The more we delve into them, the less we understand. But what of this? In the question of predestination, all is incomprehensible: everything which Holy Scripture says on this subject is unfathomable. The writings of the holy fathers on this point are difficult. The opinions of the learned theologians on this are murky. This is because our intellect, weak and blind, cannot reach such heights or seek the invisible. This question was not even understood by Paul himself, who had ascended to the third heaven. At this height of divine revelation he saw only indiscernible depths of divine wisdom surpassing all understanding. This is why, filled with wonder he cried out: O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments, and His ways past finding out! (Romans 11:33). St. John Chrysostom continues this thought by saying, "Even if it were possible to figure out this question (of predestination), it would nonetheless be unlawful to desire to do so." For us it is sufficient to know these two clear, understandable, basic precepts: first, God desires that we be saved, for He loves mankind. Second, we can be saved, for we are free. Thus, the will of God and the desire of man make up predestination. God desires, and if man desires also, then he or she is already predestined.
Yes, God, the Lover of mankind, desires that we all be saved. This is confirmed by His three non-contradictory attributes: divine justice, divine mercy, and divine providence.
[h=3]Justice[/h]God granted the law to all people indiscriminately. He desires that all choose to fulfill it. No one is exempt from God's law. Greek or barbarian, the impious or right-believing, Jew or Christian, the law is required of all. What reward awaits those who fulfill the divine law? Salvation and the kingdom of heaven. By the mouth of Isaiah God promises: If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land (Isaiah 1: 19). Would it not be the utmost injustice if God desired that all people conform to His law on the one hand, while on the other He did not desire salvation universally for all? Would He then predestine one portion for salvation and presentence the other to torment? Does He demand that all serve Him equally, yet does not desire to give all equal recompense? No! God is just, He is Justice itself. In giving the law to all, He wills all men to be saved (I Tim. 2:4), as says the Apostle. St. Ambrose explains, "that having granted the law to all, He excludes no one from His kingdom."
[h=3]Mercy[/h]What then, compelled God to come down to earth from the heavens and become man? It was His extreme mercy. St. John the Theologian testifies that God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life(John 3:16). During His thirty-three years here on earth, how much did the God-man toil, how much did He suffer, and how did He die? The fathers of the Church tell us that as a result of the hypostatic union in Christ of humanity and divinity, each action of Christ is worthy of endless honor and praise. Even the slightest suffering of Christ had potential to expiate the universal sin. One drop of His most pure blood could extinguish all the flames of eternal torment. His death alone, had it been natural, without sickness, could have saved the entire human race. Yet when He suffered, He suffered as no one has. When He shed His blood to the last drop, when He died on the cross, enduring such torment and shame, can we possibly think that He did all this to save only part of the human race, leaving the remainder to be damned? He could so easily have saved everyone. Yet, after such an effort, would He desire to save only a few? Did He expend such a priceless treasure in paying for such a small purchase, did He pour forth all the wealth of His divine mercy just to be benevolent to a numbered few? NO! The Divine gift is for all! The wounds of Jesus Christ are healing for all. The blood of Jesus Christ is the miraculous ladder by which we all can ascend to paradise. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, Who gave Himself as ransom for all, says Paul (I Tim. 2:5). One died for all (2 Cor. 5:14). If He died for all, then He wants all to be saved. "The Sun of Righteousness," we are told by St. Gregory the Theologian, "shone forth for all, lived for all and died and is risen for all."
[h=3]Providence[/h]

 

[heavenlyboy34]

That part is saying that if they did not baptize their infant they would deprive that infant of priceless grace. That sounds pretty Augustinian to me.

I don't think there's as much controversy here as you think.

Possible, but I'm not a Catholic scholar. I only dabble in it. In the piece above, you'll note that the Orthodox view is different and equally legitimate. Among established churches (that is, Orthodox and Catholic) it is controversial.

 

[erowe1]

Possible, but I'm not a Catholic scholar. I only dabble in it. In the piece above, you'll note that the Orthodox view is different and equally legitimate. Among established churches (that is, Orthodox and Catholic) it is controversial.

I think among Catholics and Protestants, the belief that infants inherently have the tendency to sin and are in need of salvation by grace is pretty widely accepted. Those that deny that would be small minorities.

I know the Eastern Orthodox take a softer view on original sin than Catholics. But they still baptize infants, and I assume still believe that not to do so would deprive those infants of some grace.

 

[ReasonableThinker]

I think among Catholics and Protestants, the belief that infants inherently have the tendency to sin and are in need of salvation by grace is pretty widely accepted. Those that deny that would be small minorities.

I know the Eastern Orthodox take a softer view on original sin than Catholics. But they still baptize infants, and I assume still believe that not to do so would deprive those infants of some grace.

Not sure if their view is softer, but they believe we suffer the consequences of an original sin rather than inheriting the guilt. The same way a child may be homeless due to the parents' poor financial decisions, and inherits their mistakes but shares none of the guilt. Which is the biblical and historic view of the original sin.

 

[AFPVet]

I don't like to use he word 'hate' because it is widely misappropriated. Why do people 'dislike' Christianity? They dislike it for several reasons obviously... I don't like reductionist approaches to answering questions because they are not reliable. Some people dislike it because they don't identify with it... this is common. Others dislike it because the only information we have is found in a 2000+ year old book that has been translated over and over again from old languages. There are multiple reasons....

When I took an academic study of religion course in college, we learned a term called 'verstehen' coined by Max Weber. This means 'understanding'. We should always attempt to have a cultural understanding of why people believe what they believe and keep an open mind. There are Christians who have a spiritual connection to the Creator and place less emphasis on church practices. So are you are spiritual Christian or a religious Christian? You can be both obviously as well.

Since I am a spiritual Christian, I don't dislike Buddhism, Hinduism, Native American beliefs, or any other... I am fascinated by all spiritual and religious beliefs.

 

[GopBlackList]

In my experience 2 reasons -

1- Because some people have had it rammed down their throat and reject it due to the harsh and forceful nature good meaning people have attempted to impose it upon them. And not to mention that all humans are falliable therefore to the outside observer it's easy to see it as hypocracy at first glance.

2- And you also have some people who absolutely reject any sort of responsibility or anything that isn't self-centered and refuse to submit to any sort of higher authority and reject it on that basis.


Just my observation

This and they think they are some oppressed minority