Why do people hate Christianity?

[Sola_Fide]

Because actions have consequences.

Why is it wrong to disregard the consequences of an action? What if I just go ahead and accept the consequences?

 

[VIDEODROME]

It seems to me that Moral Codes or Moral Authorities are only deemed necessary by those who assume all human beings have no brain, no sense of conscience, or the ability to reason out that we are better off helping each other in the long run.

It is true that some human beings either lack these qualities or decide to ignore them by giving into temptation. On the other hand, I do think educated people who want a successful society would want rules preserving individual rights and security for all members of that society. It could be argued that is not based at all on so-called morality or whether something is "sinful".

Also, why adopt a principle of non-aggression? Look at where aggression has gotten us in foreign policy. It's a freakin blowback disaster and has squandered the blood and treasure of this country.

 

[VIDEODROME]

Why is it wrong to disregard the consequences of an action? What if I just go ahead and accept the consequences?

Well, I suppose that is your choice. You would have to decide if the consequences were worth whatever negative hypothetical action you may take. After enough negative actions against individuals or society you may find the blowback unpleasant.

 

[VIDEODROME]

So this guys says Obama voters are going to Hell. Really?

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/09/...dizes-the-eternal-salvation-of-your-own-soul/

A Catholic bishop from Springfield, Illinois is warning that the stakes for the 2012 election are even higher than most people think because voting for President Barack Obama could damn “you own soul” to hell.

In a column and video posted by the official newspaper of the Diocese of Springfield in Illinois and obtained by Right Wing Watch on Wednesday, Bishop Thomas John Paprocki called out the Democratic Party for temporarily removing God from their platform, supporting abortion and recognizing that “gay rights are human rights.”

“There are many positive and beneficial planks in the Democratic Party Platform, but I am pointing out those that explicitly endorse intrinsic evils,” the bishop explained. “My job is not to tell you for whom you should vote. But I do have a duty to speak out on moral issues. I would be abdicating this duty if I remained silent out of fear of sounding ‘political’ and didn’t say anything about the morality of these issues. People of faith object to these platform positions that promote serious sins.”

“So what about the Republicans? I have read the Republican Party Platform and there is nothing in it that supports or promotes an intrinsic evil or a serious sin,” Paprocki added. “One might argue for different methods in the platform to address the needs of the poor, to feed the hungry and to solve the challenges of immigration, but these are prudential judgments about the most effective means of achieving morally desirable ends, not intrinsic evils.”

“Again, I am not telling you which party or which candidates to vote for or against,” he concluded, “but I am saying that you need to think and pray very carefully about your vote, because a vote for a candidate who promotes actions or behaviors that are intrinsically evil and gravely sinful makes you morally complicit and places the eternal salvation of your own soul in serious jeopardy.”

 

[robert68]

"Your opinion". Why is it wrong to believe that aggression is not immoral?

Asks someone who's definition of "wrong" is circular.

 

[FreeHampshire]

In Mosaic law, a slave master is allowed to beat his slave, and there's no problem so long as he doesn't die. That may as well be chattel slavery, oh unless conveniently that part of the old testament is ignored by modern Christians. It's fascinating to see Christians reject parts of their scriptures on one hand the apologists talk about how us Muslims are so terrible we stone homosexuals and adulterers, but oh wait a minute, the old testament is the one that tells believers to do that.

The concept of slavery in Islam (since you keep bringing it up) is very strict, and slavery is looked down upon. It's actually not permissible to call anyone your slave or master in Islam, and the only way to obtain a "slave" is directly through war as in POWs, not through slave trade (person had to transgress against you), so whichever examples you may find in the news do not reflect what Islam taught, Islam taught if you take someone as a captive you treat them as a family member - you can't hit them, make them eat lesser foods than you, or dress in lesser clothing than you. Plus the incredible amount of manumission of slaves, so slavery in the Arabian peninsula dramatically was reduced because of Islam.

Meanwhile we look at Christianity, beating them is fine, they're your property. There's a reason why Christians have always treated their slaves like animals, the scriptures didn't think so highly of them.

It's because Islam never really evolved out of a primitive, backwards Middle Eastern religion. While Christianity was able to combine advanced Greek philosophy with a rather bunk series of book.

 

[Toxic]

I think it mostly has to do with the hyper religious crapping all over science and those who believe in it. They're no more open minded than atheists.

 

[BuddyRey]

Speaking as a Christian myself, most Christians don't even have the maturity or tolerance for people's differences to get along with eachother, let alone the outside world. Just look at all the petty internecine squabbles we see on these very forums, with Calvinists and Arminians bickering, Orthodox and Protestants going at it, etc....arguing about the most MINISCULE and incidental doctrinal questions, until what is supposed to be an active and personal journey of growth and love (both for God and fellow man) becomes a glorified debating society. We could be helping to win souls for Christ by setting an example for humanity, but instead, we're all comfortably cloistered away in our own echo chambers, content to preach to the choir.

You know it's true.

 

[acptulsa]

Speaking as a Christian myself, most Christians don't even have the maturity or tolerance for people's differences to get along with eachother, let alone the outside world. Just look at all the petty internecine squabbles we see on these very forums, with Calvinists and Arminians bickering, Orthodox and Protestants going at it, etc....arguing about the most MINISCULE and incidental doctrinal questions, until what is supposed to be an active and personal journey of growth and love (both for God and fellow man) becomes a glorified debating society. We could be helping to win souls for Christ by setting an example for humanity, but instead, we're all comfortably cloistered away in our own echo chambers, content to preach to the choir.

You know it's true.

Meanwhile, the Christians who don't give Christianity a bad name are as likely to move through life without many people knowing that they are, in fact, Christian, because they don't insult people in God's name and never spend their days patting themselves on the back and loudly telling everyone what good Christians they are. And the ones who actually pay attention to what Jesus said never advocate Crusades or other splendid little wars.

I think it mostly has to do with the hyper religious crapping all over science and those who believe in it. They're no more open minded than atheists.

Most atheists--or, at least, most of the ones you see constantly prostelytizing--are hyper religious. Neither the existence nor the absence of God can be proven. So, believing in one is as much an act of faith as believing the other.

Why do you think they're so much alike and spend so much time in the same threads together? They may be different sides, but they're the same coin.

 

[Carson]

christianity?

Someone around here posted a quote that sort of summed it up. At least it seemed to me.



It went something like; when Jesus preached he preached about a way of life. I'm thinking it is a way of life, and rules for life, that apply whether you believe in God or not.

Others came after and preached of believing in Jesus.


Not that there is anything wrong with that. It just seems to be two different things. Not that I care to argue the point.


I wish I had of copied it. I have a folder I save some of my favorite quotes that I come across. I missed that one. It got away from me.

 

[loveableteddybear]

Someone around here posted a quote that sort of summed it up. At least it seemed to me.



It went something like; when Jesus preached he preached about a way of life. I'm thinking it is a way of life, and rules for life, that apply whether you believe in God or not.

Others came after and preached of believing in Jesus.


Not that there is anything wrong with that. It just seems to be two different things. Not that I care to argue the point.


I wish I had of copied it. I have a folder I save some of my favorite quotes that I come across. I missed that one. It got away from me.

That's simply not true.

Jesus said: “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6)

And, in this conversation in Matthew 16:13-17:
When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?”

They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
“But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”

Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven.

 

[acptulsa]

That's simply not true.

Or your denial of it is simply not true. Or there's truth in both statements. Or the issue was purposely left vague.

Jesus said: “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6)

The disciples called Jesus 'Teacher'. Suppose your algebra teacher told you, 'I am the way and the truth and the math. No one comes to algebra except through me.' You might call that teacher melodramatic. You might argue that instead of 'me' at the end, the teacher should have said 'my methods'. But would you really say that this teacher was demanding that you worship him or her? Or are they merely encouraging you to pay attention?

Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven.

Or, to put it another way, Jesus said, 'Who told you that? I didn't tell you that!'

It has been said many ways in this thread, but I'll try again anyway. Jesus is seriously cool. What people hate is that damned dogma.

 

[Sola_Fide]

It went something like; when Jesus preached he preached about a way of life. I'm thinking it is a way of life, and rules for life, that apply whether you believe in God or not.

Others came after and preached of believing in Jesus.

Not that there is anything wrong with that. It just seems to be two different things. Not that I care to argue the point.

Jesus didn't preach about a way of life. This is what unbelievers of all kinds get when they read the pages of the Bible. They get this because they don't understand the gospel (good news).

What is the gospel? The gospel is that Jesus died for the sins of His elect people and by His perfect life and death, blotted out their sins before God and procured their eternal salvation:

1st Corinthians 15:1-4

Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,

The message of the Bible is that God demands an accounting from men that they cannot in and of themselves give to God. This is why Jesus constantly condemned the most religious-looking people in His time. He was teaching people that not even the "righteous" people will be able to stand before God on the last day. They aren't righteous enough! And so Jesus exposed the hidden sins of the ruling religious leaders and He made God's standards even more stringent and more severe.


Don't listen to anyone who tells you that "Jesus came to show us a better way to live", whether that person is on a message board or is behind a pulpit. That is a LIE. That is a false gospel. No one who believes a false gospel will be saved. Jesus did not "show us how to live" and His mission was not to give us new laws and exhortations that we then use to work our way to God. This is the false religion of man.


The gospel is that good news that Jesus lived a perfect life and by His sacrifice, He has eternally saved all His sheep. The way men are saved is that we lean on faith in Christ's perfect life and we cling to Christ's blood alone as our only assurance before a holy God who will judge all men. Even this faith that we have is gift from God to all those He has chosen. If you believe the gospel, it is because God has supernaturally done a work in your heart, and opened your eyes to the truth that sets you free.

What The Gospel Is, What The Gospel Is Not
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?391673-What-The-Gospel-Is-What-The-Gospel-Is-Not

 

[TheTexan]

Christians are taught to go around and "save" people from their lack of belief. That's my #1 beef with the religion.

My #2 beef is that they don't see anything wrong with my #1 beef. (It's actually very disrespectful)

 

[erowe1]

Christians are taught to go around and "save" people from their lack of belief. That's my #1 beef with the religion.

My #2 beef is that they don't see anything wrong with my #1 beef. (It's actually very disrespectful)

So your second beef with them is that they don't believe what you think they should believe. And your first beef with them is that they say you don't believe what they think you should believe. Is there a way to see that as not a double standard?

 

[TheTexan]

So your second beef with them is that they don't believe what you think they should believe. And your first beef with them is that they say you don't believe what they think you should believe. Is there a way to see that as not a double standard?

No, you have it backwards. You're demonstrating beef #2.

You would get offended if I told you your religion is wrong, and its a waste of time, and that it's all just a bunch of nonsense, yes?

But I'm not supposed to get offended if you tell me that my lack of faith is wrong, and that (depending on your interpretation) I will be sent to a fire-burning place of torture for not sharing your faith?

 

[phill4paul]

Great thread to raise on Christmas.

Whether a true quote or not I agree with Ghandi...

"I love your Christ, but I dislike your Christianity"

and that is all I'll be goaded into saying anymore on the subject.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Great thread to raise on Christmas.

Whether a true quote or not I agree with Ghandi...

"I love your Christ, but I dislike your Christianity"

and that is all I'll be goaded into saying anymore on the subject.

That quote of Ghandi's is the most dishonest, disingenuous lie that can be uttered about this issue. Ghandi did not "love Christ". To love Christ is to assent to the propositions of the gospel. It is to believe what Jesus said. Ghandi did not do this. Jesus said He was God and if you didn't believe this, you would go to Hell forever. Ghandi did not believe this.

Ghandi's view of Jesus is the exact same as every other unbeliever--he thought that Jesus came to give us new exhortations and "show us how to live" and so fourth. And since "Christians aren't living like Jesus taught everyone to live", he doesn't like these "Christians". Ghandi is wrong and every other person, whether he is on a message board or behind a pulpit, is wrong if he believes this.

Jesus came to earth to fulfill a mission. That mission was to secure eternal salvation for all His elect sheep. Jesus perfectly fulfilled that mission. The good news is that 2000 years ago Jesus perfectly accomplished the salvation of His people. This is a past event. It already happened.

 

[green73]

Because they are conditioned to. The church, the family, and the community all stand in the way of the total state and so, have been under attack for some time. The church is probably the easiest target.

 

[phill4paul]

That quote of Ghandi's is the most dishonest, disingenuous lie that can be uttered about this issue. Ghandi did not "love Christ". To love Christ is to assent to the propositions of the gospel. It is to believe what Jesus said. Ghandi did not do this. Jesus said He was God and if you didn't believe this, you would go to Hell forever. Ghandi did not believe this.

Ghandi's view of Jesus is the exact same as every other unbeliever--he thought that Jesus came to give us new exhortations and "show us how to live" and so fourth. And since "Christians aren't living like Jesus taught everyone to live", he doesn't like these "Christians". Ghandi is wrong and every other person, whether he is on a message board or behind a pulpit, is wrong if he believes this.

Jesus came to earth to fulfill a mission. That mission was to secure eternal salvation for all His elect sheep. Jesus perfectly fulfilled that mission. The good news is that 2000 years ago Jesus perfectly procured the salvation for His people. This is a past event. It already happened.

Ok. Merry Christmas, Sola. To you and yours. Peace.