This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
I never said it does. All I indicated was that there would be differences in moral values should there be no God. I did not say that there would be an abandonment of morality. I remain a moral person even with my loss of faith. I simply have a different basis for my moral judgements.
How does there being a God make it okay to do things that hurt other people?
Unless Christians are prepared to recognize and maybe apologize for the absolutely awful and indefensible things done by their predecessors, I think Christianity will dwindle in the face of better education. The average knowledge of history is pretty poor but indoctrination is dying out in the West and people are exploring 'historical facts' for themselves.
Your beef is with the false church, not the real people of God.How does there being a God make it okay to do things that hurt other people?
'Christians' have killed and tortured more people 'in the name of God' than any other religion or tyrant in history. Eleven million were killed simply in the fighting that took place after Martin Luther challenged the pope.
I think that is the sort of thing that makes unbelievers angry when Christian evangelists try to tell them what a 'loving, peaceful' religion it is
Sorry, I seem to have gone off on a bit of a tangent.
But a short sided one.
Who are the 'real people of God'?
How so?
I've addressed this elsewhere, I'll have to look and find the post for you. As for history, I'm not sure what you are referring to, but I'm willing to discuss any examples you want to bring up.
Wouldn't that be the people who resemble him on what he perceives to be essential points of doctrine and behavior?
Not those who hate and murder.
As members of this fallen race, you and I can't help but to first discern everything through the filter of our own well-being. By nature we are incapable of understanding and accepting that what we want to do, and think is so right, often infringes on the legitimate good of others. We have to depend on someone else's outside judgment to know what is good and right for others. And that someone is NOT another human being who is just as self oriented and blind as we are, lol!
Look at all the conflict in the world. What one person has determined by themselves is good and right for them is in conflict with the pain and inconvenience it causes another person. It's incredibly hard to get natural man to see how his insensitivity and selfishness, spurred on by the desires of the flesh, rob other people of the good they are entitled to. Just read your newspaper. Remember the resistance to banning smoking in public places?
I didn't say it was. You have misunderstood what I meant.
I can understand this as part of your doctrinal commitments.
I don't see this as a real challenge to what I am saying. I promise to try and find the post I spoke of earlier so you can understand my position. Honestly, though, I haven't seen religion do any better at resolving the matters of which you speak, and so I feel no pressure to somehow magically resolve them.
I don't see how, so you'll have to explain, because this is what yous said:
(emphasis in quote mine)
And why not? That's Christianity 101, and something those who say they can't have faith reject as being true. I observed it's so commonly associated with the inability to have faith that there must be a connection.
Gladly. It is actually quite easy to explain, as the substitution of a few word ought to make it clearer:
Yes, I believe there is a connection. Thankfully, your next statement allows us to explore it.
You have the cart before the horse. My inability to have faith is the cause, not the result, of my rejection of the doctrines in the Bible. I had no struggle with these doctrines until after I had lost my faith. And why not? Once I had lost my faith in God, what reason do I have to hold unquestioningly the doctrines of Christianity? But I have already told you this, so I'm not sure why you would insist on it being the other way around.
So judging a religion based upon actions by a group is ok to you? I think it's pretty clear that the vast majority of Christians today do not condone the actions of those hundreds of years ago who clearly did not get the Biblical message right, or they twisted it to try and justify their actions.How does there being a God make it okay to do things that hurt other people?
'Christians' have killed and tortured more people 'in the name of God' than any other religion or tyrant in history. Eleven million were killed simply in the fighting that took place after Martin Luther challenged the pope.
I think that is the sort of thing that makes unbelievers angry when Christian evangelists try to tell them what a 'loving, peaceful' religion it is
Sorry, I seem to have gone off on a bit of a tangent.
It might depend if you're counting the Jews in the OT. Personally I wouldn't, and I doubt 11,000,000 is the figure, but whatever the numbers are that "so called" Christians have killed, I don't consider someone a Christian who promotes genocide.
