Christian Forums

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!

Do you make ubelievers angry?

How does there being no God make it okay to do things that hurt other people? We already know from experience it doesn't work for people to judge for themselves what does and doesn't hurt other people, and when. By nature we are a very selfish, short sided people.
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 no God make it okay to do things that hurt other people?
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. :study

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 :grumpy 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.

Sorry, I seem to have gone off on a bit of a tangent.
 
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. :study

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 :grumpy 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.

Sorry, I seem to have gone off on a bit of a tangent.
Your beef is with the false church, not the real people of God.

Stop justifying your unbelief with what unbelievers do to discredit true Christianity.
 
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.
But a short sided one.

That's what happens when we humans decide we can make our own moral judgments from our narrow, selfishly predisposed points of view. There are no absolutes that way. One person's truth has the potential of being another person's harm. It just doesn't work. History has proven this over and over and over again.
 
Your beef is with the false church, not the real people of God.

Stop justifying your unbelief with what unbelievers do to discredit true Christianity.
Who are the 'real people of God'?
Who are 'true Christians'?
 
But a short sided one.
How so?

That's what happens when we humans decide we can make our own moral judgments from our narrow, selfishly predisposed points of view. There are no absolutes that way. One person's truth has the potential of being another person's harm. It just doesn't work. History has proven this over and over and over again.
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.
 
Who are the 'real people of God'?
Who are 'true Christians'?
Not those who hate and murder.

You know this!



2 Many will...bring the way of truth into disrepute." (2 Peter 1:2 NIV1984)

Stop using what even a prophet of the truth said would happen to the truth as an excuse to not confess your sins and trust in Christ for the forgiveness of sin. Why would you refuse so gracious an offer? What are you afraid of giving up to do that?
 
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!



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.
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?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
We are to be salt and light to this world. We should, as Christians, maintain the highest reputation among unbelievers.
 
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!
I can understand this as part of your doctrinal commitments.

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 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 didn't say it was. You have misunderstood what I meant.
I don't see how, so you'll have to explain, because this is what yous said:
Wouldn't that be the people who resemble him on what he perceives to be essential points of doctrine and behavior?
(emphasis in quote mine)

Any so-called 'Christian' who practices murder and hatred as accepted behaviors for the Christian is in fact showing how much they are NOT a Christian. It's impossible to identify the murderer with being a real Christian:

"...you know that no murderer has eternal life in him." (1 John 3:15 NIV1984)

So, it is impossible to somehow show that real Christians share essential doctrine and behaviors with the false Christians who murdered people in the name of Jesus. Impossible. But I can see how it can be used as a convenient excuse by someone to not seek forgiveness and reconciliation with God and avoid becoming a Christian themselves.
 
I can understand this as part of your doctrinal commitments.
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.

The unwillingness to acknowledge that by nature (all) men are inherently wicked, and responsible before God for what that wicked nature does, being the very reason they can't believe. Which only makes sense, because, as I've said, God revealing that truth to the hearts of men is the way God has given to know he is real. But if a person rejects the way God shows himself real to men (through the conviction of sin guilt) should it be any surprise that person can't have faith that God is real?????
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
Yes, I believe there is a connection. Thankfully, your next statement allows us to explore it.

The unwillingness to acknowledge that by nature (all) men are inherently wicked, and responsible before God for what that wicked nature does, being the very reason they can't believe. Which only makes sense, because, as I've said, God revealing that truth to the hearts of men is the way God has given to know he is real. But if a person rejects the way God shows himself real to men (through the conviction of sin guilt) should it be any surprise that person can't have faith that God is real?????
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.

Also, here are the promised links to the posts about morality I had mentioned earlier:

http://www.christianforums.net/showthread.php?t=46365&p=712595&highlight=morality#post712595

http://www.christianforums.net/showthread.php?t=46365&p=712580&highlight=morality#post712580
 
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. :study

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 :grumpy 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.

Sorry, I seem to have gone off on a bit of a tangent.
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.

Read the Bible, and seek God. Make your decision on that, not on actions of sinful people living in a fallen world.

That said, yes, Christians are hypocrites but at least they generally acknowledge that they are sinful and need help and forgiveness and try to do what's right. Recognizing one's sinfulness and in need of Grace is a core part of the Gospel, and what it means to be Christian.

I appear to have gone on a tangent too :lol
 
Are you sure that Christians have killed **that** many people? More than, say, Stalin or Hitler? And if you exclude The Crusades (Catholics) and The Inquisition (Catholics), are Christians still blood thirsty, Bible thumping killers? I'm not so sure myself.
 
Are you sure that Christians have killed **that** many people? More than, say, Stalin or Hitler? And if you exclude The Crusades (Catholics) and The Inquisition (Catholics), are Christians still blood thirsty, Bible thumping killers? I'm not so sure myself.
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.
 
Back
Top