Thread: Christianity

Originally Posted by JosephB

That's true and makes for a semi-compelling statement at first blush. Christianity was used in the past as a tool -- as means of controlling the populace and as a justification for war.

The operative word is “used” – meaning used as means to an end that really didn’t have anything to do with Christianity at all. That’s not the case today in most developed nations. People are free to believe or not believe, worship or not worship.

Originally Posted by Robinjazz

Not all religious people seek war. Your statement is foolish.

The fact that there's religious individuals today who don't believe in violence doesn't alter that today's main religions were built on the sword and oppression. And even today, there's a dozen countries which has the death penalty for apostasy.

Originally Posted by Walkio

The fact that the OP believes it's better to be a 'faithful' person than a 'good' person did it for me.

That's the basis in Christian & Muslim faith though. It's a relic from when great evil was done (and unfortunately sometimes is still done) in the name of religion.

Originally Posted by garza

When the OP in a debate board includes the line, 'I don't want to debate - merely specualte', then I'm confused.

I believe the thread was moved from the lounge to debate. Just as well. I know here in the south anyway, it would probably be bad manners to talk about Jesus in a lounge.

Originally Posted by Rustgold

The fact that there's religious individuals today who don't believe in violence doesn't alter that today's main religions were built on the sword and oppression. And even today, there's a dozen countries which has the death penalty for apostasy.

That's the basis in Christian & Muslim faith though. It's a relic from when great evil was done (and unfortunately sometimes is still done) in the name of religion.

A) Things can change. Religions can have roots in corruption and yet no longer be corrupt. An example: a summer camp I worked for (at Penn State) was created by a pedophile (Sandusky) for the sake of abusing kids. That was horrible, and requires significant atonement, but it still is a good organization that has done and does great things for at-risk youth. Especially now that they are aware of that flaw and have excised it from the program. (Hrm, perhaps too controversial of an example..)

B) You're really over-generalizing. Most Muslims I know believe more in peace than those without faith. And quakerism, for example, holds nonviolence as one of its main tenets. And my Christian friends generally do put more stake in emulating Jesus than they do in following tradition and faith. So even if it was present at one time as a tool for social control and dominance, you can't say that that means the entire system is wrong today.

Originally Posted by JosephB

I believe the thread was moved from the lounge to debate. Just as well. I know here in the south anyway, it would probably be bad manners to talk about Jesus in a lounge.

That actually changes my reaction somewhat significantly.

Originally Posted by Rustgold

The fact that there's religious individuals today who don't believe in violence doesn't alter that today's main religions were built on the sword and oppression.

In the past, some countries, kingdoms etc. were built on the sword and oppression – using Christianity as an excuse or rallying cry. The real reason has always has been power, territory, resources etc. But I’ve already covered that. Yawn.

Originally Posted by Rustgold

And even today, there's a dozen countries which has the death penalty for apostasy.

Yeah – and as far as I know, they’re Islamic countries. Check out the thread title -- and the century, while you're at it.

My problem with discussing religion is many people take it as a personal offence when you question their faith, and are unable to have a healthy discussion without turning things personal.

Most, if not all religious persons have no interest in altering their views on their faith, as it is something they have intrinsicly linked with their own personal identity. Take, for example, the expression, "I'm a Christian" (or, "I'm a Catholic", or "I'm a Muslim", etc..). That speaks volumes about how deep their beliefs are. They do not say "I practice Christianity" but rather "I am a Christian". And so, when entering a discussion, they have already stated their default stance is not just one of beliefs, but personal identity itself, and so how then can a reasonable discussion continue when preserving our identity is a psychological process akin to self-defense?

To question such a person's faith will lead nowhere. They will seek evidence to support their view, and dismiss anything to the contrary.

Being an atheist, I've learned to simply keep my mouth shut, because I'm tired of expressing my views and receiving responses such as "Yeah well, have fun burning in Hell!", which make it clear that intelligent discussion is off the table from the start.

However, this thread is inviting and I feel tempted to part my lips, if only for a moment. : )

For one, there's the matter of Scriptures, which many religious person's consider to be the very words of God Himself. These are used time and again in discussions as supporting evidence, but the dilemma is when an atheist is concerned, Scriptures are nothing more than words on a piece of paper, words anyone could have written, and therefore meaningless. This viewpoint, while logical, is also seen as a great offense to the devout, notably in Islam where blaspheming the Koran is an act that sparks such outrage that it often results in physical violence.

And to make a point clear, I have a friend who is a Muslim (a very nice guy, who is appalled by Muslim Extremism just as much as anyone else, which I think is a point many anti-Muslims seem unaware of, as they seem to believe that all Muslims are terrorists, when in reality most Muslims are kind people who are just trying to live moral and virtuous lives), and listening to his religious beliefs, I see almost no difference between Islam and Christianity, with the exception of some technical points (Mohammed, as opposed to Jesus, and what not). The characters are different, but the story is ultimately the same. Both are monotheistic, and both believe in the singular validity of their own religion in comparison to all others.

There are, of course, cultural differences around the world, notably in the treatment of women, which can be pointed to as evidence of a "primitive" or "uncivilized" society, and that label is then extended towards the religions practiced by said individuals. It's a fair argument, though I can point out one of the Ten Commandments in Christianity, "Thou shalt not covet they neighbor's wife", in which no similar commandment is given towards a woman not covetting her neighbor's husband. Logic would imply that this is because the commandments were written in a time when men were considered the dominant sex and women were treated more like property, and so rules were applied to men, but not to women, as it would be absurd to dictate holy laws onto something as so insignificant as a woman.

Counter arguments I've heard is that the commandment is meant to be interpreted as "God does not approve of infidelity, from either sex", which makes sense. But why, then, does God mention these rules, have them carved in stone, even, if they are meant to be interpreted freely? Why does God continue to say thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's manservant, nor his maidservant?

Does this mean God is also advocating slavery?

From a logical viewpoint, (unless you believe God is sexist and does approve slavery, which I think most people would disagree with whole-heartedly) the only explanation for this is that this commandment is a reflection of the times from which it was written, which then demonstrates that the commandment was written not by God, but by men themselves, which then, if one of the commandments was written by humans under the pretense that it was written by God, undermines the entire validity of the ten commandments , and, by natural extension, puts to question the validity of the Bible itself.

Keep in mind I'm not attempting to challenge anyone's personal faith, but rather, expressing a logical issue (one of many) I consider of significance.

Originally Posted by KyleColorado

To question such a person's faith will lead nowhere. They will seek evidence to support their view, and dismiss anything to the contrary.

Try me. Where exactly is it you’d like to go -- and what kind of evidence will you be presenting to get me there?

Originally Posted by KyleColorado

Being an atheist, I've learned to simply keep my mouth shut, because I'm tired of expressing my views and receiving responses such as "Yeah well, have fun burning in Hell!", which make it clear that intelligent discussion is off the table from the start.

Really??? I've been in many, many discussions with atheists and religious people of all stripes -- and I've never once heard anyone come out with anything like that -- I know I wouldn't. This really makes it sound like you're entering into the conversation with a negative attitude and preconceived ideas about what you're going to hear. Just maybe you're part of the reason the discussion doesn't go very well.

BTW -- Not all Christians believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible. Some believe in the contextual approach. That means the Bible is inspired by God but written by men who wrote according to their own understanding of the world at the time. So as far as some Christians are concerned -- me being one of them -- you are half-right.

I don't mind discussing my religious/spiritual beliefs with anyone, as long as both parties can respect the other's beliefs. I don't tell my atheist friends/family they're going to hell, and they don't call me narrow-minded or (worse yet) brainwashed. If we can all accept that, regardless of religious 'affiliation' (or lack thereof), we are each entitled to our beliefs and no one is truly wrong in this matter, I think a discussion is perfectly possible. An exchange of views to further knowledge and understanding, rather than a true debate (which, as others have said, is rather pointless).

Originally Posted by shadowwalker

If we can all accept that, regardless of religious 'affiliation' (or lack thereof), we are each entitled to our beliefs and no one is truly wrong in this matter, I think a discussion is perfectly possible.

So you're a Christian that doesn't think atheists are wrong?

Originally Posted by Capulet

So you're a Christian that doesn't think atheists are wrong?

What's wrong with that? Who are we mere mortals to judge? Besides, ask any open-minded believer and he or she will agree we are all God's children--atheists included.


As long as we give each other the necessary elbow room, we can all get along with our own beliefs.

That makes zero sense. While Christians believe that atheists are God's children -- they also believe atheists are wrong. It's pretty simple -- Christians believe in God. Atheists don't. It's not about "judging."

Originally Posted by JosephB

That makes zero sense. ."

Maybe to you it makes zero sense, but not to me.

Tragically, far too many Christians spend one hour (on Sunday in church) being taught to "turn the other cheek" and than spend the next 167 hours of the week trying to figure out how to "harm" their enemies.

I don't know what other Christians believe, but I do know this: the few times I did go to church, the old Catholic priest serving mass used to say "we are all God's children." So are you now telling me he was wrong?



I recall when the HIV Virus first broke. There was one Christian minister saying that "it was God's way of punishing the gays." Huh? What the heck is being taught anyhow in some Christian churches? Certainly nothing Jesus preached.

Originally Posted by garza

When the OP in a debate board includes the line, 'I don't want to debate - merely specualte', then I'm confused. Along with alanmt my thoughts are that some basic questions need to be answered before proceeding, and I agree with alanmt that the questions he has posed are a good start.

Some of my best friends are Christians. Thus, though I have considerable knowledge of and strong opinions regarding the subject, prefer that the ground rules be fully explained before I risk offering any speculation.

i find the op a bit confusing, as well.

is this:

'For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast.'

How anyone can believe good works can save them is beyond me, but then again, that is why I am opening this thread.

the part to be "speculated" upon? and if so.....the word "grace" is religiously confusing word to me, as it is. it would seem to be a synonymous term
for "enlightenment". shit. nevermind. i'm not sure if this a thread worth wasting my time. it seems constraining from the 1st post.

Originally Posted by Robinjazz

Tragically, far too many Christians spend one hour (on Sunday in church) being taught to "turn the other cheek" and than spend the next 167 hours of the week trying to figure out how to "harm" their enemies.

More pointless generalizing. Double-yawn.

Originally Posted by JosephB

That makes zero sense. While Christians believe that atheists are God's children -- they also believe atheists are wrong.

Oh, well, thanks for enlightening me on what I believe. Guess that settles the discussion part...