Hatred of Christianity!

[AdamEve]

Like the Inquisitions you mean? I would call that an instance of religion going wrong..

The Inquisition was the fight against heretics those that think differently.
Preventing free thinking is corner stone of each religion so Inquisition is not relegion going bad but it is religion in its bes light.

In contrast science is based on confronting views, it encourages it and it is what keeps it going.

 

[Nakosis]

I have never dodged about being a Christian. I have been very open, throughout this thread, that I am a Christian. I have never denied that. Yes, I don't practice Christianity like some others, and I don't agree with many other Christians, but that doesn't mean that I deny being a Christian or anything like that.

I think it boils down to you not understanding, fully, what Christianity is.

You are a Christian it what way? What about your beliefs causes you to accept the label?

Calling ones self a Christian is going to prejudice peoples responses to your posts. Not something to do lightly without cause.

People hate Christians because of the assumption of divine authority that they think others should accept. However there is no good justification for that authority beyond belief in the Bible.

Christian means what? One accept the authority of the Bible? That one follows the teaching of Jesus? Christianity as a religion has little to do with what Jesus taught. It's more a nationalized religion of Rome.

While your are free to call yourself a Christian, what meaning does it have?

 

[waitasec]

I have never dodged about being a Christian. I have been very open, throughout this thread, that I am a Christian. I have never denied that. Yes, I don't practice Christianity like some others, and I don't agree with many other Christians, but that doesn't mean that I deny being a Christian or anything like that.

I think it boils down to you not understanding, fully, what Christianity is.

how can one understand christianity when christians don't practice christianity like other christians?

 

[Quagmire]

The Inquisition was the fight against heretics those that think differently.

The "heretics" were also practicing a religion.

Preventing free thinking is corner stone of each religion

Bull. Most religions were founded by heretics and free-thinkers.

so Inquisition is not relegion going bad but it is religion in its bes light.

I think most people would disagree: most people see the Inquisitions as a bad thing.

In contrast science is based on confronting views, it encourages it and it is what keeps it going.

Science is the systematic acquisition, investigation, and evaluation of information. It doesn't confront anything.

 

[AdamEve]

Bull. Most religions were founded by heretics and free-thinkers.

Of course they are. People who introduce religion are very well educated and creative in inventing methods of manipulating masses. Priests were known for trying to understand nature but not to share their knowledge but to use it to enslave mases like eclipse for instance.

I think most people would disagree: most people see the Inquisitions as a bad thing.

Of course they would, I didn't say it was good I said that that kind of behaviour is characteristic for most religions, kill thse that think differently, this s the essence of religion instead of discussion who is correct.

Science is the systematic acquisition, investigation, and evaluation of information. It doesn't confront anything.

When someone has some new idea which questions current truth this new idea is being discussed rather then killing the person that pruposd it. Science confronts different theories and discussses which one is better through the things you mentioned.

 

[fallingblood]

how can one understand christianity when christians don't practice christianity like other christians?

Honestly, I don't think one can, unless they devote a lifetime, understand Christianity fully. Since it is such a diverse religion, and becoming increasingly diverse, it would be a monumental task in order to fully understand it.

One can understand the basics of Christianity, but that does not necessarily mean they fully understand Christianity as there are so many differences between different denominations, and just the history itself is very vast. That is why when someone tells me that they know Christianity since they were raised in the religion, it really isn't a sound argument as they possibly only know that one denomination.

 

[fallingblood]

You are a Christian it what way? What about your beliefs causes you to accept the label?

I believe in the Abrahamic God. I like Islam, and Judaism, but neither one worked for me. I see Jesus as a savior figure (metaphorically. I don't think he physically raised from the dead. I don't think he was God, or the actual son of God. But I do see a lot of value in his life, and I see him as a savior figure (not that he is the only one, or even that a savior figure is needed)).

Calling ones self a Christian is going to prejudice peoples responses to your posts. Not something to do lightly without cause.

I agree, and for the longest time I did not take the title because of the prejudice of others. I didn't want it brought up in discussions. However, I was increasingly called a Christian anyway, so it became no big deal.

Christian means what? One accept the authority of the Bible? That one follows the teaching of Jesus? Christianity as a religion has little to do with what Jesus taught. It's more a nationalized religion of Rome.

While your are free to call yourself a Christian, what meaning does it have?

I think Christianity can definitely mean following the teachings, or perceived teachings of Jesus.

 

[fallingblood]

Of course they are. People who introduce religion are very well educated and creative in inventing methods of manipulating masses. Priests were known for trying to understand nature but not to share their knowledge but to use it to enslave mases like eclipse for instance.

I don't know if that could be supported. For one, we don't have records of various religions being founded. Second, if we look at Christianity, it was founded by accident. It wasn't trying to manipulate the masses, but save them from what they thought was the end of the world (just look at Paul).

Maybe some individuals have used it to manipulate others, but one example simply does not support the idea that religion was created for that purpose. Or that those who introduced religion intended that.

Of course they would, I didn't say it was good I said that that kind of behaviour is characteristic for most religions, kill thse that think differently, this s the essence of religion instead of discussion who is correct.

Not really. Especially if one looks at modern religions. There are many religious talks between all sorts of religions. They may not be discussing who is correct, as that isn't always the question (or one that even matters), but there are many such dialogues.

One historical event can not characterize an entire religion.

When someone has some new idea which questions current truth this new idea is being discussed rather then killing the person that pruposd it. Science confronts different theories and discussses which one is better through the things you mentioned.

Religion, for the most part, does just the same thing now as well. You are too focused on the past, and the simply truth is, things have changed greatly.

 

[Nakosis]

I think Christianity can definitely mean following the teachings, or perceived teachings of Jesus.

I personally find value in the teachings of Jesus. However I take Christianity, the religion developed by his self-proclaimed followers badly mis-led.

While there actually is a diverse view among Christian beliefs, however the majority of which one runs into in the US and on forums is the fundamentalist kind. That's the type the hatred is for and the stereotype Christians usually get lumped in with.

No reason IMO to connect the OT or the Apostles as having any divine authority, however I think you have to either accept something was unique about Jesus or discount him as a crazy self-deluded, self proclaimed prophet.

Jesus accepted that he was the Son of God and able to speak with authority as the Son of God.

 

[Agnostic75]

Would you like to start a new thread and explain why Muhammad had divine authority?

Not really, but interesting question.

Muhammad received revelations, visions after retreating to a cave. He accepted these revelations as divinely inspired.

What Muhammad believed is already obvious. What you need is credible evidence that the revelations were authentic.

Jesus doesn't speak of such revelations I don't think.

Non sequitur. Your premise is that Muhammed had divine authority. What Jesus did is irrelavant to that claim.

He may have had them just not spoke of them. This seems the general means of prophecy. Through dreams or visions assumed to be divinely inspired.

Prophets take a dream or vision as divinely inspired and start preaching. In Jesus' case I think it's assumed he would not have needed revelation as he had the knowledge inherently. The gospels seem to be written that way. That Jesus spoke with the authority of knowledge, not as a messenger.

Non sequitur. Your premise is that Muhammed had divine authority. What Jesus did is irrelavant to that claim.

 

[Nakosis]

Would you like to start a new thread and explain why Muhammad had divine authority?

Not really, but interesting question.

Muhammad received revelations, visions after retreating to a cave. He accepted these revelations as divinely inspired.

Jesus doesn't speak of such revelations I don't think. He may have had them just not spoke of them. This seems the general means of prophecy. Through dreams or visions assumed to be divinely inspired.

Prophets take a dream or vision as divinely inspired and start preaching. In Jesus' case I think it's assumed he would not have needed revelation as he had the knowledge inherently. The gospels seem to be written that way. That Jesus spoke with the authority of knowledge, not as a messenger.

 

[Desert Snake]

Why do so many people want to point the finger at Christianity for the evil done in its name instead of pointing the finger at the human heart? Pointing the finger at Christians is the same as pointing the finger at scientists saying look how evil science is pushing these drugs that can destroy lives on every T.V. comercial that pops up.
Hey Got a sniffle? try Snif away!
Side effects include headaches,nashau,depression,liver disease,flat tires on car,dog runs away,wars and rumors of wars.........etc.
science is evil and slowly murdering people through chemical processes all in the name of the almighty dollar!
Can't point the finger at science for the evil in mans heart.
Those who are full of evil and hatred ,greed will spread it by anymeans necessary and they will use the Bible,science,or any other means necessary to justify themselves.
Its not the institution of Christianity that is evil just like its not science or medicine that is evil.Pharmaceutical companies used mans faith in science(and in doctors with dumb commercials) as a means to push there selfish agendas for profits.
I don't blame scientists or consider them evil even from all of the horror and devestation that has been done through its creations.
Attacking the establishment of Christianity for the evil that man has in his heart is the same as attacking science and medicine for the evil being done in its name.
Christianity is one of the most strongest love based religions I know of and is why it is always pesecuted and in the state of resistance against hatred!

I think a case could be made against the hypocrisy of many Christian churches, and historically the church has been anti-science, anti-progressive.

 

[Nakosis]

I think a case could be made against the hypocrisy of many Christian churches, and historically the church has been anti-science, anti-progressive.

Still I think it's the individual one has to hold accountable. A person influenced others into thinking that way. Not a nebulous Church.

I think a person should be held accountable for their actions without regard for their belief/religion. Religion should not be an excuse for being an *********.

Sorry, can't think of a sufficiently derogatory alternate word. Basically meaning not a nice guy.

 

[Agnostic75]

Not really, but interesting question.

Muhammad received revelations, visions after retreating to a cave. He accepted these revelations as divinely inspired.

What Muhammad accepted does not necessarily mean that God inspired him to write the Koran.

 

[Agnostic75]

I think a person should be held accountable for their actions without regard for their belief/religion. Religion should not be an excuse for being an *********.

How does homosexuality fit in with what you said?

 

[Nakosis]

What Muhammad accepted does not necessarily mean that God inspired him to write the Koran.

Yes, but since we can't read their minds we have to rely on what is written about them. Or ignore it completely I suppose.

 

[Desert Snake]

Still I think it's the individual one has to hold accountable. A person influenced others into thinking that way. Not a nebulous Church.

I think a person should be held accountable for their actions without regard for their belief/religion. Religion should not be an excuse for being an *********.

Sorry, can't think of a sufficiently derogatory alternate word. Basically meaning not a nice guy.

I agree, many Christians are good people, they shouldn't be blamed for the actions of certain churches, either.

 

[Nakosis]

How does homosexuality fit in with what you said?

Not my issue, not my call to judge how homosexuality fits into the scope of things. As long as no one is being harmed.

Personally I'm against homosexuality for myself. As long as people respect that decision, I'm happy to respect whatever decision others make for themselves.

 

[Agnostic75]

Not my issue, not my call to judge how homosexuality fits into the scope of things. As long as no one is being harmed.

Personally I'm against homosexuality for myself. As long as people respect that decision, I'm happy to respect whatever decision others make for themselves.

What do you mean by "against homosexuality"? If you mean that you are not sexually attracted to men, that is fine. Unfortunately, the vast majority of other Muslims in the world do not agree with your liberal position, even most Muslims who live in moderate Muslim countries. I doubt that Muhammad would have approved of men being sexually attracted to other men.

 

[not nom]

Not my issue, not my call to judge how homosexuality fits into the scope of things. As long as no one is being harmed.

well, being put to death surely counts as being harmed, no?