Why Do Christians Feel The Need To Bother People?

[BilliardsBall]

If only Christians would imitate Jesus' moral views for all humanity.

One reason so many are leaving Christianity is because too many Christians don't act in a way that Jesus taught. We hear Chris taught.

Sounds like you've met people who use the Christian label without the Christian lifestyle. There are good Christians out there!

 

[BilliardsBall]

Jesus generally went out and away from people and the people came to him.

All four gospels record that Jesus frequently preached at the Capernaum synagogue, and He did miracles there. In Nazareth, he read from Isaiah about the Messianic prophecies. He taught in the Temple at age 12. When arrested and tried He said, "I taught daily in the Temple's courts. Why did you do nothing then?"

Jesus was good both for extroverts and introverts. Sometimes He went to the people and sometimes they came separately to Him.

 

[Subduction Zone]

For me such parades are more harassment than some individual preaching something. It is easier to ignore single person than horde of people.

How is that harassment? They applied for the permit months ahead of time. You do not need to go there. You could easily avoid it.

I guess by your standards if a city has a Christmas parade where various religions are allowed is harassment too. Which is odd, I have never said that a parade open to all religions is harassment but you appear to believe that.

 

[Sand Dancer]

All four gospels record that Jesus frequently preached at the Capernaum synagogue, and He did miracles there. In Nazareth, he read from Isaiah about the Messianic prophecies. He taught in the Temple at age 12. When arrested and tried He said, "I taught daily in the Temple's courts. Why did you do nothing then?"

Jesus was good both for extroverts and introverts. Sometimes He went to the people and sometimes they came separately to Him.

Yes, but when he was outside, it tended to be more in nature.

 

[Subduction Zone]

In the West I suppose there are probably not laws which try to openly destroy the Christian religion.
What I meant by anti Christian laws is laws which promote morality which is opposed to Christian morality.
This is what should be surprising in a country which is supposed to be a predominantly Christian country.
Since it is presumably largely Christians (in a predominantly Christian country) who are at least partially responsible for these law changes I wonder if that means that many Christians are changing their view about forcing Christian morality onto people who are not Christians.

Yes, you are not allowed to try to foist off your morality on others. That is why Christians do not have a patent on marriage. Their claims to do so are based upon an event that demonstrably did not happen and worse yet they do not even apply it as their holy book does.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sounds like you've met people who use the Christian label without the Christian lifestyle. There are good Christians out there!

Of course there are good Christians out there. But it is foolish to try to use No True Scotsman fallacies to deny that there are also quite a few bad and even evil Christians out there.

By the way, there is no "Christian lifestyle" anymore than there is a "gay lifestyle". That is an attempt by you to use a No True Scotsman fallacy again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

All four gospels record that Jesus frequently preached at the Capernaum synagogue, and He did miracles there. In Nazareth, he read from Isaiah about the Messianic prophecies. He taught in the Temple at age 12. When arrested and tried He said, "I taught daily in the Temple's courts. Why did you do nothing then?"

Jesus was good both for extroverts and introverts. Sometimes He went to the people and sometimes they came separately to Him.

It has been known for quite some time that Matthew, Mark, and Luke are all based upon Mark. So saying "all four" immediately become a "both" but now it is becoming more and more obvious that the author or authors of John were also aware of Mark and may have based parts of that Gospel on Mark. So it appears that your four sources is now either one or possibly two.

 

[Alien826]

Yes, you are not allowed to try to foist off your morality on others. That is why Christians do not have a patent on marriage. Their claims to do so are based upon an event that demonstrably did not happen and worse yet they do not even apply it as their holy book does.

We have to be careful here, as some moral rules are indeed enforced, and generally agreed with, like murder. Other moral rules are associated with a religious belief that is not generally shared, like not being allowed to open shops on Sunday. In any given case, where does the rule fall?

The two examples I gave are clear cut, though I suppose you could argue that many rules based on morality would be applied in a totally secular society and religion didn't invent or own them. (To our gay friends, I totally support your right to be whatever you are and to act accordingly. Just so you understand!)

On the other hand, it's very misleading to brand something like abortion a totally religious/secular thing. I suspect that in a secular society there would be a section of the population that would oppose abortion and try to get it banned or controlled. Hopefully they wouldn't argue that single cells were people, but whatever. I do understand it, though I'm on balance pro-choice. For example, I would support much stricter laws against the ill treatment of animals, and would enforce vegetarianism if I had the power. I feel I have the right to work in that direction if I choose.

 

[Ashoka]

For me such parades are more harassment than some individual preaching something. It is easier to ignore single person than horde of people.

So you'd rather hear someone being cursed out and verbally abused than see a group of people learn to love themselves?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Of course there are good Christians out there. But it is foolish to try to use No True Scotsman fallacies to deny that there are also quite a few bad and even evil Christians out there.

By the way, there is no "Christian lifestyle" anymore than there is a "gay lifestyle". That is an attempt by you to use a No True Scotsman fallacy again.

I will accept your NTS critique as valid--as soon as we mutually define what a Christian is.

I'll start--only people who trust Jesus for eternal life, per the Bible, are Christians (followers of Christ for salvation).

Thanks.

 

[BilliardsBall]

It has been known for quite some time that Matthew, Mark, and Luke are all based upon Mark. So saying "all four" immediately become a "both" but now it is becoming more and more obvious that the author or authors of John were also aware of Mark and may have based parts of that Gospel on Mark. So it appears that your four sources is now either one or possibly two.

It has been known for millennia that all four contain similarities and disparities. Markan priority has been around a fraction of that time and is conjectural--you must admit that since you question the traditional viewpoints of authorship based on textual evidence without any actual eyewitness or forensic evidence.

Regardless, Jesus in all four gospels preached frequently in synagogues and also, in public. The historicity of Jesus is undoubted by nearly every scholar: Historicity of Jesus - Wikipedia

 

[Subduction Zone]

I will accept your NTS critique as valid--as soon as we mutually define what a Christian is.

I'll start--only people who trust Jesus for eternal life, per the Bible, are Christians (followers of Christ for salvation).

Thanks.

No point to it. The fact is that neither you or I get to decide who is or who is not a Christian.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It has been known for millennia that all four contain similarities and disparities. Markan priority has been around a fraction of that time and is conjectural--you must admit that since you question the traditional viewpoints of authorship based on textual evidence without any actual eyewitness or forensic evidence.

Regardless, Jesus in all four gospels preached frequently in synagogues and also, in public. The historicity of Jesus is undoubted by nearly every scholar: Historicity of Jesus - Wikipedia

Too bad that you do not understand history.

 

[BilliardsBall]

No point to it. The fact is that neither you or I get to decide who is or who is not a Christian.

Who does get to decide? Do you have a definer in mind?

For example, going by your subjective "definition", I can say I'm an atheist who loves Jesus Christ!

 

[BilliardsBall]

Too bad that you do not understand history.

NOT AN ANSWER.

You don't understand Wikipedia!

It states unequivocally how nearly 100% of scholars believe Jesus was an actual person!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Who does get to decide? Do you have a definer in mind?

For example, going by your subjective "definition", I can say I'm an atheist who loves Jesus Christ!

No one gets to decide. One can only trust people when they say what their beliefs are. Why did you assume that someone gets to decide?

 

[Subduction Zone]

NOT AN ANSWER.

You don't understand Wikipedia!

It states unequivocally how nearly 100% of scholars believe Jesus was an actual person!

Oooh! A post that can be refuted by a "So what?"

There probably was a person that the myths are based upon. That does not mean that there is evidence for the myths or better yet legends. Do you know how quickly myths and legends can arise? Are you old enough to remember when Elvis died?

 

[QuestioningMind]

Whether it's at an LGBT event, a Pagan festival, or something as innocuous as a comic-con....street preachers abound. Christians harass women and other people who can have babies at clinics all the time.

This is just me asking you. Why do you guys feel the need to bother us so much? Can't you just leave us alone? Whatever happened to free will? Most of us grew up Christian, we know the Bible, we know about the "risks" we are taking. We non-Christians just want to live. Yes, technically in America it's protected under free speech. But can't you take a hint? We don't care. We want to live our lives.

Leave us alone.

(and yes, I know #notallchristians but it's enough of y'all for it to be a problem. Maybe you should address the issue at hand.)

That's how Christianity has become one of the most prominent religions in the world. They've been forcing it on others for centuries.

 

[BilliardsBall]

No one gets to decide. One can only trust people when they say what their beliefs are. Why did you assume that someone gets to decide?

Because that is an unscientific approach. Earth is the third planet from the Sun or there are complications.

We both know the dictionary definition of Christian--the Greek literally means "follower of Christ". We can start there if you wish.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Oooh! A post that can be refuted by a "So what?"

There probably was a person that the myths are based upon. That does not mean that there is evidence for the myths or better yet legends. Do you know how quickly myths and legends can arise? Are you old enough to remember when Elvis died?

Not only do I remember when Elvis died, I'm very good friends with Elvis Presley, Jr. and we've worked on projects together. I have some interesting hobbies.

Here's the problem, denial, if I may. You wrote "There probably was a person that the myths are based upon." Before talking about the myths, how about you acknowledge what nearly universally, scholars acknowledge. There WAS a person the myths were based on.

I cannot talk to you about metaphysical things when you deny elementary facts!