Why is Christianity demonized?

[Duper]

Here Roid, then let me use simple terms and big letters as you aren't seeming to understand:


ANYONE CAN WEAR A NIKE POLO SHIRT WITH THE LOGO ON IT. THAT DOES NOT MEAN THEY WORK FOR THEM.



There is more to a name, word, or title than it's collective meaning whether YOU want it to or not. A \"World view\" of Christianity is what Jesus warned us against. By it's very nature, the works hates Christ. I'm not at all surprised that this is not making a ton of sense to you.


p.s. Batmat you are not.

[Kilarin]

I thought one was the son and one was the father. That Jesus was God's first creation. If that's the case, how are they equal? I thought nobody was greater than god.

We had a long (and fun!) discussion on this topic in <this thread> that YOU started back 2 years ago. It's worth reading through again.

From a theological and apologetic point of view this is kind of funny. Man description of God from a secular (non-theological) source.

Actually no, and that's an important point. It's not Man's description of God, it's man description of a particular religion.

Keith Green once said that going to church no more makes you a Christian than going into a McDonald's makes a cheese burger. A bit silly, as it was intended, but you get the picture.

And, while I certainly AGREE with this idea in principle, it's not very useful from a linguistics point of view. Let me just quote from C. S. Lewis' book "Mere Christianity":

People ask: "Who are you, to lay down who is, and who is not a Christian?": or "May not many a man who cannot believe these doctrines be far more truly a Christian, far closer to the spirit of Christ, than some who do?" Now this objection is in one sense very right, very charitable, very spiritual, very sensitive. It has every available quality except that of being useful. We simply cannot, without disaster, use language as these objectors want us to use it. I will try to make this clear by the history of another, and very much less important, word.

The word gentleman originally meant something recognisable; one who had a coat of arms and some landed property. When you called someone "a gentleman" you were not paying him a compliment, but merely stating a fact. If you said he was not "a gentleman" you were not insulting him, but giving information. There was no contradiction in saying that John was a liar and a gentleman; any more than there now is in saying that James is a fool and an M.A. But then there came people who said - so rightly, charitably, spiritually, sensitively, so anything but usefully - "Ah but surely the important thing about a gentleman is not the coat of arms and the land, but the behaviour? Surely he is the true gentleman who behaves as a gentleman should? Surely in that sense Edward is far more truly a gentleman than John?" They meant well. To be honourable and courteous and brave is of course a far better thing than to have a coat of arms. But it is not the same thing. Worse still, it is not a thing everyone will agree about. To call a man "a gentleman" in this new, refined sense, becomes, in fact, not a way of giving information about him, but a way of praising him: to deny that he is "a gentleman" becomes simply a way of insulting him. When a word ceases to be a term of description and becomes merely a term of praise, it no longer tells you facts about the object: it only tells you about the speaker's attitude to that object. (A 'nice' meal only means a meal the speaker likes.) A gentleman, once it has been spiritualised and refined out of its old coarse, objective sense, means hardly more than a man whom the speaker likes. As a result, gentleman is now a useless word. We had lots of terms of approval already, so it was not needed for that use; on the other hand if anyone (say, in a historical work) wants to use it in its old sense, he cannot do so without explanations. It has been spoiled for that purpose.

Now if once we allow people to start spiritualising and refining, or as they might say 'deepening', the sense of the word Christian, it too will speedily become a useless word. In the first place, Christians themselves will never be able to apply it to anyone. It is not for us to say who, in the deepest sense, is or is not close to the spirit of Christ. We do not see into men's hearts. We cannot judge, and are indeed forbidden to judge. It would be wicked arrogance for us to say that any man is, or is not, a Christian in this refined sense. And obviously a word which we can never apply is not going to he a very useful word. As for the unbelievers, they will no doubt cheerfully use the word in the refined sense. It will become in their mouths simply a term of praise. In calling anyone a Christian they will mean that they think him a good man. But that way of using the word will be no enrichment of the language, for we already have the word good. Meanwhile, the word Christian will have been spoiled for any really useful purpose it might have served.

--C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

[Behemoth]

Like I said before, religion is just a mass psychosis in a socially accepted form.

The downside to religion is that it's used to force a type of social moral conformity onto others that are not a member of that religion.

This really makes decent sense to me in the fact that there is definitely a line drawn between a foolish person and a wise person, As well as other contrasts to human figurative persona.

However, I believe that no one is the same. and we are not all created equal.

And i reserve my right of choice and power of decision.

[roid]

the book of Mormon is a unique work. The LDS have their own translation of the bible however.

Really roid. you're only managing to show that you really don't understand what Christianity is about. It seems you've bought a lot of third hand hearsay. Which is really sad as there has been some very good teaching on exactly what Christianity is here.

Christianity, i was in the stage show. Been there done that man. And I now see very little that deviates from my world-view on what Christianity IS and ISN'T.

TL;DR stfu I'm the gawddamn batman.

ANYONE CAN WEAR A NIKE POLO SHIRT WITH THE LOGO ON IT. THAT DOES NOT MEAN THEY WORK FOR THEM.

There is more to a name, word, or title than it's collective meaning whether YOU want it to or not.

This "He's instantly not a Christian the moment he does something i don't like" point has already been brought up. Where you define Christianity as everything that YOU like and everything that you don't like is NOT Christianity. Your own personal Jesus.

I have been rather vague, yet you are responding to my vagurities all the same. It seems that you are currently taking offence to my saying that i understand Christianity. I havn't said what i DO understand about it - just that i do. And you disagree already. whoop-de-doo

A "World view" of Christianity is what Jesus warned us against.

Yeah, like i care.
Christian thought police.

[TIGERassault]

A Christian is someone that has a religion and believes Jesus Christ is the main God/the main son of the main God. Roughly.
That's it. No more, no less. Whether you might like it or not,any other values to being a Christian are nothing more than stereotypes.
Heck, you're even able to be a Christian Satanist if you believe Jesus was evil!

[Lothar]

I think that Christians play the oh-but-X-wasn't-really-a-Christian card a little too often, and that in and of itself is irksome. There is no easy litmus test for whether or not somebody is "really" a Christian.

Do they act as Christ did, and as Christ instructed? Do they demonstrate a transformed life? That seems like a pretty simple litmus test to me. Nothing "ad-hoc" about it.

Your post was a great illustration of my point: one reason Christianity is looked down upon is Guilt By Association. People 500 years ago did bad things? You define them as "your people" and therefore associate their deeds with all who share their label, regardless of how many differences exist between us. Fred Phelps, Mother Teresa, Adolf Hitler, and Martin Luther King all show up on the list of 20th century Christians using your definition, though it seems pretty silly to say Phelps and Hitler are MLK's "people".

All the wrangling about other definitions just amplifies the point. The broader the definition is, the more guilt by association there is. The more people who claim the label, the greater chance that at least one of them is evil. If the definition is so broad as to include Satanists (per TIGERassault), then speaking of Christianity as anything resembling a monolithic whole is just asking for trouble.

Christians are in the same boat. They think that everyone in the world has a terrible disease, and also that they know of the cure. It doesn't mean they are faking friendship just to get you to their church, quite the opposite.

There are some Christians whose idea of presenting the cure is to go around and say "there's a vaccine available and you're a BIG FAT IDIOT MORON JERKFACE if you don't take it." There are those whose idea of presenting the cure is to be real nice to somebody for a few weeks, tell them about the cure, and then never talk to them again.

Is that the sort of behavior you expect from someone who knows the cure and wants you to have it? Or is that the sort of behavior you expect from someone who wants another notch in their spiritual belt?

[Behemoth]

The sick need a doctor. Not a pill or arguments about how to get a cure.

As for myself, Anything i have read from the bible goes like this.

Did jesus say it or did he not say it.

After that i generally started to realize that EVERYTHING he said was more practical and more common wisdom but with a very radical twist on it at his time.

It's a fact that the majority of people do not embrace change, And i can look at this as either a flaw or a insecurity mechanism, Leading me to have the view i do on people who are mindful on their own opinions (Doubting professor who does not acknowledge anyone but his/her own ideals) But not open-minded to include facets of newer intellect, Or even granting it equal status.

To these people i don't even try to reason, They are unreasoning by nature and have become too obstinate, Hope would reassure me they have good intentions, But their actions prove what's really in their hearts and minds... That they don't Want to believe that anything is greater than themselves in the long run and they are insecure in that fact because they create an illusion where they are the ruler of their own universe answerable to none but themselves.

Seemingly this can come about as a problem considering the fact to have an intelligable open debate both sides would have to be considered equivalent to each other in nature and therefore no better or less.

But the way i see it is this, It's a part of human nature to have the \"Mines better yours is less\" Mentality with other people as a shield mechanism because they will not listen or simply can't comprehend the new idea that appears alien to them.

[Kilarin]

There are those whose idea of presenting the cure is to be real nice to somebody for a few weeks, tell them about the cure, and then never talk to them again.

Your point is valid (and a nice writeup in the link). I haven't actually run into these kinds of people a lot. If someone is just trying to get a few extra notches in their salvation belt, their behavior is certainly rude and worthy of disdain. But you shouldn't get offended just because a religious friend brings up the topic. Of course, Christians should also not be nags.

i generally started to realize that EVERYTHING he said was more practical and more common wisdom but with a very radical twist on it at his time.

Very true. And it is a shame that so many "Christians" don't follow Christ's method of dealing with the unconverted.

[Tunnelcat]

Religion is just a social construction created by man to explain God and the world. You can believe in God and not have to belong to a religion.

Most mainstream religions are very paternalistic, which sets all their teachings. Many religions also crave power and control over others, especially women, which I find evil.

Over 90% of all wars were caused by religious people in power that believed they were in the right. People were either subjugated or killed outright when conquered.

Now we have a President set upon bringing about the Rapture by starting the War to end all Wars, using terrorism as an excuse. That's just great isn't it? Another religious based needless war.

[Lothar]

Over 90% of all wars were caused by religious people in power that believed they were in the right.

Remove the word "religious" from that sentence and it'll be more accurate. Wars are caused by (any) people in power who believe they're right (for whatever reason -- religious, cultural, economic, etc.) Trying to place blame squarely on the feet of "religion" is, again, a lame attempt at guilt by association.

[Kilarin]

Remove the word "religious" from that sentence and it'll be more accurate.

Indeed, very very few modern wars have had anything to do with religion at all, and their death totals completely dwarf anything previous.

[Admiral Thrawn]

Remove the word "religious" from that sentence and it'll be more accurate.

Indeed, very very few modern wars have had anything to do with religion at all, and their death totals completely dwarf anything previous.

However, it's common knowledge that religion has had some very influential involvement in wars and politics. Especially when it comes to movivating troops. Very rare for a war or conflict to happen without religion fanning the flames.

[roid]

God bless America

[Duper]

Remove the word "religious" from that sentence and it'll be more accurate.

Indeed, very very few modern wars have had anything to do with religion at all, and their death totals completely dwarf anything previous.

However, it's common knowledge that religion has had some very influential involvement in wars and politics. Especially when it comes to motivating troops. Very rare for a war or conflict to happen without religion fanning the flames.

I think all major conflicts this last century would fall into that category ...the last sentence that is.

[Kilarin]

I think all major conflicts this last century would fall into that category ...the last sentence that is

exactly. The problem is one of humans and power.


When religion can be used as a source of power, it will be, and thus will be subject to abuse. This is one reason I'm so adamantly opposed to the unholy union of church and state. The church is SAFEST when it is NOT connected to political power structures.

[TechPro]

God bless America

Ditto that.

[roid]

do you ditto my sarcasm?

The closer America gets to war - the more \"God Bless America\"s i hear. \"God Bless America\" is America's inane WARCRY.

Republicans, War, Christianity, Intollerance, Military Industrial Complex, Soccermums, Football, Cows, Who wants to be a Millionare?

GOD AND WAR

[Duper]

do you ditto my sarcasm?

The closer America gets to war - the more "God Bless America"s i hear. "God Bless America" is America's inane WARCRY.

Republicans, War, Christianity, Intollerance, Military Industrial Complex, Soccermums, Football, Cows, Who wants to be a Millionare?

GOD AND WAR

who's the one being intolerant and hateful here Roid? It seems like you've only encountered the status quo in religion. People that are not applying it to their lives. From a Christian point of view (within our own religion) this is a big no no. being lukewarm or just "looking good" is not acceptable. It's an all or nothing thing. You won't here that teaching much across most mainstream pulpits. It's not popular. After all the 20th Century God of the Christian is become a big warm fuzzy candyman. so yeah. I understand your bitterness, but it's not focused at the right group.

And this whole God and War thing? There are far worse things to worry about in the near future. Us war mongers? LOL. Dude, look around you. We are the least of your worries. Besides, you don't live here. If your country has troops in action with us, address your nation's legislature. We aren't going to invade you. ... unless you blowup some of our buildings.

[TechPro]

do you ditto my sarcasm?

Nope, not your sarcasm. Just what the phrase is supposed to mean (and was the original intent), which is not necessarily how some people use it.

To me, it is similar to saying "May God bless America, that we may all find better ways to be and to live, to help us become better than we are now. That freedom and hope may continue, and not be extinguished by those who would do wrong to others."

Rarely have those blessings been needed more than they are now.

I'm happy to extend the same towards any other nation as well. I think ALL the nations of this world would benefit from the blessings of God. Sad that many strive so hard to avoid the blessings that could help them so much.

[Tunnelcat]

Does anybody remember when the phrase \"one nation, under God\" was put into the U.S. pledge of allegiance? It was during the Eisenhower administration in response to \"those Godless communists\" during the Cold War. By stating this in the pledge, we considered ourselves superior (on God's side) to the Soviet Union and gave ourselves a religious justification for all the aggressive posturing, almost to the point of nuclear Armageddon. Those of you that are younger don't remember the fear of us as school aged children having to \"duck and cover\" in the hallways or under our desks (like that would do any good other than to promote fear).

Maybe saying that religion causing 90% of all wars was a misstatement on my part. What I actually should have said is that religion plays a contributing part, especially in the justification of the murder of whole populations of people in many wars. Duper was right when he said that power is a main driving cause.

For example, look at Ireland and the 'Troubles', Catholic and Protestant infighting. How about Bosnia, Darfur, even World War 2 have religious undertones. If you were to look into the many past wars of the human race, religion would be a common factor in many of them, although not necessarily the main cause.

Christianity today has many denominations, quite a few don't agree with each other on many issues. What's scary today is the new Evangelical Christian and the mega churches they belong to. Many of their leaders now advocate that the accumulation of wealth is good and that corporations should be embraced and protected. Becoming politically active is now encouraged and promoted in church. Mass voting is also encouraged to get social reform passed. There was a recent Harper's magazine issue devoted to this if you don't believe me.

Whatever happened to help the poor as Jesus advocated in the Bible and the church keeping out of politics. Once you get into politics, then power will corrupt those involved, no matter how pious and right people think they are. And who's religion should have that power and do you care?

[roid]

do you ditto my sarcasm?

The closer America gets to war - the more "God Bless America"s i hear. "God Bless America" is America's inane WARCRY.

Republicans, War, Christianity, Intollerance, Military Industrial Complex, Soccermums, Football, Cows, Who wants to be a Millionare?

GOD AND WAR

who's the one being intolerant and hateful here Roid? It seems like you've only encountered the status quo in religion. People that are not applying it to their lives. From a Christian point of view (within our own religion) this is a big no no. being lukewarm or just "looking good" is not acceptable. It's an all or nothing thing. You won't here that teaching much across most mainstream pulpits. It's not popular. After all the 20th Century God of the Christian is become a big warm fuzzy candyman. so yeah. I understand your bitterness, but it's not focused at the right group.

And this whole God and War thing? There are far worse things to worry about in the near future. Us war mongers? LOL. Dude, look around you. We are the least of your worries. Besides, you don't live here. If your country has troops in action with us, address your nation's legislature. We aren't going to invade you. ... unless you blowup some of our buildings.

yep i'm riddled with pockets of intollerance and hatred. I don't mean to imply there is anything wrong with any of respective individual concepts i mentioned. But if taken together they interact and give you NeoConservative-Disorder. A disorder which is highly contagious in it's natural Church environment in which it spreads.

[snoopy]

I'll further muddy the waters in terms of the christian/non-christian debate.

Within the church, the terms \"visible church\" and \"invisible church\" get thrown around.

The \"visible church\" can be a lot of things, depending on your definition of what a \"christian\" is. In a micro sense, it's the people who attend a given church building and claim to be christians. In a macro sense, it could be anyone who claims the title \"christian.\"

Now, the \"invisible church\" are the people who genuinely are Christians- people who are actually going to heaven. Ultimately, no one knows who these people are, in a definitive sense. You can take a stab at it in saying that people who generally follow the teachings of the Bible and follow Christ's example are probably part of the invisible church, but the truth of the matter is that no one can follow the teachings of the Bible or Christ's example perfectly.... so how close do you really have to get? Well, the motivations of people is a good place to start.... (do they really want to follow these examples, or are they just talking out of their butts?) But then most of the time even we don't know our true intentions, so that's a hard test to enact.

So, Roid, that's why it's so easy for us to say that a given person \"must not have been a Christian\" - because we don't humanly really have a way to actually know if someone is genuinely a christian or not. What can be defined clearly is this: did a given act performed by a given person represent christian teachings, or not? So, the crusades are a clear example of actions that decidedly don't represent christian teachings, regardless of the state of the people who performed them. Likewise, ALL christians do things that don't represent the teachings of christianity, and I'd venture to say that ALL people who don't claim to be christians do things that do represent the teachings of christianity.

My point: it's not so much about the status of people, so much as the status of the actions that the people act out. The way that we assign the title \"christian\" is by the actions that they perform. You will see this as very convenient, but but really it's the only way to define any member of any group- do they represent the values/teachings of the group? A person can claim to be a soccer player all they want, and go to socer meetings, watch games, etc., but until they actually play the game, they're not really a player.