What are Christians getting wrong when dealing with non-Christians?

[Casper]

You may have a completely different experience than mine then because I have seen nothing of the sort. Then again, I've seen tons of Christians telling atheists they're going to burn in hell, so go figure.

Really, in all my years on discussion boards I do not recall anyone saying that, one or two hinted at it but that is not what I see as the norm. Sounds like a good study to pursue, think I can get a government grant for a Million or so to do a couple hours worth of actual research?:mrgreen:

 

[Logicman]

Non-believers cannot understand Christianity and the Bible because their truths are spiritually discerned, and the carnal mind cannot comprehend them.

"The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them." -1 Corinthians 2:14

 

[Manc Skipper]

Really, in all my years on discussion boards I do not recall anyone saying that, one or two hinted at it but that is not what I see as the norm. Sounds like a good study to pursue, think I can get a government grant for a Million or so to do a couple hours worth of actual research?:mrgreen:

Hint. The chap posting between your post and my post often berates non-Christians in the get your come-uppance/you'll be sorry/rotting in hell- type vein alluded to.

 

[CrabCake]

There is a difference in living your life by your standards, and insisting that other people live their lives by your standards.. That is the point you don't get.

I totally get that point.

But that's not what was being discussed here. It wasn't the point I was responding to. The point I was responding to was a bizarre idea that somehow religion could and should be something that is separate from your every day life.

 

[pinqy]

Non-believers cannot understand Christianity and the Bible because their truths are spiritually discerned, and the carnal mind cannot comprehend them.

If that were true, then there would be no point to the Bible. If the truths can't be understood unless you already accept them, then you don't actually need them in the first place.

 

[Logicman]

If that were true, then there would be no point to the Bible. If the truths can't be understood unless you already accept them, then you don't actually need them in the first place.

Ahh - but there's help available if the individual is really serious. It's Jeremiah 29:13 - "You shall find me (God) when you search for me with all your heart." Then God will draw you to him (John 6:44).

 

[Casper]

Hint. The chap posting between your post and my post often berates non-Christians in the get your come-uppance/you'll be sorry/rotting in hell- type vein alluded to.

Hint, for every such chap there are 10 that go the opposite way. People can claim anything they want but when the words are posted all over site such as that show who does what and most often do so then any argument attempting to discount is baseless.

 

[Dragonfly]

If that were true, then there would be no point to the Bible. If the truths can't be understood unless you already accept them, then you don't actually need them in the first place.

You do understand the difference between "truths" and "faith" don't you?

I'm very confused as to what you really want to accomplish with your thread here. What is it exactly you want to know?
Why non-believers don't believe?
What?

 

[Hawkins]

A classic analogy is Kissing Hank's Butt[/ur;] (yes, I'm using the sanitized version to be cautious) which captures how non-Christians, especially atheists, view proslytizing.

I would be surprized to hear any atheist think that the analogy is not dead-on, and I would be surprised if any Christian thought the analogy accurate. So Christians are missing something when their preaching sounds so ridiculous to non-believers.

Christians....what do you think it is? Why do you think your message sounds so nonsensical to the rest of us?

The more accurate analogy is like this,

There's message saying that "there's a bomb in your house". The message is from a group of people who have sacrificed their lives in order to bring the message out. We (Christians) try to spread the message the best we can to spread the message because we believe that the message is true. On the other hand, some guys inside the house keep arguing that "leaving the house or you die" means "kissing my butt or we kick you out".

We are to spread the message, in the end it's your own life. It's up to you to decide to leave the house or to stay. So don't sound as if we are forcing you to leave that house. If the bomb turns out to be a hoax then everyone's happy. If at some point it blasts while you are in the house guess who cares, you or us?!

 

[Hawkins]

If that were true, then there would be no point to the Bible. If the truths can't be understood unless you already accept them, then you don't actually need them in the first place.

The Bible acts as a call to His sheep. As long as all God's sheep are called and answered, His job is done. He has no obligation and whatsoever to ensure that the wolves or goats to understand. In contrary the opposite may be true;

Matthew 13:12 (NIV)
Whoever has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him.

 

[William Rea]

What are Christians getting wrong when dealing with non-Christians? This thread starting at around page 5 explains it a little.

 

[Manc Skipper]

Hint, for every such chap there are 10 that go the opposite way. People can claim anything they want but when the words are posted all over site such as that show who does what and most often do so then any argument attempting to discount is baseless.

Not the point. You asserted never to have seen the behaviour commonly exhibited by the next poster to yours. Irony meter explodes.

 

[pinqy]

Ahh - but there's help available if the individual is really serious. It's Jeremiah 29:13 - "You shall find me (God) when you search for me with all your heart." Then God will draw you to him (John 6:44).

But that's one of the things I don't get. If it doesn't and can't make sense until you believe, then how does one get to that point? And how is the process different from brain washing?

 

[maquiscat]

A classic analogy is Kissing Hank's Butt[/ur;] (yes, I'm using the sanitized version to be cautious) which captures how non-Christians, especially atheists, view proslytizing.

I would be surprized to hear any atheist think that the analogy is not dead-on, and I would be surprised if any Christian thought the analogy accurate. So Christians are missing something when their preaching sounds so ridiculous to non-believers.

Christians....what do you think it is? Why do you think your message sounds so nonsensical to the rest of us?

I am a Christian and I think this is dead on for many who claim the religion. Sadly, these people don't seem to get it through their heads that they are driving more people away from God, in one form or another, than they bring to Him. Now I can see where some people can look at some of the miracle stories and have problems, and where others have issues when Christians try to go too literal with the words. But there are many aspects that do require some belief or suspension of belief, or at least acceptance that there can be more than what we currently know.

I try to work more from a perspective of WWJD.

 

[maquiscat]

Oh, everybody can be an asshole and no group has a monopoly on that.

I obviously can only speak for myself, but if I had a belief that other's perceived as nonsensical then I would accept that there was a disconnect somewhere and I would try to find out WHY it comes across as nonsense. Perhaps it is and I'm the one in the wrong. Perhaps understanding it requires certain assumptions. I would try to figure out the issue. That's why I started the thread...I would want someone to point such things out to me and I would want to discuss it.

This. I would have to say that any religious belief, hell, even a set upon lack of "belief", requires certain assumptions. I try to work with the idea of, if you assume X, does y make sense? If so then you should go back and see if you can make X make sense within the framework of your knowledge. I also note that simply because one cannot provide proof of their experiences does not mean they didn't have them, so now you have to ask if they feel credible to you? It's harder for me to put out as a concise package per se. I work well with talking to others face to face and get the feedback to know if what I am saying makes sense.

 

[maquiscat]

So you just enjoy living in ignorance going about your day to day life with absolutely no clue whether you're completely wasting your time worshiping a god that doesn't even exist? People who believe in religious nonsense are highly susceptible to manipulation in the name of their religion. That can cause all sorts of problems for the rest of the world.

There is a major problem with your argument here. "Waste of time". You are trying to impose your view of a subjective value here. Just because you find it a waste of time, does not mean it is for someone else. I personally find televised sports a major waste of time. It is safe to say that there are many who disagree. Additionally, trying to argue that someone is susceptible simply because of religious beliefs is painting with a broad brush. Now I might go along with the idea more for people that are working on blind faith and just accepting their religion because someone said to, instead of searching, internally and externally, to determine if this is truly what they believe. But even that is iffy.

 

[maquiscat]

Interesting.

I would think that the more difficult thing to do would be to separate out your religion from everything else you do. If your religion isn't at the heart of who you are and how you live; if it's something that you can somehow separate out from your every day life. Then how is it a genuine religion? Of What value is it?

I find the idea of "stuffing your religion into everything you do" kind of weird. I would think if you have genuine religion you wouldn't need to stuff it into anything, it would simply show itself in all you do naturally. The hard part would be keeping it from affecting some parts of your life.

I will agree with the first part insofar as it is true for many religious people. The problem is the stereotypical view of what that means is. My religion is at the heart of all I say, do and think. I am offering up hundreds of tiny prayers a day, and occasionally larger ones as needed. Prayers of thanks mostly, I try not to ask for too much. But many would not view me as religious or truly religious simply because it is not in your face visible, which is what many religious and non-religious alike thinks being religious is like.

 

[maquiscat]

Strangely I rarely ever see Christians starting threads attacking Atheists yet it is fairly common to see Atheists to attack Christians and their beliefs.

Not true. Christians simply start them on specific topics. See the What is marriage for thread in the sexuality section as an example.

 

[maquiscat]

I look christian, but I don't consider myself to be one.

I am kind of lost on that statement. What does a Christian look like? And for that matter, can you describe the looks of a Wiccian, a Druid, a Jew, and a follower of Diana?

Or are you referring to a stereotype?

 

[maquiscat]

What exactly is "crap" about it? Fact: the example in the OP link is exactly how many see Christianity: Contradictory, unsupported, and altogether strange.
Fact: no Christian sees Christianity that way.
Therefore somebody is missing something...either Christians cannot explain it properly. If it makes so much sense to one side it should also make sense to the other, even if the other disagrees with the conclusions.

Fact: many Christians see how fanatical Christians attempt to spread the word like that and how much nonsense it is. The delivery not necessarily the religion.

However some are definitely explaining it properly, since there is a large segment of the "born again" types of Christians, as opposed to those who were raised in the religion.

 

[maquiscat]

I do not agree with fanatics of any ilk. That said my statement stands based on a long experience dealing with Atheists that seem to have an issue with Christianity and Christians themselves.

The evangelical atheists? They are just as bad any evangelical or fundamentalist of any religion.

 

[Dragonfly]

I am kind of lost on that statement. What does a Christian look like? And for that matter, can you describe the looks of a Wiccian, a Druid, a Jew, and a follower of Diana?

Or are you referring to a stereotype?

Yep. White American. Light hair. Green eyes. Fair skin. WASP.

There's always an element of truth in all stereotypes isn't there?

 

[Mach]

Sure, but do cultural standards impact those beyond just that one culture?

Culture wars are real, and can mutate into actual physical wars, genocide, terrorism, stunting an entire nation for decades, etc.

All this "any side that proselytizes is bad" is just PC bull****.

We teach science in public schools, we don't teach religion, for a ****ing reason. If you are preaching B.S., you should be put in your place. If you are teaching reality, this is called education.

Of course a newly minted atheist, bitter from being lied to by parents and friend for their entire early life, may let that bitterness and feeling of having been betrayed, spill over into some angsty backlash against evangelicals. Do you blame them? In god we trust.

 

[maquiscat]

If that were true, then there would be no point to the Bible. If the truths can't be understood unless you already accept them, then you don't actually need them in the first place.

As much as I disagree with many of his views, that is not what he said. He is talking about how things are discerned, or perceived. One can do that from writings. He is basically saying that you have to be capable of recognizing a truth before you can accept it.

 

[MrWonka]

There is a major problem with your argument here. "Waste of time". You are trying to impose your view of a subjective value here. Just because you find it a waste of time, does not mean it is for someone else.

If you're spending your time worshiping a god that doesn't exist then it is not subjective whether that is a waste of time.

trying to argue that someone is susceptible simply because of religious beliefs is painting with a broad brush.

No it actually isn't. All people who believe in a god have something in common. The belief in a magical being with no real evidence. Anyone who believes in magic is at least susceptible to heavy manipulation. That doesn't necessarily mean they will fall for it. It also doesn't mean those that are not religious can't be manipulated, but it is certainly easier on those who already believe in ridiculous magic fantasies.

Now I might go along with the idea more for people that are working on blind faith and just accepting their religion because someone said to, instead of searching, internally and externally, to determine if this is truly what they believe. But even that is iffy.

LOL!! "Blind Faith".... the word itself is ridiculous. It implies that there is actually a type of faith with some kind of clarity of vision. The whole notion of searching internally and externally is a search for "Evidence" that realistically invalidates the faith.