• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

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

BelieveNU

Banned
Joined
May 10, 2016
Messages
124
Reaction score
39
Location
Where i Stand, trust.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
First, props to Pingy, and their thread which inspired this. If you haven't, you should check it out. Good stuff. I'mma link it, if that's okay. If not, I'm sure someone will correct me ^.^

http://www.debatepolitics.com/relig...ans-getting-wrong-dealing-non-christians.html

So, after participating and enjoying some back and forth in the linked thread, I had to wonder, "What's the problem with people having faith in something greater than themselves?" Everyone seems to get so heated so quick. Type in caps like they are ligit angery, all that. And I don't say that to call out or single, I'm just sayin as respectfully as my knowledge of grammar allows. Sad, but true.

In an age that begs of tolerance for nearly any and everything, seems those that love Jesus are the lest tolerated of all. Love mohammad? No one is gonna tell ya he wasn't real. Into Buddah, and no one claims he's a comglomeration of persons. But speak the name of the Christ, and not only is it unacceptable, but met with insults. People referring to those in the faith as ignorant, deluded, etc. Just negative words wherever they can be placed. It's sad really.

I know those in the truth will endure this and all other storms from here to there, and can only pray that those that preach tolerance in all other areas might start being atleast respectful, kind, to someone, even if they dare claim Christ as savior.

Peace be with you all. And thanks for your time. ^.^
 

Quag

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 8, 2012
Messages
29,453
Reaction score
12,885
Location
Earth
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
There is nothing with with people having faith in something greater than themselves.
The problems occur when people try to impose their beliefs on others.
 

OrphanSlug

A sinister place...
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 24, 2011
Messages
24,392
Reaction score
21,369
Location
Atlanta
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Perhaps the bigger problem is the assumption of tolerance, especially when it comes to politics.

It becomes a bit argumentative to suggest that those without faith are less tolerant of those of faith than the other way around. Some perspective, personal experience, and perhaps skewed commentary and reporting may give someone that impression but we risk hypocrisy saying it is always the case.

As a whole as a nation there is too many examples of intolerance all over our history including today in more than just between faith and those without faith, but from liberalism to conservatism forms of governance as well. Something else we cannot ignore is modern politics overall has become so divisive, polarizing, and combative that there really is no tolerance of opposition views on just about anything. Most hot-button topics end up polarizing, and just to get there suggests lack of tolerance of someone else's position on the matter. Take any of them. Abortion, gun rights, the so called "War on Drugs," economics, religion in governance, science (even evolution vs. creationism,) education, etc. they all end up with extreme views that by their very nature are not that inclusive of other takes on these subjects.

There *should not* be a problem with someone having faith, but it has become an issue in the realm of politics because often times faith is *not* checked at the door when it comes to governance over themselves and others.

It would be wrong to suggest that social conservatism is all about maximum liberty and freedoms, and it would be equally wrong to say that modern liberalism is any better with liberty and freedoms. We have had this political and social pendulum that has gone back and forth where even the concept of "live and let live" no longer applies.

I am no longer convinced there is a political or social demographic that has the high moral ground here when it comes to tolerance of others.
 

TheGoverness

Little Miss Sunshine
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
35,043
Reaction score
37,630
Location
Houston Area, TX
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Even though I am very much against religion, I don't care if one has faith. I won't ever try to prevent someone from having or expressing their faith. I just don't want anyone to force/impose their beliefs on anyone else.
 

OrphanSlug

A sinister place...
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 24, 2011
Messages
24,392
Reaction score
21,369
Location
Atlanta
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Even though I am very much against religion, I don't care if one has faith. I won't ever try to prevent someone from having or expressing their faith. I just don't want anyone to force/impose their beliefs on anyone else.

In a perfect environment that would be the case. It would not matter what my beliefs are (or lack thereof), nor would it matter what someone else's beliefs are (or lack thereof.)

The issue is religion in politics, and the secondary issue is faction oriented thinking. With that you inherently become adversarial to some other faction. We all have the right to associate and organize, the issue becomes the suggestion that by faction we know what is best for someone else. Welcome to modern governance, and welcome to the real reason that neither modern liberalism nor modern conservatism can deal with tolerance of others. We made this happen over the long term by applying the idea of deciding standards. Governmental, social, economic, whatever else we established an orientation that suggested appealing to 50%+1 as a means to tell the minority what those standards are.
 

BelieveNU

Banned
Joined
May 10, 2016
Messages
124
Reaction score
39
Location
Where i Stand, trust.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
When I opened this question, I wasn't sure what responses I would get. So far, amazing and positive. Thank you all for your input, I really appreciate it. ^.^
 

Cephus

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 15, 2007
Messages
31,034
Reaction score
11,932
Location
CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
It all depends. I really don't care what you want to believe in your head, I care what those beliefs do to your actions in the real world. It's when people start pretending they get special rights and special privileges because they believe in imaginary friends that things get nasty, and they should. Your run of the mill Christian or Muslim or Buddhist or Scientologist who goes to church and reads their holy book and pretty much keeps it to themselves and doesn't try to impose their beliefs on others, more power to you. But the ones who insist that they're magically right because they have blind faith, that's another matter.
 

fmw

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2013
Messages
12,361
Reaction score
3,358
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Even though I am very much against religion, I don't care if one has faith. I won't ever try to prevent someone from having or expressing their faith. I just don't want anyone to force/impose their beliefs on anyone else.

I would argue that religion, by defining a moral code, helps keep society on the straight and narrow. You and I might behave morally simply because it is better for society that we and others do that. Obviously others do not. My gut feeling is that there would be more immoral behavior without religion. I don't practice religion but I certainly am not very much against it. It think it provides more benefit to society than harm by a long shot.

I had a couple of visits from evangelists knocking on the door. They were not aggressive and went on their way when I asked them to. Otherwise I have never encountered anyone trying to convert me to religion in my relatively long life. How is it that religious people are forcing their beliefs on you?
 

TheGoverness

Little Miss Sunshine
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
35,043
Reaction score
37,630
Location
Houston Area, TX
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
I would argue that religion, by defining a moral code, helps keep society on the straight and narrow. You and I might behave morally simply because it is better for society that we and others do that. Obviously others do not. My gut feeling is that there would be more immoral behavior without religion. I don't practice religion but I certainly am not very much against it. It think it provides more benefit to society than harm by a long shot.

I had a couple of visits from evangelists knocking on the door. They were not aggressive and went on their way when I asked them to. Otherwise I have never encountered anyone trying to convert me to religion in my relatively long life. How is it that religious people are forcing their beliefs on you?

Well I guess I'm in a more "special" situation than everyone else. This is mainly just involving my parents trying to force there religion on me.

And BTW, what exactly/specifically do you mean by "Immoral Behavior?"
 

fmw

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2013
Messages
12,361
Reaction score
3,358
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Well I guess I'm in a more "special" situation than everyone else. This is mainly just involving my parents trying to force there religion on me.

And BTW, what exactly/specifically do you mean by "Immoral Behavior?"

Immoral behavior is behavior that hurts other people. It is behavior that is not in the best interests of society. I guess you need to have a sit down with your parents.
 

Un biased

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2013
Messages
1,642
Reaction score
522
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
I have encountered far more Christians in debating online and offline than that of any other faith or religion. It is also, in the country in which I reside ( the United states ) the religion that is trying to impose its political agenda .In general I'm not tolerant to those who are trying to do so , as said before it's not a biased towards Christians they just happen to be the majority.
 
Last edited:

D_NATURED

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 9, 2014
Messages
5,376
Reaction score
2,649
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Whether anyone has faith is hard to really tell. We can, however, determine if their beliefs were derived of an arbitrary religious tradition or a deliberative, scientific process. Where the former does not tread upon the latter, I have no problem. To continue to push creationism in schools or to oppose equal rights for gay people or women is where faith crosses the line.

Too often, faith gets defended on vague philosophical grounds when, in actuality, it manifests as one of only several very specific and, often cruel, traditions that rose in the Middle East over the last couple of millennium. Objectively, the Abrahamic faiths are rife with examples of intolerance and violence.

When an aspect of your faith is that it is not personal but universal, tyranny is the inevitable result.
 

Celebrity

DP Veteran
Joined
May 13, 2016
Messages
5,257
Reaction score
761
Location
VT, USA
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
First, religion is a code which operates on the currency of faith. So I can be spiritual without being religious if I don't belong to community of like-minded individuals. I find that the homogeneity of church is a limiting factor because it has an impact on individual parishioners. It's a straightforward concept. In fact, the U.S. offers a uniquely diverse population, or melting pot of different faiths. So we can compare a sample of Christians scientifically to a sample of people who do or do not actively practice other faiths, whereas this thread is pitting Christians against non Christians inasmuch as they are secular.

The conclusion I draw from this is that Christianity has historically provided a very rigid set of guidelines which unites communities. Secular people appear disorganized to non-Christians. In Christianity and other faiths, paternal lineage is a matter of great importance where maternal lineage is not, and vice-versa. So be very careful when dealing with non-Christians in a discussion of what non-Christians are doing wrong. Becoming of secular individuals in a society which discerns faiths requires operating with some level of respect in order to assign value. This is particularly challenging for people who have recently left communities of faith and lack the support network and immediate gratification or integration which is in abundance everywhere.

What non-Christians may be getting "wrong" arises in the special case of people who were once Christian, but are no more. This is clear among Christian families with family members who are not operating within the family on the basis of faith. That matter becomes a question of how to introduce a degree of freedom which is inherently separate from previous exchanges.

I would argue that religion, by defining a moral code, helps keep society on the straight and narrow. You and I might behave morally simply because it is better for society that we and others do that. Obviously others do not. My gut feeling is that there would be more immoral behavior without religion. I don't practice religion but I certainly am not very much against it. It think it provides more benefit to society than harm by a long shot.

I had a couple of visits from evangelists knocking on the door. They were not aggressive and went on their way when I asked them to. Otherwise I have never encountered anyone trying to convert me to religion in my relatively long life. How is it that religious people are forcing their beliefs on you?
 

CrabCake

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2014
Messages
1,925
Reaction score
694
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Progressive
In Christianity and other faiths, paternal lineage is a matter of great importance where maternal lineage is not, and vice-versa.

I'm not sure where you get that impression. That certainly doesn't seem to be the case in contemporary US Christianity. Do you have some specific examples in mind?
 

Celebrity

DP Veteran
Joined
May 13, 2016
Messages
5,257
Reaction score
761
Location
VT, USA
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I'm not sure where you get that impression. That certainly doesn't seem to be the case in contemporary US Christianity. Do you have some specific examples in mind?

I am glad you asked. I agree the distinction should be made with cosmopolitan Christianity and fringe groups like FLDS Church, which is actually Mormon. Although Christianity and patriarchal families often coincide, I was referring more to the lineage of the Abrahamic variety. In Judaism, the birth right according to Rabbinic Judaism is maternal, if I'm not mistaken. Rastafarian beliefs "trace Haile Selassie's lineage back to King Solomon and the Queen of Sheba."

I was trying to be inclusive and appeal to the idea of non-Christianity in a broader sense. I may have also confused the use of the word "Father" to refer to a priest in the church. Do you think this would apply in a historical sense, for example to Anabaptist, Swiss, radical reformer Conrad Grebel?
 
Last edited:

CrabCake

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2014
Messages
1,925
Reaction score
694
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Progressive
I am glad you asked. I agree the distinction should be made with cosmopolitan Christianity and fringe groups like FLDS Church, which is actually Mormon. Although Christianity and patriarchal families often coincide, I was referring more to the lineage of the Abrahamic variety. In Judaism, the birth right according to Rabbinic Judaism is maternal, if I'm not mistaken. Rastafarian beliefs "trace Haile Selassie's lineage back to King Solomon and the Queen of Sheba."

I was trying to be inclusive and appeal to the idea of non-Christianity in a broader sense. I may have also confused the use of the word "Father" to refer to a priest in the church. Do you think this would apply in a historical sense, for example to Anabaptist, Swiss, radical reformer Conrad Grebel?

I still don't understand what you are talking about. Paternal lineage is of no importance whatsoever to Christianity. You called it of great importance, so I was wondering how you came to that conclusion. It seems you aren't sure how you came to that conclusion yourself. Patrilineage and matrilineage are cultural standards and have nothing to do with Christianity. When Christianity spread to countries that place greater emphasis on maternal lineage (most of Latin America, for example), it has made no attempt to change that. Christianity has simply been completely uninterested in that topic and continues to be so today. I really don't know where you are coming from on this.

I didn't read the whole link you gave, but from the looks of it you are confusing a figure of speech for a literal reading of it. Conrad Grebel is considered the father of Anabaptism in the same way that Stan Lee or Jack Kirby might be called "the father of the modern comic book super hero" or that Elvis might be called "the father of Rock 'n Roll". It has nothing to do with tracing lineage. It's entirely about the contribution they made in pioneering a new genre or way of thinking.
 
Last edited:

Celebrity

DP Veteran
Joined
May 13, 2016
Messages
5,257
Reaction score
761
Location
VT, USA
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I still don't understand what you are talking about. Paternal lineage is of no importance whatsoever to Christianity. You called it of great importance, so I was wondering how you came to that conclusion. It seems you aren't sure how you came to that conclusion yourself. Patrilineage and matrilineage are cultural standards and have nothing to do with religion. When Christianity spreads to countries that place greater emphasis on maternal lineage (most of Latin America, for example), Christianity has made no attempt to change that. It's simply not a matter that Christianity cares abouto at all.

In a mathematical sense, the operator AND includes two sets. Through the inclusion of the two sets "Christianity and other faiths," my statement is true on the basis that other faiths operate in patriarchal societies, where patrilineage is important. I do not need to prove that Christianity is changing society in this way. Setting aside the concept of a temple, I accept the fact that spirituality and culture have mutually distinct properties. Are you trying to tell me that I am confused because I am not a direct descendant of God? That is not my point. I am well aware that Christians accept people into the faith who were not born into Christian families. I am convinced that Rabbinical Jews convert people who cannot trace their roots to a Jewish woman through matrilineage, especially within marriage as a religious rite.
 

CrabCake

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2014
Messages
1,925
Reaction score
694
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Progressive
In a mathematical sense, the operator AND includes two sets. Through the inclusion of the two sets "Christianity and other faiths," my statement is true on the basis that other faiths operate in patriarchal societies, where patrilineage is important.

That doesn't make any sense. That would be akin to saying "Americans and other cultures place great emphasis on royal bloodlines", then justifying your statement by saying there are cultures out there wherein royal lineage is important, thus your statement is true.

To make matters worse, you switched from saying that it is important to those religions, to now claiming it is important to the cultures those religions happen to be in (and not to the religion itself).

I do not need to prove that Christianity is changing society in this way. Setting aside the concept of a temple, I accept the fact that spirituality and culture have mutually distinct properties. Are you trying to tell me that I am confused because I am not a direct descendant of God? That is not my point. I am well aware that Christians accept people into the faith who were not born into Christian families. I am convinced that Rabbinical Jews convert people who cannot trace their roots to a Jewish woman through matrilineage, especially within marriage as a religious rite.

No, I'm just trying to figure out what it is you are saying and what you are basing it on.

Christianity simply has nothing to say about paternal lineage, yet you listed it as being among a set of religious beliefs wherein it is of "great importance". I'm trying to figure out how you reached that conclusion and what greater point you are trying to make based on that.
 

Celebrity

DP Veteran
Joined
May 13, 2016
Messages
5,257
Reaction score
761
Location
VT, USA
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
That doesn't make any sense. That would be akin to saying "Americans and other cultures place great emphasis on royal bloodlines", then justifying your statement by saying there are cultures out there wherein royal lineage is important, thus your statement is true.

To make matters worse, you switched from saying that it is important to those religions, to now claiming it is important to the cultures those religions happen to be in (and not to the religion itself).



No, I'm just trying to figure out what it is you are saying and what you are basing it on.

Christianity simply has nothing to say about paternal lineage, yet you listed it as being among a set of religious beliefs wherein it is of "great importance". I'm trying to figure out how you reached that conclusion and what greater point you are trying to make based on that.

Ok well I am not saying that patrilineage is of religious importance in the religion Christianity. I am saying that patrilineage is of importance to Christians who exist in patriarchal structures.

If it's not true for part of the statement, then I spoke too broadly. I'm not boasting, I'm trying to include interfaith communities where Christians and non Christians have some basis for common values. Otherwise, I think the answer to the OP is quite clear - they're not dealing with Christians.
 

Visbek

Stuck In The Circle
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
19,126
Reaction score
12,781
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
So, after participating and enjoying some back and forth in the linked thread, I had to wonder, "What's the problem with people having faith in something greater than themselves?"
I don't have a problem with it.

That said: Any 88 page thread on Debate Politics is going to have its fair share of temper tantrums and bad behaviors. C'est la guerre.


In an age that begs of tolerance for nearly any and everything, seems those that love Jesus are the lest tolerated of all.
I'm sorry, but that is absurd. It's spoken like someone who has absolutely no clue what it means to be in a targeted group.

70% of Americans are Christian; only 3% are atheists. Are Christians not tolerating themselves?

Do businesses routinely refuse to serve Christians? Do police routinely arrest Christians? Do zoning boards send threatening letters to citizens who put Christmas decorations on their homes? Do county clerks refuse to issue marriage certificates to Christians?

And what happens when you ask Americans how they feel about members of various religious groups?

PF_14.07.16_interreligiousRelations_totalRatings1.png



Love mohammad? No one is gonna tell ya he wasn't real.
1) There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that Mohammed was a historical person.

2) There is almost no doubt that Jesus was a historical person.

The difference, by the way, is that Mohammed gained substantial success and political power during his lifetime, including unifying the various Arab tribes, and founding a short-lived dynasty. Jesus, in contrast, was basically a nobody during his life; he had a small following in a backwater Roman province, and was executed like a common criminal. His influence and fame came after his demise.

Next?


Into Buddah, and no one claims he's a comglomeration of persons.
1) It's "Buddha" and "conglomeration"

2) The earliest extant Buddhist scriptures is the Pali Canon, which was written about 450 years after the death of Gotama Buddha. We assume he was a single historical figure, but the evidence isn't quite as strong. Meanwhile, there is just as much analysis and discussion of the historicity of the Pali Canon as there is of the New Testament.

3) I've never seen anyone suggest that Jesus is a composite.


But speak the name of the Christ, and not only is it unacceptable, but met with insults. People referring to those in the faith as ignorant, deluded, etc. Just negative words wherever they can be placed. It's sad really.
Let's face it, many of the faithful act in an ignorant, arrogant, deluded and intolerant way. They also act irrevocably aggrieved at the slightest social change, let alone criticism.

This does not excuse misbehavior on anyone's part, but: Sometimes, you get what you give.
 

Multicam

New member
Joined
May 17, 2016
Messages
21
Reaction score
9
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
First, props to Pingy, and their thread which inspired this. If you haven't, you should check it out. Good stuff. I'mma link it, if that's okay. If not, I'm sure someone will correct me ^.^

http://www.debatepolitics.com/relig...ans-getting-wrong-dealing-non-christians.html

So, after participating and enjoying some back and forth in the linked thread, I had to wonder, "What's the problem with people having faith in something greater than themselves?" Everyone seems to get so heated so quick. Type in caps like they are ligit angery, all that. And I don't say that to call out or single, I'm just sayin as respectfully as my knowledge of grammar allows. Sad, but true.

In an age that begs of tolerance for nearly any and everything, seems those that love Jesus are the lest tolerated of all. Love mohammad? No one is gonna tell ya he wasn't real. Into Buddah, and no one claims he's a comglomeration of persons. But speak the name of the Christ, and not only is it unacceptable, but met with insults. People referring to those in the faith as ignorant, deluded, etc. Just negative words wherever they can be placed. It's sad really.

I know those in the truth will endure this and all other storms from here to there, and can only pray that those that preach tolerance in all other areas might start being atleast respectful, kind, to someone, even if they dare claim Christ as savior.

Peace be with you all. And thanks for your time. ^.^

There is nothing wrong with anyone having a belief in something greater than themselves. Part of a human's natural rights involves the freedom to believe in whatever religion he wishes.

I see the intolerance of Christians, especially compared to other religious people, as being something exceptional. I'm been on the internet a long time and read quite a bit; no other religion is attacked with half the seeming ferocity that Christianity receives. I think this is largely due to the rising belief in toleration and inclusiveness. The trouble many people who have beliefs in this tolerance and inclusiveness have with Christianity is because Christianity is intolerant of many things liberals are pushing for acceptance these days, and it is an exclusive religion.

Christianity requires a life commitment, namely the belief that Jesus Christ died on the cross as the perfect sacrifice for one's sins, and accepting Him as one's Lord and Savior. And the Christian community states that if you don't accept these things, you cannot be a Christian. Therefore it is exclusive, because it states that its leader, Jesus Christ, while he will allow anyone to be a part of the religion, they must first honestly and sincerely accept Him as Lord and Savior. And while someone can merely accept Christ as Lord and Savior and do nothing else and still be a Christian, Christians themselves and the Bible both recommend trying to live like Christ, that is, following his example in the Bible. And since Christ's example is diametrically opposed to many of the movements of society today, society on a conscious and often subconscious level hates Him and His followers.

One last thing: I am a Christian, but I am not trying to preach to anyone; I am not trying to convert anyone. A question of why Christians aren't tolerated has been asked, and I am seeking to explain why from my perspective. Understand: stating one's beliefs is not equal to trying to force those beliefs on others.
 

Celebrity

DP Veteran
Joined
May 13, 2016
Messages
5,257
Reaction score
761
Location
VT, USA
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
There is nothing wrong with anyone having a belief in something greater than themselves. Part of a human's natural rights involves the freedom to believe in whatever religion he wishes.

I see the intolerance of Christians, especially compared to other religious people, as being something exceptional. I'm been on the internet a long time and read quite a bit; no other religion is attacked with half the seeming ferocity that Christianity receives. I think this is largely due to the rising belief in toleration and inclusiveness. The trouble many people who have beliefs in this tolerance and inclusiveness have with Christianity is because Christianity is intolerant of many things liberals are pushing for acceptance these days, and it is an exclusive religion.

Christianity requires a life commitment, namely the belief that Jesus Christ died on the cross as the perfect sacrifice for one's sins, and accepting Him as one's Lord and Savior. And the Christian community states that if you don't accept these things, you cannot be a Christian. Therefore it is exclusive, because it states that its leader, Jesus Christ, while he will allow anyone to be a part of the religion, they must first honestly and sincerely accept Him as Lord and Savior. And while someone can merely accept Christ as Lord and Savior and do nothing else and still be a Christian, Christians themselves and the Bible both recommend trying to live like Christ, that is, following his example in the Bible. And since Christ's example is diametrically opposed to many of the movements of society today, society on a conscious and often subconscious level hates Him and His followers.

One last thing: I am a Christian, but I am not trying to preach to anyone; I am not trying to convert anyone. A question of why Christians aren't tolerated has been asked, and I am seeking to explain why from my perspective. Understand: stating one's beliefs is not equal to trying to force those beliefs on others.

Telling someone that they hate you because of what you believe and then turning around to say you're not preaching is disingenuous.
 

Multicam

New member
Joined
May 17, 2016
Messages
21
Reaction score
9
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Telling someone that they hate you because of what you believe and then turning around to say you're not preaching is disingenuous.

Sorry friend, but stating my opinion that Christians are hated because of what they believe is not the same as trying to convert people to Christianity. Please comprehend this: I am not saying that Christians are disliked because what they believe is true and others should accept it and those others don't want to. I am not saying that. I am saying Christians are disliked, because they believe that what they believe is true. And because Christians believe that what they believe is true, and they believe that others should accept it, they are disliked.

Once again as I said in my post before, stating my beliefs on why Christians are disliked, even if it involves talking about specific Christian views, does not equal preaching or forcing my beliefs on anyone.

The issue at stake here, at least in my view of it, is not whether Christian beliefs are right or wrong. That isn't what I am trying to talk about here. The issue at stake is why Christians are so disliked. There is a huge difference, and I'd appreciate it if you examine what I'm saying a bit closer next time before you respond.
 

Celebrity

DP Veteran
Joined
May 13, 2016
Messages
5,257
Reaction score
761
Location
VT, USA
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Christianity is intolerant of many things liberals are pushing for acceptance these days, and it is an exclusive religion.

Christianity requires a life commitment, namely the belief that Jesus Christ died on the cross as the perfect sacrifice for one's sins, and accepting Him as one's Lord and Savior. And the Christian community states that if you don't accept these things, you cannot be a Christian. Therefore it is exclusive, because it states that its leader, Jesus Christ, while he will allow anyone to be a part of the religion, they must first honestly and sincerely accept Him as Lord and Savior. And while someone can merely accept Christ as Lord and Savior and do nothing else and still be a Christian, Christians themselves and the Bible both recommend trying to live like Christ, that is, following his example in the Bible. And since Christ's example is diametrically opposed to many of the movements of society today, society on a conscious and often subconscious level hates Him and His followers.

preach
/prēCH/
verb
deliver a sermon or religious address to an assembled group of people, typically in church.
"he preached to a large congregation"
synonyms: give/deliver a sermon, sermonize, address, speak More
publicly proclaim or teach (a religious message or belief).
"a church that preaches the good news"
synonyms: proclaim, teach, spread, propagate, expound
"he preached the gospel to them"
earnestly advocate (a belief or course of action).
"my parents have always preached toleration and moderation"
synonyms: advocate, recommend, advise, urge, teach, counsel
"they preach toleration"

I did not miss the part where you victimize Christians (by extension yourself as a member of the Christian religious community of people who worship Christ). Instead of directly asking for people to acknowledge the faith, you explicitly define how non-Christians exhibit a non-Christian quality. Furthermore, your first sentence says that Christianity is intolerant, which you are attempting to justify by adding that non-Christians are intolerant of Christianity. Implicitly, non Christians are intolerant of intolerance. Are you intolerant of intolerance of Christian intolerance? If you practice what you preach, then yes, and yes you are preaching. Preaching is not the same as converting. When you are saying what Christianity means to Christians, unless you are only talking to yourself, or only speaking to Christians (in which case you should indicate that), you are explaining what Christianity means to Christians in order to exhibit that quality of religion to non-Christians. See proclaim and earnestly advocate above. Although you pretend to only be telling us about what is recommended by Christianity to Christians, this is at a minimum preaching to Christians about Christ, and all atheists close your ears here because this part doesn't apply to you.

I think most people would agree that Jesus preached the Gospel of the Kingdom to non-Christians before he converted them. Maybe there were some spontaneous conversions. Conversion without preaching doesn't imply preaching without converting. I would appreciate it if you would accept responsibility for your words and realize that communicating on a forum disingenuously is not going to make people agree with you. Whether or not that means they accept Christ, being honest and forthcoming and not lying will help build relationships with non-Christians. If you are honest about your faith, you are preaching your faith by teaching about the faith. Faith is not a scale which allows you to put people who communicate Christian ideas at the 1st mark and people who do not communicate Christian ideas at the 0th mark.

It's not a matter of, "well this is the way it is for me and if you don't like it, you don't get it." But you're really being disingenuous by trying to make this into "non-Christians hate Christians because they're different." It's actually a little bit subversive to call yourself a victim because you're not preaching.

Matthew 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.
 

Multicam

New member
Joined
May 17, 2016
Messages
21
Reaction score
9
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Celebrity, I appreciate the in-depth response. And the fact that you actually looked up the etymology of the word preach. Perhaps I should have done that myself :3oops:

Nevertheless, I meant in my first post on this thread merely to state why I believe Christians are disliked. You may take my post as an evangelical exposition of my religious beliefs if you wish; that is your choice. And if you choose to call the thorough description of common views of Christianity and the explanation of why non-Christians largely dislike them an attempt at witnessing for Christ, that is also your decision to make. It doesn't change the fact that that was not my intent. If I took it into my head to witness to others online, it would not be on the third page of someone else's thread about religious intolerance. It would be on my own thread created specifically for the purpose of trying to convert others, and it would be much longer than any post I have made on this thread has been.

Because I explain the views of a particular ideology does not mean I am trying to convert others to it. I have stated that more than once before. If someone chooses to take information I posted for the purpose of explaining one thing, namely why there is so much Christian intolerance, and ends up looking at what I say and concluding I am trying to convert others, his opinion of what I am doing does not mean that the reality of what I have been doing has been changed from what I was originally doing to what that individual thinks I am doing. Teaching about the faith is not, as you are indicating, always synonymous with advocating the faith. The purpose of this post was not to draw non-Christians toward Christianity, as I have said several times. You may say I'm pretending to know less than I actually do and that I'm being insincere, but your saying that doesn't make it true.

And you're right, it's not a matter of "this is the way it is for me and if you don't like it you don't get it". It's a matter of "this is the way I believe it to be and if you don't like it you may or may not be right and I'm not the one to say". Also, "it" is intolerance of Christians, not the validity of the Christian faith.

Finally, I was addressing the subject of this thread, the question of why Christians are disliked, in my first post. I did not mean for this argument to start. If you choose to accept what I say here, fine. If you don't, that's also fine; it's your opinion, be it right or wrong (and I'm not saying it's either one). If you believe in Christianity, fine, and if you don't, fine; that's not the subject I'm addressing or trying to address.

If you wish to argue whether my explanation why Christians are so disliked is true or not, fine. I will have a discussion with you. But if you continue trying to claim I am attempting to convert others to my religion, I am not responding. I have made it abundantly clear that is not what I have been trying to do. But again, believe as you wish; you're free to your opinion.
 
Top Bottom