BelieveNU
Banned
- Joined
- May 10, 2016
- Messages
- 124
- Reaction score
- 39
- Location
- Where i Stand, trust.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
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.
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?
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?"
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?
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?
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 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.
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.
I don't have a problem with it.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'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.In an age that begs of tolerance for nearly any and everything, seems those that love Jesus are the lest tolerated of all.
1) There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that Mohammed was a historical person.Love mohammad? No one is gonna tell ya he wasn't real.
1) It's "Buddha" and "conglomeration"Into Buddah, and no one claims he's a comglomeration of persons.
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.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.
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.
Telling someone that they hate you because of what you believe and then turning around to say you're not preaching is disingenuous.
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"
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?