Invisible Insanity

Luk 19:27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay [them] before me.

I don't know about you, but this is pretty severe. The verse above really makes Jesus look like a megalomaniac at best. I think that you are deluding yourself if you think that judgement isn't the central theme in Christianity.

Al

Starboy

If we want to have any kind of hope of peace in the world then converting anybody should not be on anyone’s To Do List. Christians have got to get it through their skulls that their religion is for themselves.

Starboy

Mageth

Yet they're faced with the dilemmas I pointed out above - their Book tells them not to keep it to themselves, and their Book tells them that those who don't believe like they do will pay a price. What's a good Modern Christian that wants to be "tolerant" of other beliefs, when the Book they derive their beliefs from is quite intolerant, to do? Abandon the Book entirely? Reinterpret the book metaphorically to give God a more tolerant image? Rely on parts ("do not judge") while ignoring other parts such as those pointed out on this thread?

The cognitive dissonance generated by this paradox in the moderate or liberal Christian that wishes to "keep it to themselves", that doesn't want to be confrontational or judgmental, and yet still relies on the Bible for guidance, is paralyzing. I was there once. And the cognitive dissonance was instrumental in driving me, eventually, out of the belief system completely.

miata

Jesus said to go into your closet and pray in private and your prayers would be answered in private. I think that is close to the KJ version.

I gather that faith in a God could be a very private and very personal relationship. If I find a source of eternal life I guess I would want to share the idea but not force my views.

I was sad when I came to understand that I really did not believe in any supernatural powers. I lied about being a Christian for years due to fear of rejection. Now most friends and family treat me like a person with a disability, but I don't get upset as they mean well. I accept that also as I don't think I was I better person for being a liar about my lack of faith.

I truely wish I could believe in a higher power but I don't so I don't make an issue of it with friends and family. If 97% of people do believe in God I am at a serious disadvantage. The good thing is I like Christians and people of all faiths.

If I am going to hell for being honest I'll accept that but if I thought God was out to get me I would end my own life but that would be paranoid. Every day I ask myself that if I knew this was my last day to live would I hold firm to my belief system. If I lied out of my fear of death or the unknown still would not save me in the Christian or way of salvation.

Space Chef

Which is what appears to be happening in this thread. Mods? Can we get a warning in here? I haven't read every single post in the thread, but the ones I have seem to be getting a little too... you know...

miata

Good point but this is the first civil discussion I have had in a while and I appreciate the fact that people keep posting ideas and are keeping the gloves on.

I like to share ideas but I am not much of a fighter. I have no beliefs worth fighting about. I know I am out numbered and life is stressful enough without faning the flames; I am not trying to convert anyone.

At his best, man is the noblest of all animals; separated from law and justice he is the worst: Aristotle

.

Jinto

And you find this unbelievable? Considering that they were wrong about God's existence as well?

In any event, you're making a strawman of their motivations. The reasons given for the inquisition were not that they had a mandate from Jesus to wipe out the unbelievers (although there were other bible verses that they could have cited had they wanted to make that case - the Chruch was very careful in constructing the bible so they would have supporting justification for just about anything), but rather that, given the "fact" (not command) that unbelievers would burn in hell for eternity, it was better to torture a confession out of them now (which would last only a few weeks), and have them go to heaven, than to not do so, and have them burn in hell for eternity. This is entirely different from saying they had a mandate from Jesus to kill the unbelievers.

I understand that you don't like Christianity, but that is no excuse for false accusations and sloppy thinking. Perhaps if you concerned yourself more with facts than Christian-bashing, you wouldn't interpret the bible with all the precision of a biblical inerrantist, and I wouldn't have to correct you.

Soul Invictus

One question. How does one justifiably do that which has been designated to not to be done?

Jinto

Ahh... someone who gets it. Normally when Christians say "no, I don't believe that a loving God would torture people forever in hell, hell is merely the absence of God, which is what you wanted." they are quick to follow it up with "but the absence of God is still very very horrible and you need to be saved from the consequences of sin and please don't notice that I'm trying to use Pascal's Wager on you." You, on the other hand, have a lot more sense than to make that argument. Congratulations on actually thinking about what you believe.

It's interesting to note though, this phenomenon: when it becomes apparent that the biblical description of hell (and of God's actions in general) contradict the traditional loving image of God as portrayed by most churches, people always either conclude that Christianity is total bullshit, or they conclude that God is truly loving and that the verses that describe him condeming people to eternal suffering come from - somewhere else. I have never heard of anyone in the last couple of centuries who has come to the conclusion that God exists, but is a brutal vindictive monster (plenty of biblical support for this) and is to be obeyed only out of fear if at all. Why do you suppose this is?

Soul Invictus

Welcome miata,

The problem stems from the fact that religion is so ingrained as a necessary and positive attribute of human life, that any negative or non-reinforcing criticism would naturally be met with resistance. Imagine someone saying your mom wasn't as good as you thought, or that she was harmful. When contended with valid, if not superior arguments (evidence) to support the non-alignment, this leaves the religious person often in a state of confusion. One that their 'truth' might not be as true as perceived, two, that someone would have the gall to critique God/God's word, and three, the frustration to not be adequately competent to address the issues, and fourth, a normal animalistic response of attacking or warding off the 'perceived' threat the best way one knows how, hence the ad hominems amd assortment of uncivil, unwarranted, and negative discourse procedures.