Most of the time in this forum I find myself observing false assumptions about Christianity. I find that 90% of the time most of the things that Atheists don't believe about God , I don't believe and most Christians I know don't either. Whether it's notions of God punishing people in hell for wrong doing or the idea that God thinks of humans as perverted and sinful , it's often the same. There seems to be little understanding that Christianity has been grossly missrepresented over the years or that it has been used by ugly , manipulative power bases for their own ends.
The simple truth is most Atheists think that Christians have to believe something which they don't actually have to. They then think that we are trying to get them to believe these things when actually we are often trying to correct assumptions rather than argue false positions.
The journey from Atheist to Christian does not consist in having to believe all the tosh that you find unpalatable . The journey starts when you realise God agrees with you on these issues. You have been missold a version of Christianity which is not the truth. If you reject it then all well and good but don't go thinking you have rejected anything other than false Christianity.
"The God I believe in is not the god you don't believe in" CS LEWIS
Originally posted by knightmeister Most of the time in this forum I find myself observing false assumptions about Christianity. I find that 90% of the time most of the things that Atheists don't believe about God , I don't believe and most Christians I know don't either. Whether it's notions of God punishing people in hell for wrong doing or the idea that God thinks of humans as perver ...[text shortened]... e Christianity.
"The God I believe in is not the god you don't believe in" CS LEWIS
I don't confine my disbelief to some alleged misrepresentation of god. I don't believe in any gods. You may define your god any way you like, but as long as he remains a god then I don't believe in him.
To a certain extent I agree, most atheists are embarassingly ignorant as to what religious belief can consist of and unfortunately a lot of their points lack persuasive power because of it.
But even those who rail against some form of belief in some militant manner are making valid points - even if they are making them badly - because there are people out there who believe in these things. There are, for example, lots of Christians who believe that hell is punishment.
There is a big problem in the religious debate that such over zealous arguments dissuade the religious portion from engaging with the more serious points raised by the same people - or, more frequently, by those trying to make alternative points.
The fact is that to talk about 'most Christians' is misleading because even within one church the beliefs of the congregation can vary. Different people have different interpretations of the various nuances of the Christian teachings. "Christian" is just a label which, unfortunately, has come to cover a whole range of really quite differing beliefs.
The gentleman above makes a good point. The religious argument should focus on the more general problems - and there are plenty of them - which exist more generally. If someone is arguing about a version of Christian belief that you don't agree with point out that it's not a problem if you look at Christianity a different way - don't just dismiss them offhand. Who knows, you might both learn something.
Originally posted by Wulebgr Few true athiests post here, and even fewer true Christians. I am neither.
I begin to agree with this, but then I realize that I have never seen either concept--true Christian nor true atheist--described in a clear manner. I would think that the definition of a Christian is simply someone who believes in Christ and the saving us from having to slaughter animals after writing "my sins" on them, but others would take things quite differently, e.g. literal interpretation of the Bible etc. The same vagueness surrounds atheism, though not as badly. The obvious definition is someone who simply does not believe in the worship of a God, but others take it farther, e.g. you believe in something etheral so I hate your insane butt. Very confusing stuff. Anyone care to clear up these terms for me?
Originally posted by knightmeister I find that 90% of the time most of the things that Atheists don't believe about God , I don't believe and most Christians I know don't either. Whether it's notions of God punishing people in hell for wrong doing or the idea that God thinks of humans as perverted and sinful , it's often the same.
But many christians believe in the inherent sinfulness of man, as well as punishment of unbelievers in hell.
Therefore, I'll assume any christian believes those two things, unless they tell me otherwise.
Originally posted by knightmeister Most of the time in this forum I find myself observing false assumptions about Christianity. I find that 90% of the time most of the things that Atheists don't believe about God , I don't believe and most Christians I know don't either. Whether it's notions of God punishing people in hell for wrong doing or the idea that God thinks of humans as perver ...[text shortened]... e Christianity.
"The God I believe in is not the god you don't believe in" CS LEWIS
But that begs the question, what set of rules defines Christianity?
As I've said before in a previous post, for me a religion is defined by what the majority of its faithful agree to believe in. This means that these rules are not immutable and that there is no religious truth.
It may seem that this entails that religion is a matter of opinion (as Halitose remarked) and therefore removing the carpet of credibility of theists, but it is not necessarily so. If the theist realizes that he is merely human, then he must also admit that his interpretation of the holy texts will most likely be flawed. And although he may try his best to approximate it, his own human nature on which his judgement depends on will always include some subjectivity. This will not imply a personal God, but merely personal views of the same God among the faithful of each religion.
Originally posted by thesonofsaul Half right. However, if Jesus is merely a standard of perfection then I don't think anyone would have a problem with the religion.
Which half was wrong?! The half that left out hell?
Originally posted by AThousandYoung Perfect in the opinion of the Xian God maybe. Perfection is always relative to a person's opinion; it is subjective.
Yes, he is the standard of perfection but what does that really mean? In what sense was his a perfect life?
False Christianity
29 May '06 18:27
Back to Top