Why are Christians under attack ?

Originally posted by finnegan
No I was not concerned about being mocked, thanks. I have been reading Nietzsche for the past month and find him fascinating to work on. Until now he has been a mystery to me and he is suddenly becoming more clear. I do not connect him with ideas of elitism nor mockery of lesser people. If there is an essential idea, I take this to be that behaving entirel ...[text shortened]... in the end he begs not to be misunderstood (having worked hard to make it likely he would be!).

Nietzsche? grew a big moustache and cracked up cause no chicks fancied him. 😵

Originally posted by lemon lime
If you are offended by a Southern Baptists approach to the gospel you are free to look for information from some other source.

I'm not offended by anything that gets posted in this forum, shocked sometimes, but never offended.

Originally posted by divegeester
Are you deliberately missing the point? You don't seem particulary dim so you must be. I'll explain again anyway:

I don't believe in the doctrine of eternal suffering
That Ron Hinds thinks I deserve to go there, doesn't mean I will go there, deserve to go there or that the experience he believes in is truth.
What I'm interested in is his "spirit", the ...[text shortened]... together and abandon their principles to be united against a common foe. It's fascinating behaviour.

"12 And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books, according to their deeds. 13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, every one of them according to their deeds. 14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. 15 And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire." (Revelation 20:12-15)

At the end of the millennium all human beings who have chosen against rather than for the person and work of Jesus Christ [which paid the price of God's grace gift of salvation and eternal life] will be indicted at the Great White Throne Judgment for depending on their paltry systems of good works to gain the approbation of God: sin will not be mentioned; it has already been judged once and for all during the final three hours of Christ's substitutionary spiritual death at His crucifixion. "And He Himself is the propitiation [substitute to satisfy God's Divine righteousness and justice: integrity] for our sins, and not for ours only but for those of the whole world". (John 2:2) God's Divine Attribute of Justice guarantees His fairness: there's no double jeopardy in this courtroom.

Originally posted by finnegan
"I think especially atheists make far too much of this "watch them suffering eternally" business."

It seems pretty fundamental to many observers. In so far as we know what Jesus says and did from gospels written after the event by Christians following Paul, Jesus would appear to have radically rejected all notions of revenge, and not only advocated but p ...[text shortened]... promises revenge? If the latter, then Jesus is not going to agree with his Father on the matter.

Again, comparing God to man is to compare a gingerbread house to a gumdrop.

Jesus was teaching men, not God.

Originally posted by finnegan
I am aware that Christians worship a god who is vengeful and I remain mindful that this is not consistent with the account of Jesus. Phrased differently, Christians are not reliable in their description of what their faith entails.

"Christians are not reliable in their description of what their faith entails."

Of course you would say this. The fact is that you simply do not understand what their faith entails, since you are not of that faith. Judgement from an outsider means little indeed. One cannot expect to understand what one does not know. Again, Jesus was teaching men, not God. And that's only one facet of what you do not understand.

Originally posted by Suzianne
[b]"Christians are not reliable in their description of what their faith entails."

Of course you would say this. The fact is that you simply do not understand what their faith entails, since you are not of that faith. Judgement from an outsider means little indeed. One cannot expect to understand what one does not know. Again, Jesus was teaching men, not God. And that's only one facet of what you do not understand.[/b]

We say this because we can seldom get any two Christians to agree on almost
any facet of their religion/s. And what they say is often self contradictory.

This forum is full of Christians arguing about what there religion is, or how to be a
good member of it. You don't share the same views on what it means to be a Christian
as other people on this forum, let alone the ~2.2 Billion other Christians in the world.
And they don't agree with each other, which is why there are hundreds, if not thousands
of different sects and factions of Christianity. And part of why you cannot agree is that
the foundation of your religion is contradictory. Any literal reading of the bible leads to
contradictions with itself and with observed facts. Which means you all have to creatively
interpret that mess, and do so in a myriad different ways.

You surely cannot seriously be denying that fact??

You can talk as much as you like about what Christianity means to you, and what you
believe is required. But your view is emphatically and demonstrably not the same as
every other Christian.

Thus, from our perspective, 'Christians' are not reliable in describing what their faith is
or what it entails.

Originally posted by Suzianne
[b]"Christians are not reliable in their description of what their faith entails."

Of course you would say this. The fact is that you simply do not understand what their faith entails, since you are not of that faith. Judgement from an outsider means little indeed. One cannot expect to understand what one does not know. Again, Jesus was teaching men, not God. And that's only one facet of what you do not understand.[/b]

An ad hominem response does not deal with the content of my argument in any way. It is just a rhetorical trick to flim flam your way out of the problem without answering anything. Never mind. As you have failed to respond, my argument stands untouched.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
"12 And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books, according to their deeds. 13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which ...[text shortened]... vine Attribute of Justice guarantees His fairness: there's no double jeopardy in this courtroom.

It's not clear how this relates to my reply to Lemon Lime.

Originally posted by divegeester
It's not clear how this relates to my reply to Lemon Lime.

Originally posted by divegeester in reply to lemon lime
Are you deliberately missing the point? You don't seem particulary dim so you must be. I'll explain again anyway:

I don't believe in the doctrine of eternal suffering
That Ron Hinds thinks I deserve to go there, doesn't mean I will go there, deserve to go there or that the experience he believes in is truth.
What I'm interested in is his "spirit", the condition of which that would make him say such a thing and the other Christians here who like you, even though they disagree, will not speak out against him. All I've done is disagreed with him.

I'm interested in why Robbie carrobie would tell me that he takes joy from telling me that I'm as reprehensible the perpetrators of the lynchings. Seriously, he takes joy from saying that. Don't you find that a bit weird?

These are the dynamics that interest me. Why religionists will clump together and abandon their principles to be united against a common foe. It's fascinating behaviour.
__________________________

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
"12 And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books, according to their deeds. 13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, every one of them according to their deeds. 14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. 15 And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire." (Revelation 20:12-15)

At the end of the millennium all human beings who have chosen against rather than for the person and work of Jesus Christ [which paid the price of God's grace gift of salvation and eternal life] will be indicted at the Great White Throne Judgment for depending on their paltry systems of good works to gain the approbation of God: sin will not be mentioned; it has already been judged once and for all during the final three hours of Christ's substitutionary spiritual death at His crucifixion. "And He Himself is the propitiation [substitute to satisfy God's Divine righteousness and justice: integrity] for our sins, and not for ours only but for those of the whole world". (John 2:2) God's Divine Attribute of Justice guarantees His fairness: there's no double jeopardy in this courtroom.
____________________________

Simply that the Great White Throne and Lake of Fire do not apply to believers in Christ; and that sin will not be an issue.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Simply that the Great White Throne and Lake of Fire do not apply to believers in Christ; and that sin will not be an issue.

Did you think I didn't know that?

I'm my post I did say what I was interested in, which is the attitudes and behaviours of certain posters here who profess to be Christians.

Originally posted by divegeester
Did you think I didn't know that?

I'm my post I did say what I was interested in, which is the attitudes and behaviours of certain posters here who profess to be Christians.

"That Ron Hinds thinks I deserve to go there, doesn't mean I will go there, deserve to go there..." -divegeester

All of us have sinned [violated God's Righteous Standards]; Christ took the punishment [separation from God the Father] on our behalf.
We "deserve" nothing and will be with Him for eternity only because we chose to accept His grace gift. My "attitude" is gratitude.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
"That Ron Hinds thinks I deserve to go there, doesn't mean I will go there, [b]deserve to go there..." -divegeester

All of us have sinned [violated God's Righteous Standards]; Christ took the punishment [separation from God the Father] on our behalf.
We "deserve" nothing and will be with Him for eternity only because we chose to accept His grace gift. My "attitude" is gratitude.[/b]

I was asking Lemon Lime what he thought of the two examples of the behaviour by robbie carrobie and RJHinds...would you like to comment on that as that is the topic in hand?

Originally posted by divegeester
I was asking Lemon Lime what he thought of the two examples of the behaviour by robbie carrobie and RJHinds...would you like to comment on that as that is the topic in hand?

Originally posted by moonbus (OP)

One frequent and vociferous correspondent to SF has said that she feels she and fellow Christians are often under attack here. I propose a thread to discuss this. In one recent thread, several correspondents considered the activity to be "discussion" and repeatedly emphasized the hypothetical nature of the thesis, whereas several other correspondents considered the very same activity to constitute an "attack" on their faith, an attempt to undermine or destroy their faith, and a few even imputed evil intent, citing 'satanic' passages from the Bible. How can the same activity be viewed so very differently, as open and rational discussion, and as a satanic attack? It bears investigation.

To start, I propose two theses. Not exhaustively; no doubt others will propose more.

Thesis 1. There happen to be more active Christian posters to SF than, for example, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, Taoist, Confucianist, Shinto, pagan, wicca, or whatever, so just on the basis of statistics, Christians would probably find themselves fielding more posts of all flavors, constructive, neutral, and critical. Seems plausible, but still does not explain why they feel under "attack" when others feel it is "discussion".

Thesis 2. The frequently expressed feeling of being under attack is due to the nature of Christianity itself, and distinguishes it from, for example, Buddhism, paganism, and other religions.

I suggest that other religions are not like Christianity, only with the wrong god(s); they are really fundamentally different. (Whatever else it may be) Christianity is: a) belief-based and b) exclusivist, and these two aspects are relevant to the topic, why Christians may feel themselves to be under "attack" when non-Christians "discuss" what Christians believe.

A) belief-based: whatever else a Christian must do, he must assent to a body of propositions held to be true. Including: that Jesus was God incarnate, that he died to redeem man's sins, that he was bodily resurrected, etc. Once you assert propositions as truths, and not as edifying stories, then you enter a universe of discourse where claims (not only religious ones) are subject to critical analysis and verification. The techniques and criteria include, but are not limited to, determining historical accuracy and continuity, assessing the credibility of alleged eye-witnesses, logical coherency, compatibility with other empirical evidence, the possibility of errors and corruptions due to transcriptions and translations, the dating of physical evidence (by well-known and repeatable experiments), and so on.

Ancient paganism, Hinduism, Buddhism (incl. Zen), Taoism, Shintoism, Confucianism, and yoga are practice-based. Practice-based means: it does not matter what you believe, what matters is mastering a technique (performing rites, meditation, mindfulness, purification, tantra, or whatever). The whole ediface of presenting evidence, generating arguments and proofs leading to putative truths is irrelevant to these other religions. Arguments and proofs, eye-witness accounts of miracles, assent to a body of putative truths, all that is peculiarly (Judeo-)Christian. When Christians claim theirs is the only true religion and make claims about the historical veracity or inerrancy of the Bible, they should expect a response in kind, with counter-evidence, counter-claims, and rebuttals. Why? Because that is the intellectual playing field Christians themselves have chosen to play on.

There is no such thing as rebutting meditation, or yoga, or tantra, for example. Either you do it or you don't, but there is nothing to argue there.

Buddhists say it does not matter whether the universe had a beginning or no beginning, so they do not get entangled in arguments about whether it was created 6,000 years ago, and so do not feel attacked by putative evidence that the universe is much older. Buddhists also have no problem accepting evolution, since it is irrelevant to the practice of exercising mindfulness, so they don't feel that their religion is undermined by putative evidence that evolution really happened.

B): exclusivism: Judaism and Christianity are peculiar in claiming to be the only true or legitimate spiritual path.

When one party sits down at the table with an attitude which comes across to the others as "I'm the only one here in possession of Absolute Truth, the rest of you nitwits are damned liars whose minds have been poisoned by satanic delusions" [/hyperbole], it is that attitude itself which taints what might have been an open and rational discussion and turns it into an emotionally charged battleground where someone is liable to feel threatened. I think it is fair to say that several Christian correspondents to SF do come to the table with that attitude, even though they may not state it quite so hyperbolically. Equally, quoting divine-threat and damnation passages from the Bible, in essence saying "If you don't agree with this, you're going to hell and I'm not," seems calculated to provoke a robust rebuttal.


I close with a verse from the Koran: 'to every people a messenger is sent; it is not needful that you (Mohammed) know who the other messengers were.' By implication, it is not needful to know the content of the other messages or whether they are the same. That is a model of non-exclusiveness which I personally find worthy of being embraced.

Sorry this has gotten so long.

Mindful that there might be a storm of protest from one camp and a discussion from the other camp, please accept my personal statement of intention here to discuss an issue in general and not to attack any individual (this means you, Suzi), as genuine.

Please accept my apology for intruding on your "topic in hand".
My recent replies were made in the context of salient points made by moonbus
in his original post, which I've placed in bold or italics for ease of reference.

Note: I've no interest in interfering with your personalized dialogue
with lemon lime, robbie carrobie and RJHinds.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
I've no interest in interfering with your personalized dialogue
with lemon lime, robbie carrobie and RJHinds.

I wasn't asking you to do anything and certainly not to "interfere". You replied to my post to Lemon Lime and I obviously made the mistake of assuming you had read it and were commenting on the content.

Originally posted by divegeester
I wasn't asking you to do anything and certainly not to "interfere". You replied to my post to Lemon Lime and I obviously made the mistake of assuming you had read it and were commenting on the content.

Okay.