exceptionally unsettling fundy experience

[steve_bank]

Where was this morally perfect and all powerful God during the holocaust?

I have seen this broached in public nedia once. A sensitive issue.

If god exists and Jes ae the chosen peoplel, what are they doing wrong for hod to allow merit such treatment.

 

[Wiploc]

Are you claiming that anybody who points out that Christians don't act like Christ must thereby be affirming the beliefs of your weird subset of Christianity?

No. If you say that Christians are not acting like Christ then you are claiming some sort of authority to do so.
(And yes historically far too many 'Christians' have not acted Christ-like. But they do so in opposition to Christ not in line with him)

What authority are you claiming?

I am making no claims of authority. Those who say that Christians are not Christ-like make such a claim based upon some authority or other.

Position 1:
You say that "far too many 'Christians' have not acted Christ-like."
Also, you say that people who say Christians are not acting like Christ are claiming some sort of authority.

Position 2:
You say, "I am making no claims of authority."

Do you hold these contradictory positions simultaneously, or do you switch back and forth?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

You say that "far too many 'Christians' have not acted Christ-like."
Also, you say that people who say Christians are not acting like Christ are claiming some sort of authority.

And what comes first, the morality or the authority? Religiously speaking, authority always trumps morality so in the religious world any authority figure is always going to be a morality figure by default. Proof of that is all the apologetics that occurs to rationalize immoral behavior based on authority status. In the end of course it's all just projecting.

 

[steve_bank]

There in lies the rub. What dies Christlike mean?

It all depends on how you interpret the gospels. Since the Reformation anybody can read the bible and interpret.

 

[Politesse]

There in lies the rub. What dies Christlike mean?

It all depends on how you interpret the gospels. Since the Reformation anybody can read the bible and interpret.

Christ had some advice on this point:

"They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them."

 

[SIB]

List the traits of a fundy theists. Those traits scare me in atheism, politics, and in any any group. The rational people in our mists will see addiction, abuse, and mental illness.

The base line is rational versus irrational. emotional vs logic. There is no way to close the gap without self reflection to me. Starting with holding "ourselves" to the same standards we hold "them" to. The term, "traitor" is used. Yeah, some of us hold to work hard, earn your keep, and help when one can above all else. including place of birth, skin color, flags, and "My family", aka: tribalism.

 

[steve_bank]

While Jesus was in Bethany in the home of Simon the Leper, a woman came to him with an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume, which she poured on his head as he was reclining at the table.

When the disciples saw this, they were indignant. “Why this waste?” they asked. “This perfume could have been sold at a high price and the money given to the poor.”

Aware of this, Jesus said to them, “Why are you bothering this woman? She has done a beautiful thing to me. The poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have me. When she poured this perfume on my body, she did it to prepare me for burial. Truly I tell you, wherever this gospel is preached throughout the world, what she has done will also be told, in memory of her.” —Matthew 26:6-13

The arrogant self important Jesus, but after all he was the son of a god. I'd be arrogant to.

Moral ambiguities were there at the get go.

 

[Learner]

You were able to deduce "The arrogant self importance.." from um... moral ambiguities? Amazing... you deserve a jar of perfumed alabaster.

 

[Learner]

Are you claiming that anybody who points out that Christians don't act like Christ must thereby be affirming the beliefs of your weird subset of Christianity?

No. If you say that Christians are not acting like Christ then you are claiming some sort of authority to do so.
(And yes historically far too many 'Christians' have not acted Christ-like. But they do so in opposition to Christ not in line with him)

What authority are you claiming?

I am making no claims of authority. Those who say that Christians are not Christ-like make such a claim based upon some authority or other.

Position 1:
You say that "far too many 'Christians' have not acted Christ-like."
Also, you say that people who say Christians are not acting like Christ are claiming some sort of authority.

Position 2:
You say, "I am making no claims of authority."

Do you hold these contradictory positions simultaneously, or do you switch back and forth?

Quite simply, Gods moral authority DOES NOT apply to the non-believer! Atheists are not bound by it, when they don't believe in it, only Christians are. Meaning it is ludicrously against the whole biblical concept, which is about freely accepting, trusting, surrendering to the authority of the absolute (God of the bible), when you're forcing Gods 'absolute moral authority' on or against someone's will, which isn't real, just really quite meaningless, when the imposed upon' hearts aren't in acceptance of the moral giver idea - which is absolutely defeating the object of the doctrine.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Quite simply, Gods moral authority DOES NOT apply to the non-believer! Atheists are not bound by it, when they don't believe in it, only Christians are. Meaning it is ludicrously against the whole biblical concept, which is about freely accepting, trusting, surrendering to the authority of the absolute - God of the bible, IF you're forcing Gods 'absolute moral authority' on or against someone's will, which isn't real, just really quite meaningless, when the imposed upon' hearts aren't in acceptance of the moral giver idea - which is absolutely defeating the object of the doctrine.

If there are well-fed christians why are there still starving children? How does moral authority work there?

 

[Rhea]

Lerner,

Does it bother or concern you that we do not believe in Jesus?

Considering the forum TOU very specifically forbids "proselytization/preaching religious views", asking a question like this seems like a rather crass attempt to goad someone into a rule violation. If he is in fact concerned about your soul, what's he supposed to do, lie or get booted?

FYI

Proselytzing/preaching is defined for the TOU as one-way communication. Attempting to speak as if from a pulpit and not engaging in answers.
Answering a question like this in service of discussion is not proselytizing/preaching.

 

[Rhea]

There may indeed be an objective source of morality.

Unfortunately, we poor subjective humans have no way of knowing what it is. So we just have to figure it out on our own. We can use trial-and-error, reason and empathy, experimentation.

Or we can shut our eyes, declare that someone else knows what the objective source of morality is, and follow that person blindly. There's no evidence that someone else knows what it is. But blind allegiance is a lot easier.

Blind allegiance is easier to “perform”, but it is not easier to be moral, as we can see by the fact that christians are not more moral. Their belief does not appear to change them or create a better citizen out of them.

Christians will say the absolute moral authority is Jesus, or God, and some will say from the angle that it's via the Bible.

Exactly yes, and we hear them, so when we talk to them about their morality, we are aware of who is their authority and to whom they give blind allegiance, and who it is they fail to emulate.. And so we speak to them in their language.

You, i.e., atheists worldwide have been telling us and arguing for many decades Christians don't follow or behave like Jesus. These atheist therefore must have some incline that Jesus is a high authority.

The understanding that Jesus is some sort of high authority is only in the eyes of the person who claims they are following Jesus’ high authority. But we get that and we can undderstand that is their frame of reference and talk to them understanding that they believe this.

It’s called “empathy” and “putting onself in another’s shoes” (it’s also called “former Christian” and “learned scholar” for some). Christians could try some of these!

You were able to deduce "The arrogant self importance.." from um... moral ambiguities? Amazing... you deserve a jar of perfumed alabaster.

A. It was an alabaster jar of perfume, not perfumed alabaster. Honestly, don’t know your own book?
B. Yes one can easily deduce “the arrogance of self-importance” when someone takes money that could be given to the poor and instead bathes in it, and then tells someone who reminds him of the mouths it could feed that he deserves the glory of bathing in money. It is exactly like Trump’s golden toilet. Arrogance all the way down.

Quite simply, Gods moral authority DOES NOT apply to the non-believer! Atheists are not bound by it, only Christians are. Meaning it is ludicrously against the whole biblical concept, which is about freely accepting, trusting, surrendering to the authority of the absolute - God of the bible. Forcing Gods 'absolute moral authority' on or against someone's will, isn't real, which is really quite meaningless, when their hearts aren't in acceptance of the moral giver idea - which is absolutely defeating the object of the doctrine.

Ha. Haha. Hahahahaha.

LOL. You are charming. Saying that Christians are not forcing their beliefs onto others.
Hahahahahaha.

 

[Learner]

Christians will say the absolute moral authority is Jesus, or God, and some will say from the angle that it's via the Bible.

Exactly yes, and we hear them, so when we talk to them about their morality, we are aware of who is their authority and to whom they give blind allegiance, and who it is they fail to emulate.. And so we speak to them in their language.

You speak to us in our language you say but your interpretations are usually not the same.
Atheists: Didn't Jesus say don't judge others, you shouldn't judge others.
Jesus: Don't be a hypocrite, judge righteously.

You, i.e., atheists worldwide have been telling us and arguing for many decades Christians don't follow or behave like Jesus. These atheist therefore must have some incline that Jesus is a high authority.

The understanding that Jesus is some sort of high authority is only in the eyes of the person who claims they are following Jesus’ high authority. But we get that and we can undderstand that is their frame of reference and talk to them understanding that they believe this.

From these discussion, it seems not everyone got it.

It’s called “empathy” and “putting onself in another’s shoes” (it’s also called “former Christian” and “learned scholar” for some). Christians could try some of these!

You were able to deduce "The arrogant self importance.." from um... moral ambiguities? Amazing... you deserve a jar of perfumed alabaster.

A. It was an alabaster jar of perfume, not perfumed alabaster. Honestly, don’t know your own book?

Do you know irony? Silly statement for a silly response.

B. Yes one can easily deduce “the arrogance of self-importance” when someone takes money that could be given to the poor and instead bathes in it, and then tells someone who reminds him of the mouths it could feed that he deserves the glory of bathing in money. It is exactly like Trump’s golden toilet. Arrogance all the way down.

Does trump humble himself to wash the feet of his followers?

Quite simply, Gods moral authority DOES NOT apply to the non-believer! Atheists are not bound by it, only Christians are. Meaning it is ludicrously against the whole biblical concept, which is about freely accepting, trusting, surrendering to the authority of the absolute - God of the bible. Forcing Gods 'absolute moral authority' on or against someone's will, isn't real, which is really quite meaningless, when their hearts aren't in acceptance of the moral giver idea - which is absolutely defeating the object of the doctrine.

Ha. Haha. Hahahahaha.

LOL. You are charming. Saying that Christians are not forcing their beliefs onto others.
Hahahahahaha.

No, I'm saying, forcing beliefs is not Christ-like, as some of the other posts have already mentioned.

 

[Learner]

Quite simply, Gods moral authority DOES NOT apply to the non-believer! Atheists are not bound by it, when they don't believe in it, only Christians are. Meaning it is ludicrously against the whole biblical concept, which is about freely accepting, trusting, surrendering to the authority of the absolute - God of the bible, IF you're forcing Gods 'absolute moral authority' on or against someone's will, which isn't real, just really quite meaningless, when the imposed upon' hearts aren't in acceptance of the moral giver idea - which is absolutely defeating the object of the doctrine.

If there are well-fed christians why are there still starving children? How does moral authority work there?

Well if you're one of the atheists that has read the lines that says Jesus commands to love your neighbor as yourself...feed the poor and hungry etc.., then you know how it would/ should work.

But it's difficult for me to give you that detailed answer about there being well-fed Christians while there are still starving children. You'd need to add more data ....

...like the little things to include in your equation. Did you account for the Christians who are also poor in the world, and not so well-fed? Do these poor-fed outnumber the well-fed by a great number? Did you account for other authorities other than Christian existing out there, and compare their idea of morals, which could be a contributing factor for some of the starving by various reasons, perhaps for example, some authorities with their own idea of morals, may not want to work with Christians or other groups with differing morals? IDK quite a few variables.

Basically I think you need a lot more information than the little you've given..

 

[southernhybrid]

There are all kinds of Christians, including some who do seem do benefit morally from their Christian philosophy, assuming of course, they the only pick the sweetest cherries in the Bible and throw out the bitter ones. I respect those Christians. They are the ones who literally feed the poor when they can and who don't judge other people, to the best of their ability.

But, the person mentioned in the OP, seems to have used his Christian beliefs as an excuse to be cruel and to judge others harshly if they don't agree with his narrow minded ethics.

I can't explain how some end up like the one in the OP, other than to say that all of us are victims or benefactors of our genetic and environmental heritage. I can use my own parents as an example. Both were easily indoctrinated into becoming evangelicals during their 20s. My mother almost always chose the sweeter parts of the Bible as her moral guide, while my father used the nastier parts of the Bible as a way to justify the cruel way he treated his children, among other things. My mother was raised by parents who cared about her, despite having a father who left her mother during early childhood. Her father always kept in touch and financially supported his two children and their mother. There were never any beatings or hatred in my mother's childhood home.

My father's family was extremely dysfunctional, including many members who obviously suffered from an array of mental illnesses. HIs mother sometimes left her 6 sons alone and hungry in the midst of the Great Depression. My father spent 4 years in brutal combat during WWII. My mother had no mentally ill family members although her father did have a bit of a drinking problem. My father was bipolar as well as suffering form PTSD, influenced by both genetics and environment. Those factors were what influenced my parents to be who they were. They both grew up poor and luckily for my father, my mother was able to be somewhat of a positive influence on him. I can't really explain why they ended up as fundamentalists, other than it must have made them feel special to believe that they were "saved" and special. It gave them the opportunity to be part of an in-group, that provided them with companionship and purpose.

I despised those beliefs and questioned them during my childhood until I finally realized they were a based on mythology of a rather extreme nature. My biggest concern during childhood was how could an all loving god send my little Catholic friends to hell? Why would a loving god send people who had never heard of the Christian message to hell. it made no sense and the cognitive dissonance ate me up when I was unable to suppress it.

What influenced me? I sometimes think my late grandfather, who was more or less a cultural Catholic, as well as very skeptical of my mother's beliefs, may have been a genetic influence. He used to laugh when she tried to save him., by telling her he and the Devil would have a good time together in hell. Maybe I have a genetic component that makes me questions things that don't have extensive evidence. Maybe being around fundamentalists throughout my childhood, helped me see their hypocrisy. It was attending a fundamentalist Christian college for one term that finally pulled me away from the cult. Ironically my poor mom believed it was the more secular college that I attended afterwards that caused me to give up my Christian beliefs, while nothing could be further from the truth. I've never blamed my parents for indoctrinating me into evangelicalism, as I don't think they had any choice. It's much easier to forgive than to carry a grudge, if only more Christians truly understood the value of forgiveness.

Let me add that I will never understand how anyone can believe that an all loving god would condemn anyone for the simple inability to believe. Wouldn't an all loving god, if there was such a thing, be more interested in people's characters? And, wouldn't an all loving god forgive the people that they created be capable of forgiving all of creation. Of course, to me, gods are simply mythological beings, created by humans in an attempt to understand that which is difficult and unknown.

At least most of the Christians I knew weren't as hateful as the person mentioned in the OP. He must have had some very severe influences to be capable of hating so many people, based on their differences from him. He sounds sexist, and homophobic among other things. Something in his life must have influenced him to be this way. I could be wrong, but I'm guessing at least some of it came from his childhood influences, along with a genetic tendency to be able to believe things without any evidence. It's like many of today's extremists on the far right who are also White Christian Nationalists? Was it group think that allows them to believe what they do, sometimes to the point of justifying violence? I don't know but I agree that these people can be scary and hard to understand. In the US, most of them have guns and some of them seem ready to use those guns on who they see as the enemy. The enemy is often liberal unbelievers. Humans are often the worst animals on the planet and conservative religion, sadly, is often is the cause of violence and hatred. It doesn't have to be that way.

Most of the atheists I've known over the last 20 years or so are good people, but it's hard to herd cats and it's hard to herd atheists since we disagree on so many things.

Sorry this post is so damn long. If anyone read it, I appreciate your patience.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

But it's difficult for me to give you that detailed answer about there being well-fed Christians while there are still starving children. You'd need to add more data ....

I was just calling a spade a spade is all. There isn't a need for any more information. The word "christian" is just a label that one can stick onto anything. The label doesn't do anything except communicate a bit of information between persons.

I muse about such things but only when I temporarily forget that there is an answer. Most folks are not aware of the answer and many folks don't have the capability of having an answer. That's an even larger question that "christians" have answered by inventing even more pseudo-intellectual silliness like talking snakes, ghosts, magic powers and other juvenilia.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

An evangelical cult leader assassinated Santa Claus in front of a bunch of kids

There are certainly crazies in this world. The craziest and most dangerous seem to wear their religion on their sleeve.

 

[Rhea]

Christians will say the absolute moral authority is Jesus, or God, and some will say from the angle that it's via the Bible.

Exactly yes, and we hear them, so when we talk to them about their morality, we are aware of who is their authority and to whom they give blind allegiance, and who it is they fail to emulate.. And so we speak to them in their language.

You speak to us in our language you say but your interpretations are usually not the same.
Atheists: Didn't Jesus say don't judge others, you shouldn't judge others.
Jesus: Don't be a hypocrite, judge righteously.

To be fair, your (Chistians) interpretations are not the same as each other (other Christians). So our interpretations (atheists) are no worse than the average Christian interpretation for fidelity and consistency.

Moreover, you’ve created a dialoge example that is not always true.
Most atheists here know the second half of the sentence, “ with ill-thought arguments lest you be judged yourself by the same yardstick/manner; judge righteously.”

Which is why the thing that strikes most often about the failings of christianity is indeed the hypocrisy.

So in this case, one can see - “don’t judge atheists by a single example unless you are ready for christians to be judged by a single example…”. Oops. Are you ready for me to give a two sentence example to judge christians?

You, i.e., atheists worldwide have been telling us and arguing for many decades Christians don't follow or behave like Jesus. These atheist therefore must have some incline that Jesus is a high authority.

The understanding that Jesus is some sort of high authority is only in the eyes of the person who claims they are following Jesus’ high authority. But we get that and we can undderstand that is their frame of reference and talk to them understanding that they believe this.

From these discussion, it seems not everyone got it.

On this particular point, I don’t see that you’ve made your case.
I think all the atheists here get that YOU think Jesus is a high authority. Is there a dispute about that?

It’s called “empathy” and “putting onself in another’s shoes” (it’s also called “former Christian” and “learned scholar” for some). Christians could try some of these!

You were able to deduce "The arrogant self importance.." from um... moral ambiguities? Amazing... you deserve a jar of perfumed alabaster.

A. It was an alabaster jar of perfume, not perfumed alabaster. Honestly, don’t know your own book?

Do you know irony? Silly statement for a silly response.

Indeed. I was making a funny response. Sorry for not including a smilie.

B. Yes one can easily deduce “the arrogance of self-importance” when someone takes money that could be given to the poor and instead bathes in it, and then tells someone who reminds him of the mouths it could feed that he deserves the glory of bathing in money. It is exactly like Trump’s golden toilet. Arrogance all the way down.

Does trump humble himself to wash the feet of his followers?

Does Jesus bathe in expensive perfume and say it’s a Beautiful Thing?

I can see why you might try to avoid talking about this response of Jesus’. Someone asked him why he didn’t use the money to help the poor and he said he deserved to be pampered, he was about to die. And that is such an anti “give away everything you have and help the poor” statement that it’s worth discussing. But you glom onto the part where you can change the subject to trump. There was a lot of other info in that post that you chose to avoid talking about. It’s interesting.

But even if you won’t tallk about how your Jesus answered the question, “why aren’t you helping the poor with this asset,” it doesn’t change his answer; “because I deserve to be pampered right now.”

Quite simply, Gods moral authority DOES NOT apply to the non-believer! Atheists are not bound by it, only Christians are. Meaning it is ludicrously against the whole biblical concept, which is about freely accepting, trusting, surrendering to the authority of the absolute - God of the bible. Forcing Gods 'absolute moral authority' on or against someone's will, isn't real, which is really quite meaningless, when their hearts aren't in acceptance of the moral giver idea - which is absolutely defeating the object of the doctrine.

Ha. Haha. Hahahahaha.

LOL. You are charming. Saying that Christians are not forcing their beliefs onto others.
Hahahahahaha.

No, I'm saying, forcing beliefs is not Christ-like, as some of the other posts have already mentioned.

Right - and since “Christians” so often do so many “not Christ-like” things, it’s pretty easy to see that Christianity doesn’t really have any power to make people better.

But they like to call themselves Christians and (and here’s the crux of the objection from most atheists) they like to crow about their superiority, their superior system, and try to force their allegedly superior beliefs to be enforced by secular law in the name of Christianity… they make it so that you cannot separate Learner’s version of Christianity from everyone else’s version of Christianity from what each of you will claim is “real” Christianity. So functionally, in society, you (Learner) have to operate in a pool where all of these “christians” tell us exactly who they are - and we believe them.

You cannot escape from that any more than we can.

 

[Learner]

Christians will say the absolute moral authority is Jesus, or God, and some will say from the angle that it's via the Bible.

Exactly yes, and we hear them, so when we talk to them about their morality, we are aware of who is their authority and to whom they give blind allegiance, and who it is they fail to emulate.. And so we speak to them in their language.

You speak to us in our language you say but your interpretations are usually not the same.
Atheists: Didn't Jesus say don't judge others, you shouldn't judge others.
Jesus: Don't be a hypocrite, judge righteously.

To be fair, your interpretations are not the same as each other. So ours are no worse than the average Christian.

Oh but you see... regardless of there even being many denominations and what have you. EVERY Christian understands WHO the Moral authority is,... and they all understand the concept of repentance. Everything else which is of lesser importance, i.e., the variations to interpretations, being trivial by large comparison, doesn't conflict with the message, so to speak. These things I've seen put out there by Christians, which I agree with, is to highlight the core of faith, that we all agree and understand between us, in the wide Christian community.
(ETA: Those faiths that don't have the the core principles, e.g., Jesus as savior etc.., we don't see as Christian)

Moreover, you’ve created a dialoge example that is not always true.
Most atheists here know the second half of the sentence, “ with ill thought arguments lest you be judged yourself by the same yardstick/manner - judge righteously.”
Which is why the thing that strikes most often about the failings of christianity is indeed the hypocrisy. So in this case, one can see - “don’t judge atheists by a single example unless you are ready for christians to be judged by a single example…”. Oops.

Not always true? Yes it means it's true sometimes. These are our failings.

You, i.e., atheists worldwide have been telling us and arguing for many decades Christians don't follow or behave like Jesus. These atheist therefore must have some incline that Jesus is a high authority.

The understanding that Jesus is some sort of high authority is only in the eyes of the person who claims they are following Jesus’ high authority. But we get that and we can undderstand that is their frame of reference and talk to them understanding that they believe this.

From these discussion, it seems not everyone got it.

On this particular point, I don’t see that you’ve made your case.
I think all the atheists here get that YOU think Jesus is a high authority. Is there a dispute about that?

I was only replying to a particular notion where a post said (paraphrasing): there where doubts that anyone really knows who the moral authority was, apparently according to, the vagueness in the biblical texts.

It’s called “empathy” and “putting onself in another’s shoes” (it’s also called “former Christian” and “learned scholar” for some). Christians could try some of these!

You were able to deduce "The arrogant self importance.." from um... moral ambiguities? Amazing... you deserve a jar of perfumed alabaster.

A. It was an alabaster jar of perfume, not perfumed alabaster. Honestly, don’t know your own book?

Do you know irony? Silly statement for a silly response.

Indeed. I was making a funny response. Sorry for not including a smilie.

B. Yes one can easily deduce “the arrogance of self-importance” when someone takes money that could be given to the poor and instead bathes in it, and then tells someone who reminds him of the mouths it could feed that he deserves the glory of bathing in money. It is exactly like Trump’s golden toilet. Arrogance all the way down.

Does trump humble himself to wash the feet of his followers?

Does Jesus bathe in expensive perfume and say it’s a Beautiful Thing?
I can see why you might try to avoid talking about this response of Jesus’.

Someone asked him why he didn’t use the money to help the poor and he said he deserved to be pampered, he was about to die. And that is such an anti “give away everything you have and help the poor” statement that it’s worth discussing, but you glom onto the part where you can change the subject to trump. There was a lot of other info in that post that you chose to avoid talking about. It’s interesting.

I can talk about it, but you know it will only be a different 'interpretation' to that verse.

I don't believe Jesus has those somewhat schizophrenic tendencies - promoting meekness, having humility, and being humble, on one side - to then, be the character opposite IOW.

But even if you won’t tallk about how your Jesus answered the question, “why aren’t you helping the poor with this asset,” it doesn’t change his answer; “I deserve to be pampered right now.”

Quite simply, Gods moral authority DOES NOT apply to the non-believer! Atheists are not bound by it, only Christians are. Meaning it is ludicrously against the whole biblical concept, which is about freely accepting, trusting, surrendering to the authority of the absolute - God of the bible. Forcing Gods 'absolute moral authority' on or against someone's will, isn't real, which is really quite meaningless, when their hearts aren't in acceptance of the moral giver idea - which is absolutely defeating the object of the doctrine.

Ha. Haha. Hahahahaha.

LOL. You are charming. Saying that Christians are not forcing their beliefs onto others.
Hahahahahaha.

No, I'm saying, forcing beliefs is not Christ-like, as some of the other posts have already mentioned.

Right - and since “Christians” so often do so many “not Christ-like” things, it’s pretty easy to see that Christianity doesn’t really have any power to make people better.

Wrong...
.. I am better than my former self! Christians are better people in this way - not in the way as atheists love to promote... the notion that we as Christians think we are better than YOU.

Besides, there are various ways to apply a chosen context, when someone is said to claim "they're better" than someone else. For example, what would you perceive the context to be in your mind, if I made the claim that, I am morally better than a rapist or a murderer? (If you can consider I am neither of these, a hypocrite )

But they like to call themseves Christians and (and here’s the crux of the objection from most atheists) they like to crow about their supriority, their superior system and try to force their beliefs to be enforced by secular law in the name of Christianity…

I think we both believe each of systems is superior.

they make it so that you cannot separate Learner’s version of Christianity from everyone else’s version of Christianity from what each of you will claim is “real” Christianity. o funtionally, in society, you have to operate in a pool where all of these “christians” tell us exactly who they are - and we believe them.

As mentioned the above... the common core of Christianity is what matters - which is an accomplishment in itself, so to speak.

You cannot escape from that any more than we can.

I think I can agree with the statement.

 

[Rhea]

Oh but you see... regardless of there even being many denominations and what have you. EVERY Christian understands WHO the Moral authority is,... and they all understand the concept of repentance.

Do they, now.
I mean. Seriously, Do they?

Some seem keen on Jesus. Some seem keen on Yahweh. Some seem very very keen on Paul.
All will disregard some moral bit in the book in favor of a different one. And no, they do not agree.

Everything else which is of lesser importance, i.e., the variations to interpretations, being trivial by large comparison, doesn't conflict with the message, so to speak. These things I've seen put out there by Christians, which I agree with, is to highlight the core of faith, we all agree between us, in the wide Christian community.

(ETA: Those faiths that don't have the the core principles, e.g., Jesus as savior etc.., we don't see as Christian)

And yet, (hilariously,) they say the same of you. And you both call yourselves Christians. Surely you see this. We see this.

Y’all have killed each other over it - you know that we saw that, riight?

Someone asked him why he didn’t use the money to help the poor and he said he deserved to be pampered, he was about to die. And that is such an anti “give away everything you have and help the poor” statement that it’s worth discussing, but you glom onto the part where you can change the subject to trump. There was a lot of other info in that post that you chose to avoid talking about. It’s interesting.

I can talk about it, but you know it will only be a different 'interpretation' to that verse.

I don't believe Jesus has those somewhat schizophrenic tendencies - promoting the meekness, having humility, and being humble, on one side - to then, be the character opposite IOW.

And yet - there it is.

They asked, “Why this waste? This perfume could have been sold at a high price and the money given to the poor.”
and he answered, and I quote:

Why are you bothering this woman? She has done a beautiful thing to me. The poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have me. When she poured this perfume on my body, she did it to prepare me for burial. Truly I tell you, wherever this gospel is preached throughout the world, what she has done will also be told, in memory of her.

Now one could ask, was his comment only to defend the woman from harassment? But no, if it were that, he would have answered differently. Such as, if it were me I would have helped the poor, but you can see she was thinking of me as in dire need. (… of perfume? To be buried properly? More important than the hunger of living people?) His answer was focused on the act being a good use of the money.

Of course it doesn’t feel that way to you.
Anything Jesus says feels good to you. I get that.
Anything Trump says feels good to his followers. “Fuck your feelings”?? He’s just being strong and independent! How wonderful he is!


But the cold light of day says Jesus here thought money was better spent preparing him for burial than feeding the poor - and that everyone will honor this choice throughout the world! Feels great to you. Feels so strong and… Godly?

The arrogant self important Jesus, but after all he was the son of a god. I'd be arrogant to.

Now that’s an odd and unexpected rejoinder.
You react to arrrogant self-importance as inherent to vast power? And acceptable?

I react the opposite. With truly and honestly vast power, must come - inherently - vast humility and empathy. Otherwise it shows that the power is not that vast. To me it is a sign of weakness and doubt.

It’s one of the reasons I cannot… cannot… summon up even a whisp of belief in the existence of your god as described by your book. It does not compute. I cannot believe simultaneously in a being of vast power that also holds arrogance and self-importance. So the very idea that “if you don’t believe, I will burn you for eternity,” is the unassailable proof that the story is a lie. It cannot possibly be true.

Moral ambiguities were there at the get go.

I never did understand why your lot was comfortable with that. That’s another one that belies the story and makes it impossible to accept.

Right - and since “Christians” so often do so many “not Christ-like” things, it’s pretty easy to see that Christianity doesn’t really have any power to make people better.

Wrong...
.. I am better than my former self! Christians are better people in this way - not in the way as atheists love to promote the notion that we as Christians think we are better than YOU.

Learner. One example does not prove the rule.
On the contrary, one counter-example proves the rule is not reliable.

And we certainly have more than one of those.
So you may be better - but there is no evidence for, and lots of evidence against, the idea that the religion is what did that for you.

they make it so that you cannot separate Learner’s version of Christianity from everyone else’s version of Christianity from what each of you will claim is “real” Christianity. o funtionally, in society, you have to operate in a pool where all of these “christians” tell us exactly who they are - and we believe them.

As mentioned the above... the common core of Christianity is all that matters - this is an accomplishment in itself, so to speak - some Christians may not remember this.

The common core of Christianity is not consistently interpreted or understood and the common core of Christianity is not agreed to be “good” in any sense.

Many Christians believe the common core of Christianity is eternal happy life - but not for everyone; for some it is eternal punishment.
And that - at its core - is not “good.”

You cannot escape from that any more than we can.

I think I can agree with the statement.

Then remember to include that when you try to tell us that “Christianity is this” or “Christianity is that.” Because it isn’t. We can all look aound and see that it is not.