In both cases here, that's the "I don't believe Christianity" option. And that's fine and it's understandable why you'd be put off by elements of it. In that case, Jesus was just some random guy who talked about how to be a good person and the Bible is just a self-help type book or a book or morals or whatever - a perfectly reasonable position to take. But I don't understand why one would be offended that if someone DOES actually believe in Christianity, that they would try to spread it. That's the part that I think is logical and normal to do.
Fair enough. The bolded part: I guess what I dislike is being forced into something. I attended bible study, I understand parts of it, and have made a decision to not classify myself as a Christian; I think this decision should be respected. Let each person make their own decision. If a Hindu is unhappy with his philosophy, he will make the effort to change it and embrace another religion. I wouldn't want to change your mind and say my faith is better because I don't know for sure (no-one knows for sure), and I expect the same from the other party.
I am a Baptist, and I have never preached Christianity to you. Therefore, your generalization has been proven false. I do not understand why people attack Christianity over certain people and groups within it. No single religion or group is going to have a perfect set of members; there will be people on different ends of the religious spectrum. Atheists cannot claim purity, either. Do I need to discuss the atheistic despots Mao Zedong and Joseph Stalin? People change, but the fundamental theology or philosophy does not change. Some people have been conditioned to attack Christianity as soon as they hear about it, which is a shame. There are many Christians who have started food pantries, shelters, etc. Actually go to a church, and report what you find. You will see judgmental people, but you will also see friendly, helpful people and true Christians.
Kinda like the DMV. amirite? I have to say I have gotten a good chuckle of resident Christians upset for being confronted for their beliefs as they simultaneously discredit other Christians for not being true Christians. Talk about entertaining!
Or 6. They see how clearly Christianity (and most other organized religions) is/are, at best, incomplete and feel the need for a higher understanding. Most people would be left in utter confusion and have their mind blown if they tried to read 2-3 paragraphs of some of the theological literature I read. And what works best for me is that I don't think any particular work is perfect or infallible, I just read and expand my mind, trying to weigh what makes sense versus what doesn't. As it stands, anything from theological literature to just plain ol' life experiences in general help me expand my mind. In some cases it just comes down to courage because most have a hard time either admitting what they've always believed is wrong or are too afraid to be criticized for having strange beliefs if they don't believe in something mainstream.
Yes, just like the DMV. Christians are no better or worse than other groups of people, and you'll find all kinds with all kinds of attitudes and personalities. Just like the DMV or the mall or the grocery store or your local university or just about anywhere else.
I can just as easily make an argument that it is the religious who are the lazy ones. To me it's lazy to believe you know the certainty of god and the origin of life. Searching for answers through observable traits and extrapolation of data(science) is less lazy than saying "Well I'm just going to assume this 2000 year old book has all the answers about creation". One of these methods tends to restrict advancement in knowledge thus is lazy.
LOL, that's why it's so dangerous to believe a holy book or doctrine is infallible or that it may or may not have been tampered with and that was certainly the case in Yahshua's/Jesus' story imho. Or it could be "I don't believe in Christianity as it is traditionally taught.
Jesus taught that if you have ever hated a person that you have committed murder in your heart. He also taught if you look upon a woman with lust you have committed adultery. I understand why people pick and chose to listen what Jesus said. To me though, you either have to completely deny him, he did claim to be God, or accept him for who he said he is.
Christians are arrogant and arbitrary to claim that they are right and everyone else is wrong: This view is self-refuting because the atheist is claiming to be right in rejecting the truth of Christianity and that Christians are all wrong. As Alvin Plantinga says, “These charges of arrogance are a philosophical tar baby: get close enough to them to use them against the Christian believer, and you are likely to get stuck fast to yourself.”[4] Non-judgmentalism is self-refuting: If it is wrong to say others are wrong, then it is wrong to say that it is wrong to say others are wrong. Christian humility does not mean saying that everyone else is right and the Christian is wrong; it means submitting to God’s revealed word and proclaiming God’s word to others as He commands.
When the Christian appeals to faith, he is not appealing to the non-rational but to an absolutely rational God. It is the atheist, believing that the finite human mind is the most advanced mind in the universe and that the universe is ultimately non-rational, who is appealing to the non-rational when he believes something that has not been grasped by the human mind. Thus, the view of religion assumed in this objection is actually a description of atheist spirituality and faith rather than Christianity.To be skeptical of everything would mean that a person has no beliefs, like a vegetable. You should not be so open-minded that your brains fall out. One cannot be skeptical of the truth of something unless one accepts a standard of truth by which other claims can be judged. Infallibility is an inescapable concept. Everyone has some ultimate standard of truth. If God is rejected, another ultimate standard will take His place, an idol. As ultimate, there is no higher standard that can criticize it. The State (Hobbes, Hegel), the Communist Party, nature (Marquis de Sade), the will of the majority (Rousseau), experience (Hume), the artistic impulse, academic freedom, and many other aspects of God’s creation have served as infallible idols for modern society. Both the Christian and non-Christian have an ultimate authority that they will not question and in terms of which they judge (are skeptical of) other claims to truth. The atheist is close-minded in rejecting the possibility of God from the outset, as when they define science as a search for naturalistic explanations, which means that it is a foregone conclusion that they will never discover evidence for the supernatural. Thus when they claim to believe things only on the basis of “evidence” and will follow the evidence wherever it leads, they have rigged the game by defining “evidence” from the start to exclude God. They are being close-minded to the very possibility of finding evidence for Christianity. The atheist position is logically self-refuting, for it amounts to an absolute claim that there are no absolutes. It is an absolute claim that the Bible and Christianity cannot be true, and that “science,” which can give only probabilistic truth, is the source of all genuine knowledge. Not only is it self-refuting, but the atheist’s ultimate standard undermines the possibility of rationality because that ultimate standard is non-rational. On the basis of the wholly non-rational the rational cannot arise and cannot be explained. To be skeptical in a way that is morally and logically sound, one must have a rational, absolute standard of truth by which to judge other claims. Only in terms of the ultimacy of an absolutely rational God and His revealed absolute word, can a person be rationally and morally open-minded and skeptical.
I agree with your general point, but some southern Baptists make a habit of over the top criticism of other religions and other Christians. Do you not agree? Never heard that kinda stuff going to Catholic Mass. It is their right but I find it off putting
It would seem Alvin doesn't know the definition of the word truth. Let me help. Truth - the state of being the case : fact Fact - the quality of being actual : actuality : a question of fact hinges on evidence
I agree, science has not yet given a definitive answer. Unlike you though I am capable of accepting that we do not YET poses that knowledge and might not in my entire lifetime. I will never give up and rely on 2000 year old scripture for answers on these important questions.
@OP. Just look and study other religions. You might find the right one if you are a true believer (only one God).
