Here is something I found on another thread that I would ask you to consider. Yes, there are Christians, many Christians, who give Christianity a bad name. In fact, all of us, to one extent or another, diminish the very name “Christian” each and every time we sin.Maybe what I - and many non-Christians - think of as “negative experiences with Christians”,
were actually “accurate experiences with Christians” – in the sense that those Christians have behaved exactly the way Chrisitans are supposed to behave.
Peace.It is through the Church and by the Church that Jesus changed the world. Without “that error called Christianity,” as someone has defined it[16], we would not be here to speak about him. Jesus would be, today, an obscure Galilean rabbi whose name we would find only if we were to read a note on the writings of Tacitus or Flavius Josephus. There would have been no Augustine, no Francis of Assisi, no Thomas Aquinas, Luther, Pascal; there would have been no Gothic cathedrals or Romanesque churches, no Dante, no paintings of the Renaissance schools, no Michelangelo or Sistine Chapel, Bach or his Passions, Mozart and his Masses. There would, above all, have been none of the innumerable crowds of men and women who, in the name of the Christ they knew through the Church, dedicated themselves utterly to the care of suffering humanity.
Compliments of EWTN.
This post is useful insofar we get to hear views from a non-Christian perspective. What this means is that there are indeed non-Christians that take this attitude towards Christians, which looked from the Christians perspective, is not what Christians want to be presented. There is something to note from this. One of the reasons why Christianity was rejected or did not successfully get a foothold in foreign countries, examples, Japan and China, was the failure of the missionaries to be able ‘to be anything what the people were’.Maybe what I - and many non-Christians - think of as “negative experiences with Christians”,
were actually “accurate experiences with Christians” – in the sense that those Christians have behaved exactly the way Chrisitans are supposed to behave.
Christians tend to have an air of religious supremacism, a religious triumphalism, a religious imperialism, down to “It’s not that we Christians hit people too hard, it’s that people’s bones are too soft.”
Sometimes, this is blatant, other times subtle.
Maybe this is what it means to be Christian. It would be foolish to take issue with people who simply behave the way they think is right.
If Christians believe that whatever a Christian says is as good as if God would say it – if Christians believe that they can speak on God’s behalf and that non-Christians are supposed to trust Christians as much as they would trust God –
then who are non-Christians to take issue with that …
we can only cry to God … perhaps …
Thanks for your forthrightness.Maybe what I - and many non-Christians - think of as “negative experiences with Christians”,
were actually “accurate experiences with Christians” – in the sense that those Christians have behaved exactly the way Chrisitans are supposed to behave.
Christians tend to have an air of religious supremacism, a religious triumphalism, a religious imperialism, down to “It’s not that we Christians hit people too hard, it’s that people’s bones are too soft.”
Sometimes, this is blatant, other times subtle.
Maybe this is what it means to be Christian. It would be foolish to take issue with people who simply behave the way they think is right.
If Christians believe that whatever a Christian says is as good as if God would say it – if Christians believe that they can speak on God’s behalf and that non-Christians are supposed to trust Christians as much as they would trust God –
then who are non-Christians to take issue with that …
we can only cry to God … perhaps …
Most theistic religions do that.From our perspective, I think Christianity, and Christians in particular, may be seen as “speaking for God” by those outside the faith.
It’s not that those ideas are “contrary to worldly views.”At times those ideas are contrary to worldly viewpoints and I could see someone having the perspective you mentioned.
Whenever a theist supposes themselves to be speaking on behalf of God, and demands from people the sort of submission that only God can demand.You also mentioned Christians having an air of supremacism. Do you have examples of that you would be comfortable sharing, or were you referring to this in a more generalized sense?
I find it very interesting that you ask this – that this is how you interpret my presence here.May I ask why you are even on this forum? It seems all you wish to do is show your contempt for Christianity, or more specifically, Christians. Are you interested in learning anything or are you just here to rant?
So, surely, the answer to the conundrum is to evade the multiplicity of views and opinions and seek what Jesus actually taught.Lucy107 #85
It’s not that those ideas are “contrary to worldly views.”
It’s that they are contrary to the theistic views of other theists.
In reality, these multitudinous preachers seldom all claim to be the “only right one” but you are perfectly right that they do cause “confusion” to anyone “seeking a spiritual path.”Within any given week in an average Western city, one can hear preachers from many of the major and some minor theistic religions, from all over the world. Each one of them claims to be the one and only right one. And they all pretend like they don’t know about eachother; or at least they are completely indifferent to the confusion that the multitude of mutually exclusive theisms that are on offer, causes to a person who is seeking a spiritual path.
Thanks for answering. It sounds like you come from an atheistic point of view, which by nature would be different from any theistic belief system.Most theistic religions do that.
It’s not that those ideas are “contrary to worldly views.”
It’s that they are contrary to the theistic views of other theists.
Within any given week in an average Western city, one can hear preachers from many of the major and some minor theistic religions, from all over the world. Each one of them claims to be the one and only right one. And they all pretend like they don’t know about eachother; or at least they are completely indifferent to the confusion that the multitude of mutually exclusive theisms that are on offer, causes to a person who is seeking a spiritual path.
Whenever a theist supposes themselves to be speaking on behalf of God, and demands from people the sort of submission that only God can demand.
I find it very interesting that you ask this – that this is how you interpret my presence here.
I am learning a lot here. It’s just that it’s probably not the sort of things that you expect me to learn.
I would describe myself as a “prospective theist.” I start my days by writing down that the credits that I get to live in a house, am relatively healthy, have work to do etc., are due to God.Thanks for answering. It sounds like you come from an atheistic point of view, which by nature would be different from any theistic belief system.
Back to the original question though, why is it then that you seem to be antagonistic towards those with a theistic viewpoint? The underlying concept of your posts seems to be “theists are pushing their beliefs on others and speaking like they speak from their god”, yet isn’t that what an atheist is doing by suggesting theists not speak of a god? Saying “my belief system is right and you should adhere to it?”
I think that people should not say on behalf of God whatever they want.If a theist wants to believe in a higher power, why would that bother you, particularly if they are incorrect? Why not let us believe what we want?
What (rational) fear is not a result of experience?Oh, I’m sure you’re right about that but quite a bit of that is the result of experience/‘hereditary’ experience, isn’t it?
It tends to depend upon how the audience are feeling about the matter in question: arguments about the validity of the faith of the Crusaders or the followers of Hassan-i-Sabbah tend to be discussed with less aggression that arguments about the validity of the faith of the modern combatants.I expect that for a lot of non-Christians (and Christians who are members of minority churches), the “it wasn’t Christians/members of (whatever) Church who were naughty, it was a few/some/rather a lot of individual Christians/members of (whatever) Church who were naughty” defence raises more smiles than anything else.
Well, most of them, anyway. The New Atheists do quite a bit of preaching.The only difference perhaps is that non-Christians do not make a pretense of it and do not preach to you.