Where does Christianity claim this [that it makes people good]?
2Co 5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.
Rom 6:6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
Rom 6:7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.
Col 3:9 Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds;
Col 3:10 And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him:
1Jn 1:6 If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth:
These, of course, are just statements that it makes people good. In addition, there are all of the many and various commands to be good.
On what basis does society, esp. non-Christian secular society presume to determine whether the Christian is behaving “good?”
Non-Christians can fairly and reasonably judge whether or not Christians live up to Christian standards, as well as whether Christians live up to secular standards. Any Christian who commits murder, for example, fails both; a Christian who has extra-marital sexual relations fails (at least the conservative version of) the former.
The same applies to any ideological system: a non-Muslim can not only determine whether a Muslim has committed murder, but whether that Muslim drinks alcohol or sleeps around.
While Christianity has rules against judging others, most people do not follow such rules, and so Christian misbehaviour is a significant issue for most people’s understanding of Christianity.
Are you saying indifference is something different than vocal hostility?
Of course.
No one said that the world sees the Church as virtuous and upright, and therefore a threat to their own licentiousness. Christ, however…Now there’s the threat.
Really? And who thinks that Christ is a threat? I have yet to see any non-Christian represent him in any such fashion. Where are you getting this idea from?
No? Then you haven’t been reading the so-called “new atheists” much. They specifically argue that an atheistic society would be a better, more virtuous society than a theistic one.
Not much, I admit. I prefer intelligent writers, like Russell or T H Huxley. As for the New Atheists’ arguments, they do indeed represent *their *atheism as beneficial, but they are about as representative of atheism as Hillsboro Baptist are of Christianity or as ISIL are of Islam. Unfortunately, it is the vocal extremists who make the news, not the vast majority of quite moderates.
Anyone who imagines that banning religion is a good idea has not studied enough history.
Buddhism also claims that as well. Every religion based primarily on Law does that.
Um, actually no, most forms of Buddhism do not:
nekhamma is not goodness, and Buddhism is not “based primarily on Law”. Mahayana has a considerable faith element in it, and Amitabha has salvation by faith alone.
