I note on first page of this forum a number of threads asking people to offer critique of christianity. And I wonder why, exactly!?


If christianity is tolerance, why is it some christians can not tolerate people that do not agree to believe as they do!? When, in the new testament (NT), jesus even said that not everyone would understand his words, so as to attain the salvation he came to offer those that could. If jesus expressed an understanding not everyone would believe, why can't those calling themselves christ like, follow the christ example as easily as they claim to follow the faith, that causes so many to then condemn those that , in effect, live up to exactly what jesus said would occur, from those people for whom his words were not intended!? Jesus wasn't speaking to everyone. So why is it a surprise not everyone finds jesus speaks to them!? (Mark 4:11–12)

Well you could say...why do believers concern skeptics, after all it works both ways...just saying is all


When you wrote believers..I thought you meant ALL those that believed in God and not just christians...there was me all ready to post my side of it all, cuz I am a believer too

So I'll answer anyhoo lol

As a believer, much like the christians...I too am concerned as to why others dont follow God...

WHY?? cuz im curious...to learn what and how others think


Maybe thats why christians do it


My friends Heather and IAMS always willing to answer questions, they NEVER fail...I love them both IAMS is my best friend (male wise) on here...he never ever lets me down when it comes to questions

I can fire any question at him, there is is with a simple answer...perfect...so is Heather..........without the 2 of them, I would be like I used to - negative and green to christianity


BUT and there is a BUT...i have noticed a lil handful of christians that do get OTT concerned, its like they dont and cant get over the fact that not everyone follows them.....but thankfully NOT ALL CHRISTIANS DO THIS

What I find strange is when the believers question the nonbelievers and ask why we don't believe, then get mad with our answers. If you don't really want to know, then don't ask. I try to keep an open mind, but the door shuts when I am told I am wrong and someone puts words in my mouth to prove themselves right.

I would actually think that goes without saying. Whereas this thread asks a specific question and is not then a matter of working both ways, when christians post as much (look to page 1 of this forum) already. One can certainly ask a question, without it being a contention that it is a matter of inequality in the process.

And you are certainly entitled to answer generally, rather than christian specific, as it were. The post title invited replies in the matter, the body of the thread concerned, particularly, the recent flood of posts asking why people feel as they do about christians, specifically. So it was to that that I was speaking to initially.

Edit to add: Glorybebe, thank you for your insight. That has to be one of the best replies I have ever read, in the matter.

On another thread we were asked to respond with our thoughts regarding our possible reaction to positive proof of the existence of the Christian god. In responding to a hypothetical question I have upset the Christian who posted the question, have apparently made him feel that I believe there's something wrong with him, and he has concluded that I am angry at the god I do not believe in... because my response was honest and frank. I am curious each time this happens as to why such questions would be posed if there is no genuine desire to hear the truth.

For the most part I think a number of "why do non-believers not like Christianity" threads are intended as a vehicle to allow the thread's creator to alter the opinions of those who are inspired to respond to the opening question which claimed a genuine interest in those opinions. Each thread turns into a "now let me show you where you're wrong" dialogue, which serves to frustrate those who offered an honest response to the original question posed, and to upset the Christian who receives unflattering comments regarding the focus of his beliefs.

I post responses to these questions nonetheless, in the hope that I will encounter one which is motivated by genuine interest, regardless of the number of times I encounter quite the opposite.

I totally agree. If we all listened to each other, we would gain insights into why we each believe what we do. It may not convert other's to our way of thinking, but at least we could understand each other and respect each other without all the harshness that happens.

I don't know you much glorybebe, but with this post I've found that we both have something in common now

Goddess, I just wanted to comment on how touching and confronting the picture is of Jesus......

I'm glad you like it Mum. You can find more such art work, here.

And (((Gentle Hugs))) All best wishes in your delivery of little one, coming soon. Of course, you must spoil us with pictures of the newest little treasure, after their arrival. Hint! Maaaajor hinting here, so pay attention.

I think believers who are insecure in their belief may be bothered by skeptics, and some people just want everyone to think as they do because they know they're right. Also some take their particular religious belief so seriously that they identify their very being with it, and any skepticism is a threat to their own self-identity.

I'm not personally a believer in religion, but most Christians I talk to are not bothered much by my dis-belief. The usual reaction they have is being amazed that there is someone who actually doesn't believe in Christianity. Then they warn me about not going to heaven, but most aren't very concerned about it all and are very nice. Probably nicer to me because they consider me a lost soul. I think most people consider belief a personal thing and feel secure within themselves. The ones who are bothered most probably have personality problems anyway, and this subject is a way for them to express their own frustrations in their lives. I'm willing to discuss my views on belief systems and express my thoughts in a passionate way, but in the end it's live and let live, I say. I feel secure in the way I think and I'm not bothered by other's beliefs either, except for those who wish to impose their way of thinking on mine. I think that is a non-religious attitude.

Thanks matey.....

No worries, along with all the gory details there'll be plenty of pics of the new addition but not of Mum...

Well, I have been trying to cut all negativity out of my life, but it is really hard to do. It's especially hard to try and open up and say what you believe and be told that you are wrong. So, my goal is to either say nothing at all or try to express what I mean without taking too much to heart and to try to not hurt anyone's feelings. Unfortunately, I am human and sometimes get heated up in a discussion, but I am trying to stick to my own guidelines to lessen the negative feelings directed to wards me and directed by me.

From the OP
"If christianity is tolerance, why is it some christians can not tolerate people that do not agree to believe as they do!?"

While very true, this is a human failing not, particularly, a christian one. The answer is probably; we evolved that way; or it is a product of our fall from perfection in Eden.

In either case it is a by -product of fear, mainly our fear of difference and the unknown. We feel safer when we live in a community of commonality, where we all look the same and have the same values, and where each day is predictable. Boring yes, but also safer. Evolution has made us suited to small familial or clan groups, designed for a common purpose of survival.

Biblically, the race divided after Eden, into the sons of god, or those who followed god, and the sons of man, who did not. At Babel, god further broke up humanity to prevent all of humanity from following a wrong belief. He created more diversity of choice for humanity, which caused some new problems, as well as solving the immediate one.

Still, diversity of choice is not a bad thing, but we need to recognise the social tensions it creates, and actively work to minimise the effects of fear, through education and our own example.

Love thy neighbour, even if he is a different colour, and yes even if he is gay, or most fatal flaw, does not possess (along with the ability to use every one of them) a shed full of power tools.

I'd say it has more to do with character, a lot of people feel the need to convince others of their beliefs, however I'd say this tendency is also quite common among 'skeptics'.

I wonder, because I agree with your insight into the matter, Affliction, if in thinking to convince others of one's personal beliefs, if it's not also in the same respect attempting to re-affirm one's own sense of security in holding to the belief(s). It's bold to declare to everyone else that there is only one way to think, so as to be right and assured the reward after life, for towing that line. When, after life, having lived right (or wrong), is a non-issue . One's human consciousness, complete with all the sensory capacities that understand pain, joy, etc... are dead along with the body that housed the brain and nervous system that communicated such feelings. Making paradise, after the living is done, supposition based on the hope one is worthy of such a place, for living as they do here. Or not. And that, the concept of hell, or damnation after living, I think represents a sense of self-loathing that any god that makes and knows everything before it can happen, would create such punishment for it's creation doing exactly as it knew it would. One can not believe god knows all while declaring evolution a fiction, when that would mean god is intimately invested in every little change, every little thing, that occurs on every level of existence in this reality. Every plane of existence. Seen and unseen, and then claim the onus is on us, to please it with our free choice. There is no free choice, if one accepts omniscient omnipotent omnipresence oversees all levels of existence. If that were the case, then one would have to admit god is removed from it's infinite presence and knowledge, within the realm of human creation. Making then prayers, rites and rituals, all forms of worship to any deity, irrelevant to that power that removes itself from the world and allows free will to articulate itself without a deific presence to pay attention to that. And if god is all things, that simply can not happen.
So then, to the question, if there is a benevolence unseen orchestrating everything, as it's essence is present in all that exists, I think, becomes why is there allowed to be suffering in the midst of prayers for relief!? Why is there allowed to be contention, strife, war, plague, in the midst of an omnipresent conscious deific power that , in one myth, sent himself as a prophet to offer hope, while saying anything asked in it's name would be granted in it's name. That doesn't then become a matter of context. Else, prayers to this day wouldn't often end, "In jesus name we ask it, Amen!" Unless of course one operates on the pretext that jesus didn't really mean what he said.

I think delving deeper than just accepting, on blind faith, that something extraordinary is true, is what causes many that don't delve into the deeper questions to react to those that do. There is no proof a god exists. However, there is unfortunately much proof to indicate that very real fact, isn't acceptable. Which I think is representative of fear. Fear that it could possibly be true, that there is no thing super natural that cares for us at all. And maybe, if one does believe god removed himself from the realm of his creation, so that free will does hold sway over divine management, it then becomes a matter of all quality of life is our responsibility. Because we're suppose to recognize we're worth more than dividing ourselves as this human community, because of our loyalties to an idea, rather than to a life lived with one another. I see religion as the abdication of personal responsibility. The human/believer in the middle, and juxtaposed on both sides are characters that are to blame or praise, for providing the opportunity to be better or worse, than we choose to be of our own volition. And I think as long as we believe something other than ourselves can aright our condition, we'll always find ourselves praying for help, that never comes, because in our ignorance and arrogance, we always manage to give ourselves something else to pray to be saved from. It's us. It's always been us, responsible for ourselves. And I think what makes for that to be an issue of contention, is it's simply not something many can accept, because they know who they are.

GW how is one tolerant and feel they are the only way....this is not possible tolerance gets its roots in oneness and unity not exclusivism....what one is tolerant of is differences, how does one be inspired to tolerance under a jealous diety...

When the deity leads by example, I'd say tolerance has nothing to do it. The OT is replete with examples of intolerance, in Yahweh's name and at his behest. So if one believes there is only one god, one way to think/believe, in order to attain the rewards that god promises, for compliance to it's commands, one can't be tolerant when the first commandment, (well before all the others that reflect on how to treat other people, you notice) is, have no other gods before me. Which explains the slaughter of those dedicated to other gods. Declaring one faith, to be the one true faith, declares the others false. Which is what monotheism is. One god, one faith one true way. One doesn't tolerate others of faith, when they attempt to tell them their faith is wrong, and there is only one way to god. I see that as prejudice and prejudice precludes tolerance, I think.

Just as in radical islam. Sects beneath that umbrella aren't even tolerant of their womens free will. Remember the 15 girls, I think they were Wahhabi, that burned to death in 02, because Muttawa religious police barred their escape from a burning building, because they weren't properly attired. How about the Saudi education ministry that outlawed ballet, because it ran the risk of exposing the female form, during the dance!? Making tolerance almost a crime against god. Sad, and yet people give their lives holding that faith the sacrifice will get them rewards after the suffering in this one. Somehow, I doubt the first thought, or the last, of those 15 girls that burned to death, was of the heaven they were bound for, once the flames ate them alive. Where is hope for something better, when one is melting before their own eyes and their voice cant scream anymore, because the hot air destroyed their voice box, right before it destroyed them. Tragic, the lives religion has taken, all under the promise the living sacrifice would save a soul, later.

Great response! As Simon Cowell might say, "I could just kiss you..." I have responded to many posts here in UM, and 99 out of 100 of them are posts that are generated by people other than Christians which is revealed by the topic. I have yet to actually read one that is posted by a Christian that is asking people to follow thie belief system and then get angry about it. However, when a post goes after a belief system, then I think it is perfectly fitting for it to be answered. What kind of world would we have if there was no counterpoint? Here in America our political system tries this often. One party wants to be heard over the other, and of course only one is right??? The truth usually is somewhere in the middle and it always takes both sides to get there. Thanks for the post!

You're welcome.

in all honesty I think the reason is doubt . deep down doubt.

and in that honesty that isn't just for christians but athiests too.

if there really were no doubt people wouldn't be bothered to debate/argue/ there would be no need.

since neither can be 100% . Just because something isn't proven at the moment doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Plenty of things have existed until thier discovery. Mountain gorilla's were thought to be fiction at one time. Man landing on the moon was thought to be fantasy.

now this isn't a arguement God exists either. it very well could be a figment of the imagination to soothe fears and to give reason for things man has no control over early in humanitys' develoupment. Earthquakes are the result of Gods anger is an ignorant way of trying to reason. Now that man is more intelligent we know better. ( some may try to say that God still causes them , but many happen where there are no people and no consequence. )


they also think there is a God 'gene'. some have it some don't . does this prove there is a god ? no. but it doesn't disprove it either.



Chief of gene structure at the National Cancer Institute, Hamer not only claims that human spirituality is an adaptive trait, but he also says he has located one of the genes responsible, a gene that just happens to also code for production of the neurotransmitters that regulate our moods. Our most profound feelings of spirituality, according to a literal reading of Hamer's work, may be due to little more than an occasional shot of intoxicating brain chemicals governed by our DNA. "I'm a believer that every thought we think and every feeling we feel is the result of activity in the brain," Hamer says.



http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101041025/

I don't have any issue with doubt... I think it's very wise to doubt. I think it is natural to question, and my line of questioning always takes me in the direction of considering the Creator's non-existence.

agreed. we keep questioning on both sides. if the argument/debate were truly answered , a finality on either side , we wouldn't be here.

in this arena there is no truth but theory. neither side has the truth no matter how much they think they do. To believe something doesn't make it so.

I agree with atheism that church and state need to be separated as our founding fathers put into place. this country was not founded on christainity nor any other religion. Religion was kept out on purpose. Alot of todays christians are twisting what our founding fathers had the good sense to do. that , history has shown , leads to totalitarianism .

"Only a fool is absolutely certain of anything.
Only a madman is always right"

If that were true, it stands to speak to every member that enters and shares in this forum. And I don't believe anyone can say that's the case. I enter conversations of this nature to learn how other people see their world. Sometimes I engage as devils advocate, but I am not alone there. It does not mean I'm looking for a reason to believe in something that, for me, does not exist. Rather it means I enjoy intelligent conversation and so I seek it out on a number of topics, throughout this and many other forums/communities. It's how one learns that religion, faith, is personal. Because people live the faith they hold in their god and as such in themselves that they see fit to believe and worship that which resonates to their sense of spirit and self. I appreciate that, and I do not ask or expect it to convert me, nor do I ever think to convert anyone else. That's brazenly presumptive, and that's not appropriate in polite conversations, when people share a bit of who they are. Not for the purpose of sharing/converting, because of what they'd like those they speak to, to become.

yeah we can see that......B

Barek, are you opposed to disagreeing????

what do YOU think I meant by that remark Sheri?.......B










halfhandshuffle:slayer-war ensemble
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNKgkBz3JkY

are you only programmed to disagree lol

Spirituality - from a skeptical believer's point of view - The Skeptical Eye - Column
Humanist, May-June, 1996 by Gloria J. Leitner


The typical humanist's view of spirituality astutely (and sometimes mockingly) pokes holes in the New Age nostrums that are only too prevalent nowadays.

Such disparagement is certainly merited when spiritual belief becomes an ideology that blocks scientific and rational judgment. When spirituality is wedded to dogmatic belief in "alternative" healing and equally dogmatic rejection of proven medical methods, a healthy skepticism is truly urgent in terms of both saving money and (at times) saving lives.

However, too often an forms of spirituality are automatically regarded in a thoroughly negative light--with the unspoken attitude of "how can an intelligent person in the twentieth century believe any of that spiritual hogwash?" The underlying assumption seems to be that all spiritual believers are fools, duped by the tricks of their own psyche or the brainwashing tactics of a blind circle of guru-worshippers.

Indeed, the Japanese subway gas attacks by the Om Shinrikyo cult seem to lend credence to the wisdom of such a radically skeptical point of view. One doesn't have to go that far to find more pervasive (if less fatal) examples of New Age nonsense in the United States and Europe.

And yet, the humanist must come to terms with the scientifically oriented person who also embraces spirituality (not an oxymoron, I assure you). A humanistic stance of socio-psychological debunking (and often unintentional condescension) doesn't begin to meet the real issue at hand. It doesn't deal with the question of what the content of the spiritual experience is or why it's so sought after in apparently every country on earth and in every era in history. (Continues)

Thank you lol

nope, just hardwired to call out hypocracy .....sorry if I'm still anal at ALL the wrong times doll, I don't hang out in these parts too often ........B










halfhandshuffle:Slayer - Bloodline
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlozQ8xnCk8

thats why i am asking you in all fairness B.

Stephen Parise: Atheism vs. Atheism?


Human beings love to divide everything up and categorize them. That's not such a bad thing, when you think about it, because this tendency can make it easier to understand our surroundings. In principle, every object in the universe is unique and should be treated as different from everything else; in practice, that's just not possible for our poor limited minds. We have to categorize and generalize just to get by in life.
This strategy, however justified, can be taken too far. It's the method of thinking which lies behind prejudicial stereotypes and ultimately dehumanization. Great care should be taken when we find ourselves trying to categorize people because there is such a tendency to imbue those categories, even justified ones, with value-laden judgments that spring more from our own personal prejudices than from reality.

Stephen Parise, lecturer in philosophy and religion, claims that "there are at least two types of atheistic writers" today:

One that understands religious belief (as opposed to secular, or atheistic, belief), and then rejects it. And one that rejects religious belief, and then seeks to justify that rejection. ...The later is obssesed with, and full of hate for, religious believers and conservatives. The former disagrees with, but can empathize with, religious believers - and some of them are conservatives. The later group is shrill and angry. The former group is calm and rational. There are probably as many types of atheistic writers as there are atheists — there's nothing about atheism itself which unites all atheists in any way. It's curious, though, how Parise is able to determine that atheists fall into (at least) these two nice, neat groups and that one group has all the good qualities while the second has all the bad qualities. Is it just a coincidence that the second group isn't just opposed to "religion" but also "conservatives"? I doubt it. Is there any chance that this is what the real problem is: criticism of conservatism and conservative religious beliefs? Perhaps.

Is there any chance that Parise started out with a conception of what he didn't like about some atheists and then worked backwards to find a way to categorize them in a manner that vindicate the atheists he liked while denouncing the ones he didn't? That sounds like a strong possibility. (Article Continues)