Is christianity offensive

i hope ive never come off like thats the case...

my post above doesnt state anything to that effect, i dont think, and if it comes off like that, it was certainly inadvertant.

my irritation is with people who deride religious folks as weak minded, or as people who are inherantly dependant on something else.

in short, i agree with you. if anyone wanted to come of condecendingly from a religious standpoint, i would be equally as annoyed. that just doesnt happen as much on a skiing message board.

so, no offence was intended, except towards those who do attack people of a faith, organized or not. like you said, were all dependant on something, whether its religion, adamant disavowal of religion, or something else. no one is better than anyone else, as far as inate human worth is concerned.
 
Say What? Great example of misconceptions and how people are to blame not Christianity. I think you'll be hard pressed to find any Biblical reference to Jesus having sinned.

I'm quite impressed with this thread, so far very respectful and overall intellectual. I have a few things to comment on.

Somebody mentioned not buying into the creation theory. Science doesn't disprove God any more than it proves Him. If He created the earth, wouldn't science be His creation and be His 'scientific' laws? God can work in worldly ways.

Another misconception is that Christians believe they are above or better than everyone else, I understand this one, though someone with a true faith doesn't feel this way. Paul(Author of a large portion of the new testament) said he was the worst sinner...i.e. "I am recognizing my need for help." And the passage about not judging plays into this as well, who are we as men, as sinners to think we are better than anyone else?

The comments on women in the church, yes there are some congregations who don't allow women to be leaders in the church. Please don't judge chrisianity of what some do, I have attended church's with women pastors. Jesus was all about women's equality. He spent a fair amount of time with Mary Magdelen, a prostitute, one of the most looked down upon people in all of that society.

Christians force people to believe: No, christians want you to share in the joy they have found and hope that you can share in their salvation. I agree that many christians push their faith on others. I believe christians have a responsiblity to share their faith with others. This can done in many ways, words, actions, or simply listening. If a person doesn't truly believe what they are accepting, then a christian would rather they take more time to think about their decision than going into faith half heartedly.
 
I've been goin to church as a christian my whole life... a bunch of my friends do not believe in organized religion and as i became older i realized that i do not agree with organized religion... i believe in god and that jesus died on the cross, but sometimes goin to church i think what they teach is horrible... telling us that we arnt good enough and we are not worth, what kind of thing is that? If we are not worthy then whats the point to our excistance... And the whole sex thing... controll ourself and not have sex till your married.. dont believe in that either... I have a penis and i plan on using it before i get married... if it is a sin and what not then i can ask for forgivness... I dont think Christianity is Offensive, and if a christian judges you then just simply tell them that they are not the ones to judge... I respect every religion because of what i think may not be what someone else thinks... thats my shpeal on that.
 
I dont think the religion is offensive, but like the rest of the world you only notice the annoying people who push it way too far. Im sure theres way more awsome christians that bad, but some are just crazy. I myslef am christian and go to a very open and friendly church, and by go I mean I go christmans and easter.

I think it gives people faith, and some people a reason to be, but when people judge and act superior it frutrates me.
 
Anything can be deemed offensive this day and age. Some people just need to learn to look the other way.

But at the same time, there is no need to push beliefs on people who are doing something seperate with their lives, as long as they aren't raping and pillaging.

I know myself, I grew up in a religious house. My parents go to church every weekend. i went to church and religion class all while I was younger.

What did I take from it? A good moral background and how to treat people. Do I believe in God? I don't know. But I will live my life as a good person. I don't go to church though, which doesn't matter in my opinion.
 
Christianity, for me, is not offensive. I can live with people that believe in God. I also live with the Christian celebrations (Christmas, Easter ect...). I reject the idea of creationism or a superior God nor do I go to church. I do believe in the basic values: love thy next, peace and honor ect...

In another way I hate with all my heart Christians, espiacely fundamentalists (roman catholics, born again). They alway put faith in lies and try to make the other believe the nonsense. They go as far as sending crusades, killing people to force the others to convert. then they say that they are "saving" them and that they are "pro-life". They show little or tolerence to facts (sex, gays and abortions) and hide from proof of science. They always call faith "truth".

They always call "the others" enemis. Any other religion deserves to die, muslim, jew ect... If anyone offences them, they strike back with all the force they have. Yeah, so much for Jesus's teaching...

I have many other thing that I hate about Christans but I don't have the time to give all my arguments. I hope that Christans will change to the better. Heh, if they know what change is...
 
Religion is a buisness. Not that it is bad but they're good and bad things about it just like everything else. So in conclusion... anyone who knows anyone who possible might have known who, what, where, when, or why... sucks ass. Breed Love not hate.
 
I have absolutely no problem with someone believing that. However, please change "always was, always will be" with "this is what I believe", because you don't know for sure, and anyone who claims they know for sure is just as close minded as a "religious" person who refuses to think of other options.
 
I find it hard to believe that somone or some group spent thousands of years writing and compiling religious information and commandments with the goal of social control. And another somone or some group did the same things for Hinduism, another for Islam and every other religion. Sounds like some sort of conspiricy.
 
Would you find it tough to believe that someone or some group would spend millions of dollars (back in roman times) which now adays would be billions of dollars on social control???

Well believe it. The Romans spent huge sums of money on social control. They built ampitheatres all over the empire which staged huge spectacles. Life got so harsh towards the end of the roman empire, that the only way they could control the masses was to give them the day off to watch the spectacles. They gave out free food to the spectators and these spectacles were held over 100 times every year.

So yes, I would definitely believe that people would spend a great deal of time compiling religious materials and that many people would come up with similar ideas.

Don't bother arguing with me, argue with history. Oh and this post by no means is intended to be an argument against religion, I'm simply denouncing what you said.
 
I don't

True Christianity imp has not a lot to do with what sect you are in

But what you believe in your heart
 
ya that's what I was thinking. It's sort of like how catholics just say they're sorry for sleeping with some random striper then go out and do it the next day and go repent again and apparently that's all you have to do.
 
The first parts of the bible, namely the books of Moses, are believed to have taken place somewhere between 1200 and 1500 BC, whereas the Roman Empire was established closer to 30 BC. I question the validity of the Romans being responsible for the creation of Christianity as a social control simply because they were not around when the first 4 or 5 books of the bible were written.

The New Testement of the bible was written in AD times, when the Roman Empire was fully established. Your argument would be more valid if the whole bible was written during this time, but the parts that give us the majority of our law code were the books of Moses, written long before the Rome was established.

Also, it was said religion is a means of social control. Religion encompasses Christianity, Catholicism, Islam, Hinduism ect. This means that not only would the Christian bible have to a fabrication, so would the Koran, and other documents relgions use. Not possible.
 
Well, the first 3/4 of that has nothing to do with what I said. I made no connecion between the Romans and religion. I said that if the Romans were willing to spend absurd amounts of money on social control, why wouldn't people be willing to spend a few years writting some books?

And how can you say that "not only would the Christian bible have to a fabrication, so would the Koran, and other documents relgions use. Not possible."

How is this not possible? The only thing that would not be possible is for every religion to be truth because they contradict eachother.

Oh and catholicism is a sect of Christianity not a religion of its own.
 
yes i think that some little old man who looks like me is up in the sky watching my every move and while he loves me, he may choose to send me to a place with fire if I am bad.
 
I was under the impression that you were saying the Romans had fabricated the bible for means of social control. If I was wrong in assuming that, sorry, but why did you even mention the Romans?

In regard to your question regarding the Romans spending a few years writing books (I'm assuming you mean the bible?), I was essentially stating in my last post that the law code portion of the bible was around long before the Roman Empire. Therefore the Romans writing that as a means of social control is impossible.
 
yes chrisitanity is offensive... i get offended every time i get bombarded by bible thumpers trying to make me follow their beliefs.

I have also taken two Theology classes in college where I learned a lot about Chrisianity. I was skeptical about the religion before I took the class, but afterwards the stuff I leaned even better supported the fact that Christianity today is a hypocritical bullshit. When Christianity was started, it was meant to be a guide to living a righteous life, which i can respect. Over history, Christianity has been abused and warped by people who misinterperate the stories of the bible. The Bible is merely a set of fictional stories meant to guide people to salvation. Throughout history, people have misinterperated the Bible which a large cause of making Christianity the lie that it is today.

I do admit that there are some positive aspects of Christianity, which is good for some people, but using it as a means to justify hate, killing, and to change others beliefs is bullshit.
 
I think in a way most major organizations are offensive to a degree. Jihad, The Crusades, and what not are direct results of organized religion, and I think its rediculous that one person thinks that their own set of beliefs are superior to anothers. Especially those who believe that people who dont think like they do will go to hell.
 
most universalizing religions are offensive, i don't mind religion. i jsut don't liek people preaching to me
 
completely false. the church doesnt allow women preists because they follow what jesus did. yes it is somewhat unfair that they cannot be priests, and that may change once we get a more liberal pope; however to say that the church "demonizes" women is just kind of stupid
 
Mormons believe in Christ, therefore fit the description of Christianity, which is, believing in Christ.
 
when the bible is taught as law yes christianity is offensive

if christians would just realize that it is an allegory things would be better i think

us Jews (well reformist anyway) do not believe that the idea that the stories in the Torah are true, we just take them to mean that they show good examples of ideas.

any religion that preaches that it is the only right way to believe and that all others will go to hell is just preposterous and i strongly disagree with that.

i also strongly believe that worshipping idols is an easy way out and that it instantly creates racism by showing an example of a "perfect" person. the whole sexisim thing in the church follows this idea as well.

the idea of a completely unmanifested God was too difficult to understand for people so Jesus was used as a representation for God. In my view Christianity is a Perversion of Judaism so that it is easier to understand and follow.

I also think that whenever an afterlife is used as a carrot on a stick to be a good person the said religion is wrong. One should want to be a good person just to be moral, not to get into an exclusive club in the sky. Poor morals just give one an empty life anyway. there is no concrete afterlife in Judaism and i do not fear going to hell, but i take pride whenever i do the right thing and feel just as bad when i sin. a moral life is a fulfilling life.

I think it is extremely difficult to have a decent religion when it is organized because power corrupts and an organization is based around power. the good part is that religions are a great way to channel people's natural spirituality and to give a good education on morality.

i know i just offended a ton of people but o well. thats waht i think and i have been told that im going to hell before because i dont believe in Jesus so i think christianity could use a few changes.
 
No one who uses religion or the bible to support their ethics knows anything whatsoever ABOUT ethics. I'm offended at, if nothing else, that implication; morals do not require a belief in nor the existence of a supreme being. I consider myself Christian, but this assumption is entirely wrong. Wilkes, you're horribly misguided on this one. And claiming that the "western conception" of morals is dictated by judeo-christian idology is essentially subscribing to cultural relativism, possibly even subjectivism. The only thing that worries me is that with all your well-put, lengthy posts, someone might have actually thought you were right about any of this.

Please, people. Take an ethics course.
 
its contextualism. how are you going to tell me that the western idea of what is or isnt ethical isnt effected by the setting? you can seperate the two in theory, but not in widespread practice.

do you think that everyone, when they use the word ethics colloquially is thinking of deontology vs consequentialism? i doubt it.

fact is, religion is the basis for what people deem as ethical or not.

if you want to go ahead and back up your smack talk instead of condecendingly stating that no one knows what their talking about, then please, hit us with a little ghetto gospel.

you cant tell me that cultral realitivism shouldnt be taken into account when were talking about real world application. do you think that you can gain a solid appreciation for a Middle Easterners idea of right and wrong without taking into account the context of Islam? no! of course not! its the most important thing!

maybe youre dwelling strictly in the realm of theory here, and if you want to go talk bentham and mill, then fine. i just dont know what good it is going to do here...

in an individual setting, i dislike the idea of realitivism, since somewhere there probably is a right and a wrong, or at least, if someone is going to claim that there is one, there shouldnt be factors that make something more or less wrong based on the situation... but you have to be able to accept that even if thats the fact of the matter, there are things that are going to shape that persons understanding of whats right or wrong, or ethical or not.

im not basing the definition of whats ethical on what got written on mt siani. what i am saying is that our understanding of what is ethical cant be taken out of the framework or christianity. i dont know how this is arguable.
 
Youre very long winded...GET TO THE POINT.

I dont think I remembered a single thing you said after I read it, not because I'm stupid (which, ironically, I am), but because your line of thought was not very coherent.
 
then you dont understand the religion. there is a difference between believing in Christ and saying you believe in Christ.
 
So basically what you're trying to say is that without religion in the past, and lacking the influence of it, the world today would be an immoral place?

That makes no argument for the use of the current religious establishments today. Governments rose along with highly organized religions in their efforts to make sure individuals didnt engage in activities that were detrimental to the society they were a part of.

Government alone would have been able to produce the basic set of laws we have today, like the criminalization of murder and theft, without creating as many predjudaces, since these laws are neccessary for an orderly civilization. Predjudaces are obviously going to form when you believe that someone from another belief is damned to hell, or not priviledged in your God's eyes.
 
i never said those words.

what i said is that religion, since it has been there for as long as people have been, has shaped, or created the framework through which we make value judgments.

your hypothetical may be valid, but its just that, a hypothetical.
 
I dont deny that religion has shaped how many people make value judgements, infact it has often led to KILLING IN THE NAME OF GOD.

You implied here that the reason many people can claim to be "moral" is from judeo-christian influences. I'm saying that this is totally untrue. Look at how many other cultures have developed similar values independent of the judeo-christian influence.
 
never said that. i said that the ideas that are found in judeo christian tradition are the framework for what we consider to be moral. again, youre speculating about what might be. im talking about what is.

i also acknowledged that the Middle Eastern concept of morality and ethics is different due to their different historical and cultral context.

eastern cultures, same thing. Are you going to tell me that Chinese thought concerning what is or is not right and moral is unaffected by confuscism?

dont put words in my mouth that i didnt say. if you want to put forth a speculation of your own, thats fine, but for heavens sake, take credit for it. \

you agree with my entire point in your first sentance.
 
Messages from wilkesyachtin...* (currently online and idle for 1 minutes):

Date Sent: December 7 2005 21:36:04

theres been a trillion mormon threads already. go read one of those if you want to get into a redundant discussion.

okay boss...just so you know (and for the sake of the 14 yr olds reading this stuff), your abundance of words does not make up for your lack of reason.
 
you and jd have the same M.O. i see... making claims without making spacific points... im pretty sure that if you guys put a little effort into this you could come up with something convincing.

but right now you both are comming off a bit... arrogant?
 
This is wrong, I think there are many people who you would consider moral, who truely lives their lives independant of religion, and do what they think is best for a functioning society. Certainly there are others that are totally influenced by it, but these people who aren't are by no means hypothetical.
 
Exactly. People are capable of thinking for themselves without religion. Just because somebody doesn't have a book of morals to turn to in hard times doesn't mean that they cannot make the right decision on their own.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top