Christianity Is Dangerous

[seer]

I'm not concerned about the reputation of atheists, in large part because they don't claim to follow a particular teaching which means huge variance among their beliefs is to be expected.

Nonsense, you are presenting a clear double standard. You will not hold all atheists accountable for the sins of past atheists, yet you want to hold all of Christianity accountable for the evils of some past Christians.

Contrast that with Christians, who for some reason find the command "Love Your Enemies" to be this confusing riddle that must be carefully parsed and evaluated over hundreds of pages of commentary only to reach the conclusion that killing Muslims is a really sweet idea.

Yes and the atheist of the last century killed or imprisoned thousands, if not millions, of believers just because they were believers. BTW - I see no Biblical problem with war, as in self defense. No one I know, and I run in very conservative circles, wants to kill Muslims because they are Muslim. No more than we wanted to kill Germans just because they were German in WW2.

By the way, if you'd care to point to a government based upon the teachings of Christ in the New Testament I'd be anxious to know of it.
If it doesn't exist then you've just scored a point for the skeptics.

Are you really this daft? I'm not saying that there is one or ever will be. I'm asking you what would be "terrifying" about a government based on the teachings of Christ in the New Testament? Be specific please.

[Darth Executor]

So 1500 years of slaughter is okay because of Mother Teresa?

No, 1500 years of slaughter should be accepted as normal because if Christians hadn't been around to engage in it someone else would have. Historically, those who don't slaughter get slaughtered and wiped from this earth. Which is why Ancient Israel, run by God, and a hypothetical MehGerbil government, run by an idiot who's had it too good for too long, would have absolutely nothing in common.

[Meh Gerbil]

Um, no, because it's not Christianity causing all this. You are mistaking correlation with causation.
The skeptic should be wary of any government, and not just irrationally afraid of one subgroup that could obtain power.

The fact is I understand your point quite well as I've made the same arguments myself countless times on atheist message boards.
The problem is that your rebuttal means absolutely nothing to a skeptic because he isn't going to recognize a difference between someone claiming to be a Christian and an authentic Christian because he doesn't recognize the Spirit that makes the difference.

Do you see?

In order for your argument to make sense the skeptic would have to already accept your world view.
Even with that, it is easy just to write you off as another salesman or liar.
We do expect our politicians to lie, right?

Do you want to actually communicate with these people or just absolve yourself of the Inquisition?
Which is more important to you?

[Meh Gerbil]

Nonsense, you are presenting a clear double standard. You will not hold all atheists accountable for the sins of past atheists, yet you want to hold all of Christianity accountable for the evils of some past Christians.

1: It isn't my job to hold atheists accountable for anything.
2: It isn't my job to hold Christians accountable for anything.

I'm making the argument that it is rational for skeptics to be wary of Christians and Christians in power based upon the historical record.
Acting like the skeptic is some sort of a nut job for being scared of a Christian in power is ridiculous.

Yes and the atheist of the last century killed or imprisoned thousands, if not millions, of believers just because they were believers.

That is irrelevant to the point.
Christian actions aren't to be driven by the actions of those being used by the enemy.

Are you really this daft? I'm not saying that there is one or ever will be. I'm asking you what would be "terrifying" about a government based on the teachings of Christ in the New Testament? Be specific please.

I'm keeping the post on topic.
You see, if in 2000 years of trying this has never happened then the skeptic is almost guaranteed of getting the 'bad version' if we get a Christian government again.

See why they might be scared?

[Meh Gerbil]

No, 1500 years of slaughter should be accepted as normal because if Christians hadn't been around to engage in it someone else would have. Historically, those who don't slaughter get slaughtered and wiped from this earth. Which is why Ancient Israel, run by God, and a hypothetical MehGerbil government, run by an idiot who's had it too good for too long, would have absolutely nothing in common.

There are some very interesting theories about God's interactions within the Old Testament.
One of them starts with the reality that Israel asked for a king... it wasn't God's idea.

Interesting things begin to happen when one begins to view the entire Bible through the lens of the Cross.
I'd recommend this path to anyone.

[One Bad Pig]

Feel free to state my assertion for the rest of the class.

There's no need. I'm sure posters here are intelligent enough to follow the thread progression and figure it out.

So 1500 years of slaughter is okay because of Mother Teresa?

Erm, no. When skeptics look at Christianity, the possibility of slaughter should not be the only consequence they see.

What I'm trying to get to here is that it is ridiculous for Christians to pretend, as they often do on these forums, that skeptics are nuts because they fear the consequences of Christianity. It isn't unfair for a skeptic to call us out on these things.

It is ridiculous, and unfair, for skeptics to have a monofocus on violence in the name of Christ that nearly all of their debate opponents already disavow as wrong. Besides, theocracy in America is laughably unlikely; Christians here are far too divided, and in any case devout Christians are a decided minority.

It isn't rude or unenlightened for them to reject our message, regardless of sect, because of the horrible crimes that litter our history.

Balderdash. Horrible crimes litter everyone's history.

[Cerebrum123]

The fact is I understand your point quite well as I've made the same arguments myself countless times on atheist message boards.
The problem is that your rebuttal means absolutely nothing to a skeptic because he isn't going to recognize a difference between someone claiming to be a Christian and an authentic Christian because he doesn't recognize the Spirit that makes the difference.

Do you see?

That's where things like prayer and God's influence come into play. I can only plant a seed, not make it grow.

In order for your argument to make sense the skeptic would have to already accept your world view.

Not necessarily, I have come across people who do not share the Christian worldview, but nevertheless understand the difference between those who embody their ideology, and those who are inconsistent in it. I think that even atheistic humanists understand this point.

Even with that, it is easy just to write you off as another salesman or liar.
We do expect our politicians to lie, right?

I'm not a politician, I'm a very blunt person. I think most anyone who knows anything about me realizes that I will state things as they are.

Do you want to actually communicate with these people or just absolve yourself of the Inquisition?
Which is more important to you?

If someone wants to blame me for the Inquisitions, then they likely aren't going to communicate anyway. I expect to be held responsible for my own sins, not those of others.
I still try to give people a chance though(sometimes I probably give too many chances, but that's just how I am).

[Meh Gerbil]

There's no need. I'm sure posters here are intelligent enough to follow the thread progression and figure it out.

I wasn't concerned about the other posters following.
Based on your responses I'm worried about you following it.

Erm, no. When skeptics look at Christianity, the possibility of slaughter should not be the only consequence they see.

I don't think it is the job of the skeptic to paint a portrait of Christianity that meets our marketing standards.

It is ridiculous, and unfair, for skeptics to have a monofocus on violence in the name of Christ that nearly all of their debate opponents already disavow as wrong. Besides, theocracy in America is laughably unlikely; Christians here are far too divided, and in any case devout Christians are a decided minority.

The abuse continues to this day.
This goes far beyond pinning a 500 year old atrocity on people who were never there.
The fear they have is rational, often times based on what they've personally experienced.

Balderdash. Horrible crimes litter everyone's history.

So you'd let a thief into your home because there are lots of thieves?
I don't know how the presence of more than one assailant excuses the assailant that is a personal favorite of mine.

[Meh Gerbil]

Not necessarily, I have come across people who do not share the Christian worldview, but nevertheless understand the difference between those who embody their ideology, and those who are inconsistent in it. I think that even atheistic humanists understand this point.

So in your opinion, someone who doesn't believe in God understands that God's work in your life makes you different than those who only claim to have God working in their lives?

How many of these atheists would be comfortable with authentic Spirit led Christians running government?

Answer: 0

So no, you aren't making the ground you think you're making.

[Darth Executor]

There are some very interesting theories about God's interactions within the Old Testament.
One of them starts with the reality that Israel asked for a king... it wasn't God's idea.

Interesting things begin to happen when one begins to view the entire Bible through the lens of the Cross.
I'd recommend this path to anyone.

Funny, Israel didn't have a king when God slaughtered a ton of Egyptians because of one man's stubbornness. And when it had a king it was God ordering the slaughters. I hate to break it to you but you are doing with the OT what you claim the rest of us are doing with European history, and an atheist is a lot more likely to be butthurt about the OT, where massacres were ordered by God Himself, than by Europe, where massacres were ordered by men and could be dismissed by the more reasonable as inevitable human folly. They're even more likely to be butthurt about going to hell for being atheist(not actually true but in practice it ammounts to the same thing) than they are about human slaughter. Christianity is incompatible with many modern Western values that you preach and falsely attribute to the Gospel.

[Cerebrum123]

So in your opinion, someone who doesn't believe in God understands that God's work in your life makes you different than those who only claim to have God working in their lives?

No, what I'm saying is that I think even an atheist can see when someone actually lives their life according to what they say they believe, as compared to someone who doesn't. Even kids tend to realize hypocrisy is wrong.

How many of these atheists would be comfortable with authentic Spirit led Christians running government?

Answer: 0

How do you know that? I've met skeptics who agree that if people would live by the teachings of Jesus that the world would be better off, even if they don't believe He's the Son of God.

So no, you aren't making the ground you think you're making.

What "ground"? I'm not advocating for a Christian run government. I am however pointing out that Christianity itself is not what's "dangerous", but people claiming to be, and even at times those who truly are Christian can do bad things. It's something wrong with humanity, not something inherently Christian.

ETA: I notice how you didn't respond to most of my post. Can't figure out why though.

[Abigail]

Again: It isn't irrational for a skeptic to be terrified of a Christian government.

I kind of agree with this but by the same token am wary of a humanistic government which wants to dictate to the Church how it can run its affairs. I believe in separation of Church and state. God commands all men everywhere to be saved but He gives them freewill. I think over the years what has destroyed Christian witness is that we have strong-armed a lot of people into a adopting a Christian lifestyle when they do not want to. It serves no purpose. Church should be for those who want to be Christian - that way we are not forcing people to do things they do not want to do and we will be free from a lot of the resentment and accusations of 'judging' which we currently get. We dont judge people outside the church (we preach Gospel to them) but we are meant to judge those inside (in love and humility of course) and I think people who are in the Church because they want to be will take any so called 'judging' in the spirit it is meant to be and Christianity will not be so bad-mouthed.

[seer]

I'm making the argument that it is rational for skeptics to be wary of Christians and Christians in power based upon the historical record.
Acting like the skeptic is some sort of a nut job for being scared of a Christian in power is ridiculous.

Then it should be just as rational for us to be wary of atheists in power because of the historical record of what atheists did in in the past when they had power.

That is irrelevant to the point.
Christian actions aren't to be driven by the actions of those being used by the enemy.

Except self defense is not an unbiblical notion.

I'm keeping the post on topic.
You see, if in 2000 years of trying this has never happened then the skeptic is almost guaranteed of getting the 'bad version' if we get a Christian government again.

That is not what I asked, try staying on topic. Or do you agree that none of these so called "Christian governments" really were Christian in doctrine and practice?

See why they might be scared?

No, not any more than we should be afraid of a secular government because of what some secular governments did in the past. But I can not mollify irrational fears.

[Darth Executor]

So in your opinion, someone who doesn't believe in God understands that God's work in your life makes you different than those who only claim to have God working in their lives?

How many of these atheists would be comfortable with authentic Spirit led Christians running government?

Answer: 0

So no, you aren't making the ground you think you're making.

You're not making any ground either. You accept their premises, and these premises are directly contradictory to Christianity. Someone who can never comprehend why a mass slaughter can be necessary sometimes will never become a Christian (sans serious cognitive dissonance) because Christianity has a God who repeatedly ordered mass slaughters. You can dance around this all you want but the fact remains that God is no different from Hitler to them. The only way to convince such people is to make them understand that mass slaughters are sometimes necessary, a hard task, but still a superior, coherent and more successful path than BSing them about a bunny God that has children put to the sword and throws most of humanity in hell.

[Trout]

I'm making the argument that it is rational for skeptics to be wary of Christians and Christians in power based upon the historical record.

When skeptics look at Christianity, the possibility of slaughter should not be the only consequence they see.

Define Christianity and give three examples.

Monotheistic religion whose practitioners claim Jesus Christ as Lord.

Examples?

Jews
Hellenists
Romans

Are you trying to prove "Gerbil's" point?