And Even More Good News From Labour.
News2 mins ago
Dangerous Christianity?
45 Answers
Why is Christianity considered dangerous by some people? After all, for all of the shortcomings of various Christian denominations, and individuals that can justifiably be criticised, Christianity was, for hundreds of years in this country, one of the glues that held society together, and influenced its direction and standards of morality.
Only in the late twentieth century, as atheistic secular humanism really took off, did we see the demise of Christian influence.
So, how has it been dangerous?
Only in the late twentieth century, as atheistic secular humanism really took off, did we see the demise of Christian influence.
So, how has it been dangerous?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Theland. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
As an atheist,Mani, I am able to ignore your preaching and write rationally. Starting at the end of your post, my view of your god as being cruel, indeed a monster of cruelty, comes from the Old Testament. It tells, in very clear, unapologetic manner, how your 'God' slaughtered millions of human beings by means of floods, plagues and other nasty things. What's more he was such a fierce and (self-proclaimedly) jealous god that he urged his supporters to go out and murder wholesale those who did not worship him, such as his instructions to Moses to attack the Midianites. The enthusiasm with which Moses responded to this is plain from Numbers 31:18. But there are so many other examples that, if your God existed and he were a man, he would be prosecuted for crimes against humanity to dwarf those of Hitler, Stalin and Sadaam put together and multilied a thousandfold. That you choose to worship such a creature is your affair, of course. It takes all sorts. I can only shudder and remind myself that it's just a story.
To the question: no, Christianity is no longer dangerous. Unpleasant sometimes and mind-warping perhaps, but not dangerous as it was in the days of the Inquisition and the Crusades and when someone like me would have been burnt at the stake. Theland is plainly eccentric and sometimes entertainingly daft but I doubt whether anyone fears him. Islam is much more dangerous nowadays.
To the question: no, Christianity is no longer dangerous. Unpleasant sometimes and mind-warping perhaps, but not dangerous as it was in the days of the Inquisition and the Crusades and when someone like me would have been burnt at the stake. Theland is plainly eccentric and sometimes entertainingly daft but I doubt whether anyone fears him. Islam is much more dangerous nowadays.
I would say Christianity in the past was dangerous in both a physical and a spiritual sense, but these days it's only dangerous in a spiritual sense because it's basis is fear, and I can't understand why any half-educated, clear thinking person can't see that. Everyone has feelings, and Christianity preys on those feelings. It manipulates the minds of the gullible. It's doctrine I find totally abhorrent - in fact wicked - particularly when it brands little children sinners from the moment they're born. If we talk of evil, then that has to be the ultimate evil. I've asked several times on AB, what a new-born baby has done to be considered a sinner, but have never had an answer - not even an irrational one - except once when someone said that babies born with brain damage (or some such thing) are exempt from this rule. Now there's Christian compassion for you! This doctrine is nothing short of child-abuse. I'm not surprised we're seeing the demise of the Christian influence because people are now better educated, less easily influenced by superstition, and more able to think for themselves - and a good thing too!
Mani, You may not like it, but read Chakka's post and try to take in what he's saying there. People don't need to 'interpret' biblical accounts. The bible says what it says and it's perfectly clear that your god is an immensely cruel and evil god.
And by the way, those who don't go along with your views are not necessarily athiests. Just thought I'd mention that.
And by the way, those who don't go along with your views are not necessarily athiests. Just thought I'd mention that.
Hi everyone - I think you have started a post that is going to be controversial here Theland.
I actually hate these threads where I am forced to defened Christianity but I will try and address some of the points. I do find some of the views on both sides a bit extreme and I will try and balance it out.
I think when discussing Christianity from the non-Christian perspective there is sometimes a danger of only mentioning the moral failures and ignoring the moral breakthroughs. Yes there were terrible failures like the crusades and cases of child abuse but there were also many breakthroughs such as medieval hospitals, william wiberforce and many other christians devoting their lives to fighting the slave trade, mother theresa, monestaries who who rescued Greek philosophical writings from oblivion and educating most of africa to name just a few things from the top of my head.
From the non-religious point of view I think there is also a tendancy to show no conception of why Christians actually believe � other than that they're a bunch of brainwashed morons who don't know any better and to ignore the complexity and reality of the faith issue.
I actually hate these threads where I am forced to defened Christianity but I will try and address some of the points. I do find some of the views on both sides a bit extreme and I will try and balance it out.
I think when discussing Christianity from the non-Christian perspective there is sometimes a danger of only mentioning the moral failures and ignoring the moral breakthroughs. Yes there were terrible failures like the crusades and cases of child abuse but there were also many breakthroughs such as medieval hospitals, william wiberforce and many other christians devoting their lives to fighting the slave trade, mother theresa, monestaries who who rescued Greek philosophical writings from oblivion and educating most of africa to name just a few things from the top of my head.
From the non-religious point of view I think there is also a tendancy to show no conception of why Christians actually believe � other than that they're a bunch of brainwashed morons who don't know any better and to ignore the complexity and reality of the faith issue.
Naomi - I think like anything Christianity can be dangerous if taken to extremes, twisted into something else or taken to literally (just see the KKK) but I don't agree with you view of Christianity although I respect your right to that view.
I know you wanted to know about the question of babies being born into sin. Christians believe that is inherent within the nature of man. This is why children have to taught what is right and not taught what is wrong. This is demonstrated by the fact that if a child were not taught what is right, they will by default gravitate toward sin, indeed a child left to his own and allowed to mature to adulthood with no moral training would behave like an animal. I don't know if this makes it clear.
Chakka - I'm sorry but your opinion on the old testemant just has no credibility. I'm not just trying to rubbish your argument because I'm a Christian but I have studied theology and I'm confident that you will not find anyone who has studied scripture who agrees with this interpretation. I can understand how you have come to this conclusion if you have plowed through the Bible on your own, but this is a very complexed document that people dedicate their whole lives to studying.
God's behaviour in the old testiment does appear very different to in the new testemant because he was speaking to people in a way that would get through to them at the time. The same way that you may have to threaten a small child with a smack but you can reason with an older childs sense of reason.
I know you wanted to know about the question of babies being born into sin. Christians believe that is inherent within the nature of man. This is why children have to taught what is right and not taught what is wrong. This is demonstrated by the fact that if a child were not taught what is right, they will by default gravitate toward sin, indeed a child left to his own and allowed to mature to adulthood with no moral training would behave like an animal. I don't know if this makes it clear.
Chakka - I'm sorry but your opinion on the old testemant just has no credibility. I'm not just trying to rubbish your argument because I'm a Christian but I have studied theology and I'm confident that you will not find anyone who has studied scripture who agrees with this interpretation. I can understand how you have come to this conclusion if you have plowed through the Bible on your own, but this is a very complexed document that people dedicate their whole lives to studying.
God's behaviour in the old testiment does appear very different to in the new testemant because he was speaking to people in a way that would get through to them at the time. The same way that you may have to threaten a small child with a smack but you can reason with an older childs sense of reason.
Chakka - The answer to the points you have made really depends on the perspective you approach the Bible from. From my point of view some of the things you have mentioned are not written from a literal point of view and contain a deeper meaning than the immediate meaning.
Regarding the Canaanites, this was an exception and the Hebrew wars with other nations were only in self-defense. Look at Deuteronomy 20:10-15 which orders them to offer conditions of peace rather than extermination to all others.
Regarding the Caananites they were cut off to prevent Israel and the rest of the world from being corrupted in the same way a leg with gangreen is cut off from a healthy leg as they were burning their children, practicing bestiality and sodomy - and these were the niceparts!!
Years later archaeologists discovered the vile nature of the amorite practices. They worshipped gods who were sexual perverts of the most grotesque kind, and who had no respect for the sanctity of human life. Countless children were sacrificed to their gods by being thrown into the fires.
Israel was forewarned about this abominable practice in Leviticus 18:21. Thus Canaan had, as it were, a final forty-year countdown as they heard of the events in Egypt, at the crossing of the Reed Sea. We know that they were aware of such events, for Rahab confessed that these same events and that she, as a result, had placed her faith in the God of the Hebrews (Josh. 2:10-14). So God waited for the "cup of iniquity" to fill up in spite of the marvelous signs given so that the nations, along with Pharaoh and the Egyptians, "might know that he was the Lord."
Regarding the Canaanites, this was an exception and the Hebrew wars with other nations were only in self-defense. Look at Deuteronomy 20:10-15 which orders them to offer conditions of peace rather than extermination to all others.
Regarding the Caananites they were cut off to prevent Israel and the rest of the world from being corrupted in the same way a leg with gangreen is cut off from a healthy leg as they were burning their children, practicing bestiality and sodomy - and these were the niceparts!!
Years later archaeologists discovered the vile nature of the amorite practices. They worshipped gods who were sexual perverts of the most grotesque kind, and who had no respect for the sanctity of human life. Countless children were sacrificed to their gods by being thrown into the fires.
Israel was forewarned about this abominable practice in Leviticus 18:21. Thus Canaan had, as it were, a final forty-year countdown as they heard of the events in Egypt, at the crossing of the Reed Sea. We know that they were aware of such events, for Rahab confessed that these same events and that she, as a result, had placed her faith in the God of the Hebrews (Josh. 2:10-14). So God waited for the "cup of iniquity" to fill up in spite of the marvelous signs given so that the nations, along with Pharaoh and the Egyptians, "might know that he was the Lord."
-- answer removed --
Theland....I'll tell you how its bl00dy dangerous.It turns people into fanatics like you and Mani.
For instance, Mani believes that you should NEVER divorce (except maybe on the grounds of adultery).So a woman can marry a man who turns violent, hits her everyday, destroys her confidence and self esteem,drinks heavily and gets the family into debt but she can never divorce and remarry someone who would treasure her.Sick, sick,sick.Treating women as no more than cattle.And heaven help you if you gay and find happiness because along come you and Mani with your text book answers telling them that they will go to hell.
You bunch of moronic sick imbeciles.
Ive just about had enough of all the religious nutters on this site
For instance, Mani believes that you should NEVER divorce (except maybe on the grounds of adultery).So a woman can marry a man who turns violent, hits her everyday, destroys her confidence and self esteem,drinks heavily and gets the family into debt but she can never divorce and remarry someone who would treasure her.Sick, sick,sick.Treating women as no more than cattle.And heaven help you if you gay and find happiness because along come you and Mani with your text book answers telling them that they will go to hell.
You bunch of moronic sick imbeciles.
Ive just about had enough of all the religious nutters on this site
Naomi24 is basically right, in the Old Testament, G-d was a G-d of war, a jealous G-d that punished anyone (in this case the Children of Israel) who turned away from him.
He gave a land that was already occupied, ordered conquests and deaths.
He was never, ever, a peace loving G-d.
Sorry for diversifying Theland, anyway, i've replied to the post above this, and i'd like your opinion, if you don't mind.
Thanks.
He gave a land that was already occupied, ordered conquests and deaths.
He was never, ever, a peace loving G-d.
Sorry for diversifying Theland, anyway, i've replied to the post above this, and i'd like your opinion, if you don't mind.
Thanks.
Lonnie - In the Old Testament, God was building a nation for Himself, a holy nation that He would rule personally, and that would be an example for other nations to follow.
Gods' treatment of unholy nations, was to demonstrate His total abhorrence of their evil practices, such as the sexual perversions and child sacrifices.
Gods' treatment of unholy nations, was to demonstrate His total abhorrence of their evil practices, such as the sexual perversions and child sacrifices.
To a certain extent, Theland, your right, he wanted to build a nation for himself, so that they could sing praises to him, worship him, and obey his every word, and in the process, flatten anyone who got in the way, or who he didn't like.
Sounds a bit like a dictator to me, but who am I, just one of the fallen who questions his motives.
Sounds a bit like a dictator to me, but who am I, just one of the fallen who questions his motives.
Jesus summed up the law and the prophets in a very simple phrase.
He said, love God and love your neighbour, this is the fulfillment of the law.
This was the new covenant, with Jesus offering Himself as a living sacrifice for our sin.
Why should anybody tear their hair out pondering the minutae of the Old Testament, when Jesus gave us such a simple formula by which to live our lives?
He said, love God and love your neighbour, this is the fulfillment of the law.
This was the new covenant, with Jesus offering Himself as a living sacrifice for our sin.
Why should anybody tear their hair out pondering the minutae of the Old Testament, when Jesus gave us such a simple formula by which to live our lives?
A women that is raped has to marry her rapist...and you call that "the minutae" of the Old Testament. Frankly, thats the kind of response that I would have expected from the sexist, homophobic Mani.
If you think that these laws are "minutae" then I have now lost any respect that I had for you and it would appear that you'r true colours are coming out.
minuteae indeed.what a perverted belief system
If you think that these laws are "minutae" then I have now lost any respect that I had for you and it would appear that you'r true colours are coming out.
minuteae indeed.what a perverted belief system
To say that the Bible condones rape is simply not true. Rape is mentioned a lot in the Bible but the word rape is generally used to mean "have sex with" in a biblical context. The Biblical position on rape "as we know it "is very clear, it's never okay.
Just take a look at Deuteronomy 22:28-29 which basically says If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. Seems very offensive to the untrained eye but take a look at the verses immediately preceding these indicate the death penalty for rapists and adulterers. Vv. 25-27 describe the rape of an engaged woman, in which case the lack of the woman's consent is indicated by the fact that the man "forces" her.
Just take a look at Deuteronomy 22:28-29 which basically says If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. Seems very offensive to the untrained eye but take a look at the verses immediately preceding these indicate the death penalty for rapists and adulterers. Vv. 25-27 describe the rape of an engaged woman, in which case the lack of the woman's consent is indicated by the fact that the man "forces" her.
Mani, your views on divorce are irrelevant to me, except when you bang on with your sanctimonious drivel and brand someone who's remarried after going through a violent first marriage, seeing her children terrorised by a drunken madman, as an adulteress and a sinner. Then it makes me angry because you don't have a clue. However, I vented my anger in the 'sex before marriage' question, so enough of that.
No, I haven't got it in for you. My views on Christianity haven't changed and if you'd read my previous posts on the subject, in particular with relation to children being branded sinners from birth, you would know that. To implant ideas of eternal hell into little children's minds is evil - and it is child abuse. As I explained to you, I have found my own peace and my own spirituality. God isn't inside any book or any church or in any preacher's teaching - he's inside us and all around us, but you wouldn't understand that, so enough of that too.
I asked you to specifically read Chakka's post in the hope that you would take the blinkers off and realise what the bible really contains. I know you've been studying Christianity in the worst of all its aspects, in my opinion, for a few years, and you seem completely obsessed with the idea of sin, repentance, and with hell and damnation. You appear to believe anything you're told, as long as it comes from what you perceive to be a Christian Born Again source. For example, you said you would never marry a divorced woman, because that would be tantamount to committing adultery, but as soon as Theland, whom for some strange reason, you seem to hero worship, said that it was ok for a loving couple to live together unmarried, you changed your mind and said you would marry a divorced woman as long as she hadn't been married the first time in church.
You seem pretty confused to me, Mani, and I'm not surprised if you're with the cult of the Born Again brigade - but that's
No, I haven't got it in for you. My views on Christianity haven't changed and if you'd read my previous posts on the subject, in particular with relation to children being branded sinners from birth, you would know that. To implant ideas of eternal hell into little children's minds is evil - and it is child abuse. As I explained to you, I have found my own peace and my own spirituality. God isn't inside any book or any church or in any preacher's teaching - he's inside us and all around us, but you wouldn't understand that, so enough of that too.
I asked you to specifically read Chakka's post in the hope that you would take the blinkers off and realise what the bible really contains. I know you've been studying Christianity in the worst of all its aspects, in my opinion, for a few years, and you seem completely obsessed with the idea of sin, repentance, and with hell and damnation. You appear to believe anything you're told, as long as it comes from what you perceive to be a Christian Born Again source. For example, you said you would never marry a divorced woman, because that would be tantamount to committing adultery, but as soon as Theland, whom for some strange reason, you seem to hero worship, said that it was ok for a loving couple to live together unmarried, you changed your mind and said you would marry a divorced woman as long as she hadn't been married the first time in church.
You seem pretty confused to me, Mani, and I'm not surprised if you're with the cult of the Born Again brigade - but that's
Latest Posts
News2 mins ago
Brexit Hit To Uk Trade Less Than...
News3 mins ago
News3 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles14 mins ago
