Christianity's Offense

[liamconnor]

There are numerous religions out there. Few engender the degree of hostility that Christianity does. In my experience, Judaism, Islam, Scientology, Mormonism, the eastern "religions"--few of these have sites (like this one) for contenders.

(Note: iF you object to my impression, I must presume that you belong to sites which specifically target another religious Philosophy, i.e. Debating Mormonism and Religion).


What is the specific offense of Christianity?

Is it its "evangelical" nature?

Is it specific to the miraculous claim, that a dead man came back to life and flew off into heaven?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 10 by PinSeeker]

People either love it or hate it; there is no in between.

Hmm...nope. There are plenty of people who just don't think about it, in either a positive or negative way. They just live their lives. People like us, who think about it, even debate about it, are a minority.

It evokes visceral reactions in people, either way, that they themselves sometimes cannot explain.

Or they could just not think about it. Is that a possibility in your world view? A thing that could happen?

God does require life, one way or the other. And this is for at least two reasons:

What you state here is a non sequitur. We're talking about requirements and even if I grant for the sake of argument that God is the giver/taker of life, that he sacrificed himself in the personage of Jesus...how does it follow that this then means he REQUIRES people to die, often in painful or violent ways?

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 11 by rikuoamero]

Just to clarify, when I mentioned "bloodthiristy" I was thinking more along the lines of the doctrine of blood atonement. Where supposedly God sacrifices Himself to Himself in order to give Himself permission to forgive.

While possibly related to blood-atonement, the general violence done in the name of Jesus thoughout the ages is seemingly related to John 14.6. If one has the "only" way, iis it too much of a leap to see that as "the end justifying the means" that anything is justified in Jesus name, including bloodshed?

New England Puritans murdered "witches" for the "sake of saving their souls".

[PinSeeker]

[Replying to post 10 by PinSeeker]

People either love it or hate it; there is no in between.

Hmm...nope. There are plenty of people who just don't think about it, in either a positive or negative way. They just live their lives. People like us, who think about it, even debate about it, are a minority.

I don't really disagree with you, here, but you're just not going deep enough.

[Replying to post 10 by PinSeeker]

It evokes visceral reactions in people, either way, that they themselves sometimes cannot explain.

Or they could just not think about it. Is that a possibility in your world view? A thing that could happen?

For sure. But that's not the getting to the root of it.

[Replying to post 10 by PinSeeker]

God does require life, one way or the other. And this is for at least two reasons:

What you state here is a non sequitur. We're talking about requirements and even if I grant for the sake of argument that God is the giver/taker of life, that he sacrificed himself in the personage of Jesus...how does it follow that this then means he REQUIRES people to die, often in painful or violent ways?

Well, it's not a "non sequitur" by any stretch of the imagination. To dismiss it as such is... well, you can anything you want, of course. But it's just not dismissable, really. If you want to hold on to that, I respect that; whether you do or not, we can just leave it there.

In answer to your question here, to require that a person live up to the standard on par with the purpose for which they were made is absolutely reasonable and just. And on top of that, God requiring His own life as a propitiation, or substitute, for others -- in other words, making Himself the scapegoat -- makes it all the more... um... reasonable (actually graceful, loving, and selfless is how I would put it).

Here's a loose parallel. Keep in mind, hard as it may be, that this is on a far lesser scale:

Do you have a son or daughter? Now, you didn't "make" him/her, of course, but if so, don't you have the right, as his/her father -- assuming you took an active part in raising him/her and raised him/her "right" -- to require that he/she "live up" to (and that can take any number of forms, of course) what you've done for him/her in the course of his/her development? Again, don't take this too far; it's a very loose parallel. And also, whether he/she decides to "live up to" what you've done for him/her or not is of course up to him/her, and you don't have any right as a human being to condemn him/her if he/she doesn't. The only thing you do have a right to do is to withdraw your support (but not your love) of him/her. Do you not agree with this, at least in principle?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 13 by PinSeeker]

For sure. But that's not the getting to the root of it.

So now you're going back on your love it or hate it "there is no inbetween" claim from earlier.

Were you a Sith Lord earlier by any chance, and are now dropping the Dark Side of the Force?

The only thing you do have a right to do is to withdraw your support (but not your love) of him/her. Do you not agree with this, at least in principle?

Of course, you realise in the back of your mind that the human parent analogy doesn't work because a parent doesn't have the right to simply kill their child if the child rejects them.
I've rejected both my parents during my life. Yet, if they were to come at me with lethal intent, it would be hilarious for you or anyone else to try to make the case that I deserve to die.

Where is the logic (upon assumption of the axiom that God is the giver of life and that he sacrificed himself in the personage of Jesus) that it is then all right for God to take our lives, often in violent and painful ways? Where is the logic in declaring that God is being right (morally right) in having a person die of a painful disease, for example? That there is a requirement for this to happen?

[PinSeeker]

While possibly related to blood-atonement, the general violence done in the name of Jesus thoughout the ages is seemingly related to John 14.6. If one has the "only" way, iis it too much of a leap to see that as "the end justifying the means" that anything is justified in Jesus name, including bloodshed? New England Puritans murdered "witches" for the "sake of saving their souls".

Yeah, it's not a leap to think there's at least some chance that folks, even Christians, would wrongheadedly get that idea. But God rails against that kind of thing in several different places throughout the Bible, Old and New Testament alike. Deuteronomy 32:35 and Romans 12:19 come immediately to mind.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 15 by PinSeeker]

Doesn't it trouble you in the least that your religious brothers and cousins with use the Bible to JUSTIFY slavery, witch-burning, abuse of homosexuals, and so on.

That your forefathers probably actually did argue opposite to your current Biblically justified position?

[PinSeeker]

So now you're going back on your love it or hate it "there is no inbetween" claim from earlier.

No, I'm going back to the power of Jesus's name.

Of course, you realise in the back of your mind that the human parent analogy doesn't work because a parent doesn't have the right to simply kill their child if the child rejects them.

I do realize that, and if you take it to that ridiculous extreme, the analogy becomes absurd, for sure, but that's exactly what I asked you not to do in the previous post. Is it not possible to have a reasonable discussion with you, Rik?

I've rejected both my parents during my life.

Not surprised to hear that.

Yet, if they were to come at me with lethal intent, it would be hilarious for you or anyone else to try to make the case that I deserve to die.

Right; nobody's doing anything like that.

Where is the logic (upon assumption of the axiom that God is the giver of life and that he sacrificed himself in the personage of Jesus) that it is then all right for God to take our lives, often in violent and painful ways? Where is the logic in declaring that God is being right (morally right) in having a person die of a painful disease, for example? That there is a requirement for this to happen?

From purely a humanistic standpoint, we may question the means by which things happen. But from God's standpoint, not so much. All we know is, vengeance is the Lord's (Duet. 32:35, Romans 12:19). Like Paul rhetorically asks in Romans 9, "Who are you, o man, to answer back to God?" It's a hard thing, for sure.

[PinSeeker]

Doesn't it trouble you in the least that your religious brothers and cousins with use the Bible to JUSTIFY slavery, witch-burning, abuse of homosexuals, and so on. That your forefathers probably actually did argue opposite to your current Biblically justified position?

Absolutely it does. Sure. Absolutely. Every bit of that. But of course, I can't do anything about that now. I can do everything in my power to make sure nothing like that happens again, but I can't do anything about what's happened in the past.

Yeah, wouldn't it be great if Doc Brown had really invented the flux capacitor?

[ttruscott]

Where supposedly God sacrifices Himself to Himself in order to give Himself permission to forgive.

God sacrificed Himself in order to fulfill the requirements of OUR forgiveness.

[Bust Nak]

But it really all boils down to one thing: the power of the Name of Jesus. People either love it or hate it; there is no in between. It evokes visceral reactions in people, either way, that they themselves sometimes cannot explain. Every other answer is... well, not untrue, but just secondary and or tertiary.

Is this up for debate or are you just telling us what you believe? I ask because right before your post I just said the primary reason is the amount of influence Christians have over the Western world, nothing to do with the Name of Jesus at all.