Why Not Let God Sort It Out... If God Exists

[bluegreenearth]

While there are a minority of Christians who keep their religious perspectives to themselves and cooperate peacefully with non-Christians, the majority seem almost obsessively compelled to impose their particular theological branding on the rest of us either directly or indirectly in some form or fashion. On one hand, these "soldiers for Christ" behave as though they are actively battling in a war against evil on behalf of their omnibenevolent God. On the other hand, they proudly proclaim their omnipotent God is fully capable of protecting the righteous and destroying the wicked without any of their assistance at all. I can understand where divine hiddenness essentially forces many Christians to rally in defense of themselves even if they believe their undetectable God cannot be harmed by any human action, but what is the justification for going on the offensive when no one is threatening their religious freedoms?

When a majority of Christians develop and support government legislation that legalizes prejudicial behavior towards non-Christians, are they knowingly infringing upon the rights and freedoms of their fellow human beings or unaware that this is the consequence of such theocratic activity? Are they unaware that their own religious freedom does not grant them the authority to impose Christian doctrine on everyone else or are they deliberately trying to install a Christian theocracy? If they strongly believe that their Christian God is the final and ultimate arbiter of spiritual justice, then why not peacefully coexist in a religiously pluralistic society in this life and trust their God's ability to perform in his designated role during the afterlife? Instead, these privileged fundamentalist Christians act as if the non-Christian's demand for equal rights and the separation of church and state were hostile threats against Christianity.

I recognize where it can be difficult sometimes for Christians to tolerate a non-Christian's freedom to live in accordance with values they do not share. Because Christianity has been the dominant religious faith in the West for centuries, any non-Christian attempt to assert itself into a seat at the table will certainly feel like a foreign invasion to anyone accustomed to the Christian privileges they've historically enjoyed. However, granting non-Christians the freedom to peacefully conduct their lives in whatever ways they see fit is not the same thing as an attack on Christian values. So, why can't these fundamentalist Christians be more tolerant like the minority of other Christians who somehow manage to successfully collaborate with non-Christians to develop and promote a more egalitarian society?

[Red Wolf]

IMO Christians all have doubts about the authenticity of the Jesus Story. Let's face facts...it seems like a fairy tale...a fable... So to bolster their courage that they are not plain ignorant fools, Christians feel justified that they are following the truth if they can get others to accept the Jesus Story as truth. So they are always defending the story even though secretly they have doubts.

[bluegreenearth]

IMO Christians all have doubts about the authenticity of the Jesus Story. Let's face facts...it seems like a fairy tale...a fable... So to bolster their courage that they are not plain ignorant fools, Christians feel justified that they are following the truth if they can get others to accept the Jesus Story as truth. So they are always defending the story even though secretly they have doubts.

That may certainly be a possibility, but why go on the offensive when a minority of critical thinking people are unconvinced by their apologetic arguments? They obviously have more than enough support from their peers to continue convincing themselves that their belief is true without needing to forcefully impose their religious doctrines against the wills of other people. Furthermore, I'm unaware of any viable threat against their religious freedom for them to behave as though they were being persecuted.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 1 by bluegreenearth]

Well as one of Jehovahs Witnesses my position is God wil sort everything out in his own due time. In the meantime, evangelizing (preaching) is part of my worshipmson somethjng I engage in whenever possible. Keeping what I believe to be "good news" to myself is not an option.


JW

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to post 1 by bluegreenearth]

Well as one of Jehovahs Witnesses my position is God wil sort everything out in his own due time. In the meantime, evangelizing (preaching) is part of my worshipmson somethjng I engage in whenever possible. Keeping what I believe to be "good news" to myself is not an option.


JW

Yes, but there is a world of difference between peaceful proselytizing and having theocratic ambitions.

[bjs]

When a majority of Christians develop and support government legislation that legalizes prejudicial behavior towards non-Christians, are they knowingly infringing upon the rights and freedoms of their fellow human beings or unaware that this is the consequence of such theocratic activity?

Could you be more specific? What legislation do the majority of Christians develop and support that legalizes prejudicial behavior towards non-Christians?

[bluegreenearth]

When a majority of Christians develop and support government legislation that legalizes prejudicial behavior towards non-Christians, are they knowingly infringing upon the rights and freedoms of their fellow human beings or unaware that this is the consequence of such theocratic activity?

Could you be more specific? What legislation do the majority of Christians develop and support that legalizes prejudicial behavior towards non-Christians?

Take your pick from a host of Establishment Clause violations that are regularly exposed by watchdog groups like the Freedom From Religion Foundation and American Atheists.

[bjs]

When a majority of Christians develop and support government legislation that legalizes prejudicial behavior towards non-Christians, are they knowingly infringing upon the rights and freedoms of their fellow human beings or unaware that this is the consequence of such theocratic activity?

Could you be more specific? What legislation do the majority of Christians develop and support that legalizes prejudicial behavior towards non-Christians?

Take your pick from a host of Establishment Clause violations that are regularly exposed by watchdog groups like the Freedom From Religion Foundation and American Atheists.

That is not a helpful response. It is possible that there is something on American Atheists list. It is also possible that their examples are either not supported by the majority of Christians, or not genuine violations of the establishment clause. Instead of asking others to play guessing games about what legislation you are focused on, please list a few examples of legislation that the majority of Christians develop and support which legalizes prejudicial behavior towards non-Christians.

[Realworldjack]

While there are a minority of Christians who keep their religious perspectives to themselves and cooperate peacefully with non-Christians, the majority seem almost obsessively compelled to impose their particular theological branding on the rest of us either directly or indirectly in some form or fashion. On one hand, these "soldiers for Christ" behave as though they are actively battling in a war against evil on behalf of their omnibenevolent God. On the other hand, they proudly proclaim their omnipotent God is fully capable of protecting the righteous and destroying the wicked without any of their assistance at all. I can understand where divine hiddenness essentially forces many Christians to rally in defense of themselves even if they believe their undetectable God cannot be harmed by any human action, but what is the justification for going on the offensive when no one is threatening their religious freedoms?

When a majority of Christians develop and support government legislation that legalizes prejudicial behavior towards non-Christians, are they knowingly infringing upon the rights and freedoms of their fellow human beings or unaware that this is the consequence of such theocratic activity? Are they unaware that their own religious freedom does not grant them the authority to impose Christian doctrine on everyone else or are they deliberately trying to install a Christian theocracy? If they strongly believe that their Christian God is the final and ultimate arbiter of spiritual justice, then why not peacefully coexist in a religiously pluralistic society in this life and trust their God's ability to perform in his designated role during the afterlife? Instead, these privileged fundamentalist Christians act as if the non-Christian's demand for equal rights and the separation of church and state were hostile threats against Christianity.

I recognize where it can be difficult sometimes for Christians to tolerate a non-Christian's freedom to live in accordance with values they do not share. Because Christianity has been the dominant religious faith in the West for centuries, any non-Christian attempt to assert itself into a seat at the table will certainly feel like a foreign invasion to anyone accustomed to the Christian privileges they've historically enjoyed. However, granting non-Christians the freedom to peacefully conduct their lives in whatever ways they see fit is not the same thing as an attack on Christian values. So, why can't these fundamentalist Christians be more tolerant like the minority of other Christians who somehow manage to successfully collaborate with non-Christians to develop and promote a more egalitarian society?

While there are a minority of Christians who keep their religious perspectives to themselves and cooperate peacefully with non-Christians, the majority seem almost obsessively compelled to impose their particular theological branding on the rest of us either directly or indirectly in some form or fashion. On one hand, these "soldiers for Christ" behave as though they are actively battling in a war against evil on behalf of their omnibenevolent God. On the other hand, they proudly proclaim their omnipotent God is fully capable of protecting the righteous and destroying the wicked without any of their assistance at all. I can understand where divine hiddenness essentially forces many Christians to rally in defense of themselves even if they believe their undetectable God cannot be harmed by any human action, but what is the justification for going on the offensive when no one is threatening their religious freedoms?

I understand what you are saying, and almost agree with you. However, I believe that you may be behind the times, because what you are describing seems to be a thing of the past, as the "rise of the religious right in America" is on a decline, and many Christians have come to the correct understanding that we should not impose our values upon others.

However, even if this were to continue to happen, how would you be able to demonstrate that what these folks were doing would be immoral in any way? In other words, you seem to be wanting to enforce your values onto them? If they have certain values, and these values include attempting to enforce these values onto everyone else, who are you to tell them they are incorrect, and by what authority are you speaking?

[Menotu]

[Replying to post 1 by bluegreenearth]

I don't know if it's the majority or if it just seems like the majority based on how loud they scream and how much they're publicized.

Growing up, by far most the Christians I knew were (and still are) kind, considerate, faithful but not condemning of others.
Maybe I was lucky in where I grew up? That's not saying I didn't see the hateful ones, the ones cheating on their spouses or those living a double life. But they were the minority.

I have noticed a lot of issues where people are trying to force their ideals on others (sometimes trying to replace science and fact with convoluted non-sense as well). That should not be tolerated outside their community or on those who are not welcoming to such teachings.