Chirstianity - Why do you beleive?

[truthseeker_13]

Hi
I'm an atheist. I'm just wondering how you (christians) can believe something so clearly false and contradicting? I'm an avid believer in science, but i don't think that science tells me not to believe in god or anything, i just don't see how its possible to believe in somthing like god? Is it the bible? The bible is riddled with contradictions, so if some parts are wrong (if two parts contradict, one or both must be wrong), how do you know that the rest isisn't

Also, how can you support a rereligionhat does what it does, (now don't get me wrong here, iI'mtotally not allabellinghristians or anything like that, so don't kill me lol), but christianity has rreallydished out some $hi-|- in the past. I mean, your faith preaches love and forgiving, but also the destruction of non-bbelievers Christianity spread across europe and burned the ancient sites of its people, (my celtic ancestors being some of them), and erected cchurchesin their places. Christians burned witches in salem and even inspires hate crimes today. How can god allow this to happen?

Even these days, christians believe it is there duty to send its disciples into isolated, preserved civilizations on the few last remaining ffrontiersof civilization and forever spoil them, destroying some of the last vestigiments of unique culture around the world. And in these places, generally quality of life decreases by 87.9% statistically. If they were living fine on their own, but the word of god brings them suffering, how can god be benevolent and forgiving or even real?

Again, this is not an attack on christianity, I'm just looking for contrasting views.

[potwalloper.]

potwalloper.wrote;

Assistance for those in need should not have strings attached.

From a Christian perspective, giving the Gospel is "assistance for those in need" - a far more desperate need than food or shelter.

Well I do appreciate how you may think this.

I think that a child with a distended stomach from prolonged starvation or people who have their own religious and cultural beliefs may disagree with you...

When you have starved and seen your family die of hunger and disease you may have a different perspective on needs and priorities. It is very difficult for us in affluent countries to appreciate just what these people go through. Every 15 seconds somewhere in the world a child dies from lack of clean water...do you really believe that giving them the gospel is more important than affording them the dignity of life and the retention of their own beliefs?

[bernee51]

potwalloper.wrote;

Assistance for those in need should not have strings attached.

From a Christian perspective, giving the Gospel is "assistance for those in need" - a far more desperate need than food or shelter.

What a totally selfish and self-obsessed attitude. If that is what christianity is about then I am thankful I have nothing to do with it. Such an attitude is on a par with a war crime and perpertrators should be treated in the same way.

I find such sentiments immoral at best and verging on the criminal.

"Here read this book, Jesus is with you. It doesn't matter if you die of stravation or exposure, 'cos if you believe what I am telling you, life eternal in la la land will be yours"

Disgusting

[seventil]

As have I.

I think that this depends very much on the circumstances. I have travelled widely in Africa and once had the opportunity to see Christian missionaries from a well-known American "charity" who were requiring hungry children to attend Christian masses and proclaim their belief in Christ before they would be allowed to have food. I understand that this was repeated in South America where survivors from an earthquake had to attend a Christian ceremony before they were allowed to build the temporary shelters that the organisation had taken there. Beware of Christians bearing gifts

Pot

Well, that situation sounds horrible. I can tell you right now, and any Christian will agree with me, that that situation was not Godly. You do not bring people to God by forcing them to say they believe in Him for food. That is morally and ethically wrong. I am sorry you were there to witness an unfortunate incident like that.

Situations like this remind me that the hearts of men are easily corruptable. What probably started as a good hearted attempt to lead people to God, turned into a evil campaign that actually took people away from the Lord. I hope they saw the errors of their ways before the end.

[seventil]

potwalloper.wrote;

Assistance for those in need should not have strings attached.

From a Christian perspective, giving the Gospel is "assistance for those in need" - a far more desperate need than food or shelter.

What a totally selfish and self-obsessed attitude. If that is what christianity is about then I am thankful I have nothing to do with it. Such an attitude is on a par with a war crime and perpertrators should be treated in the same way.

I find such sentiments immoral at best and verging on the criminal.

"Here read this book, Jesus is with you. It doesn't matter if you die of stravation or exposure, 'cos if you believe what I am telling you, life eternal in la la land will be yours"

Disgusting

Well bernee, I can see your point of view. To defend hannah, she did say "from a Christian point of view". And, from a Christian point of view, please understand that spiritual hunger and physical hunger are two seperate things. If you starve to death, physically, your spirit is still fulfilled. The difference between spiritual and physical hunger is that spiritual hunger is satiated eternally; physical hunger is satiated temporarily, and will eventually not be needed (upon death, or technology).

Anyway, this is no excuse to ignore physical hunger across the world, or be unempathetic towards it. Starvation and famine in the world is an evil and terrible thing. Also, I don't think anyone is saying that we can replace physical food with the spiritual word of God on a whole - people will still need food to live. So... please don't contort a well-meaned saying from someone as insensitivity or disillusion toward the world hunger problem.

[seventil]

Biblical contradictions are a completely different subject. However, I think most, if not all, of any contradiction you have ever heard of it taken completely out of context.

Before I came to this board, I was debating here. They have a rather amazing list of contradictions, and a standing offer is that if you can prove the contradiction is not really a contradiction, it comes off the list (and it has, the challenge has been met in the past, and points have come down).

There's 330 contradictions listed in the books. If "most, if not all" contradictions are simply taken out of context, feel free to bring them up for discussion.

Well Nyril, sounds like I good idea. I'm game. I don't want to do it on another forum though. I like this one. So, post the 330 contraditions in a post (in either this forum or another one applicable) , let me know where, and us Bible thumpers will get to work. Sound good?

[bernee51]

Well bernee, I can see your point of view. To defend hannah, she did say "from a Christian point of view". And, from a Christian point of view, please understand that spiritual hunger and physical hunger are two seperate things. If you starve to death, physically, your spirit is still fulfilled. The difference between spiritual and physical hunger is that spiritual hunger is satiated eternally; physical hunger is satiated temporarily, and will eventually not be needed (upon death, or technology).

Sorry seventil - this sounds like an attempt to defend the indefensible. No offence meant at you - I just found that attitude, as I said, disgusting. And what's more, I consider it elitist.

[bernee51]

potwalloper.wrote;

Assistance for those in need should not have strings attached.

From a Christian perspective, giving the Gospel is "assistance for those in need" - a far more desperate need than food or shelter.

You mean like this

"Samanthapettai, Jan 16 (ANI): Rage and fury has gripped this tsunami-hit tiny Hindu village in India's southern Tamil Nadu after a group of Christian missionaries allegedly refused them aid for not agreeing to follow their religion...."

[hannahjoy]

No, I do not mean like that. That is not what I said.
I never said it was right to force people to "convert" before providing for their material needs. I never said material needs were not important. I never said dying of starvation was not a horrible thing.
I only said . . .

From a Christian perspective, giving the Gospel is "assistance for those in need" - a far more desperate need than food or shelter.

You have called me selfish, self-obsessed, immoral, verging on the criminal, disgusting, and elitist. You have basically said that I deserve to be tried as a war criminal, based on that one statement.
Please explain explain what it is about that statement that causes you to respond that way. I am trying to maintain a respectful discussion, but at present it is very difficult.

Hannah Joy

[seventil]

potwalloper.wrote;

Assistance for those in need should not have strings attached.

From a Christian perspective, giving the Gospel is "assistance for those in need" - a far more desperate need than food or shelter.

You mean like this

"Samanthapettai, Jan 16 (ANI): Rage and fury has gripped this tsunami-hit tiny Hindu village in India's southern Tamil Nadu after a group of Christian missionaries allegedly refused them aid for not agreeing to follow their religion...."

On behalf of every Christian out there I say that what the missionaries did was wrong. Jesus and Christianity teach helping anyone, even your worst enemy. Not helping someone because they do not believe in Christianity is asinine, immoral, unethical, unBiblical and just flat out wrong.

Bernee, I hope you don't judge Christians as a whole on the acts of a few. It's like the whole Hitler was an atheist argument.

[Piper Plexed]

I believe for many reasons which are all personal, and could not be "proven" to another aside of sharing my body with another during the course of my life.

One thing that does strike me as odd is that many non-believers seem to operate off of the premise that the believer has always been as such and that once one is enlightened with the Atheist point of view, the veil of ignorance would be lifted and that individual would hence forth obviously not return to such myths. Such presuppositions strike me as a touch ironic and not unlike the polar opposite point of view that one might be confronted with by a 9am door bell ring perpetrated by persons force feeding pamphlets and eternal salvation or damnation.

I quite agree with

Hi
Biblical contradictions are a completely different subject. However, I think most, if not all, of any contradiction you have ever heard of it taken completely out of context.

Also, you can be a Biblical liberal like myself and still be a strong Christian. A Biblical liberal is basically someone who believes the Bible is the Word of God but also reasons that perhaps somethings are not grammarically correct, or mistranslated, or the meaning has changed over time.

and also see myself as a Biblical liberal. I do not hang my hat of faith on the Bible interpretations of my Christian predecessors, which are many and quite often misguided and at times down right violent. Nor is my faith hindered by the actions of overseas missionaries whom I see as equally misguided in the their force feeding of their faith to people in crisis. I am saddened by such reports and have to wonder what Jesus would have to say about these activities. I suspect that he would not be pleased. It is my truth that my hat hangs on, personal truth can only be known by the person be him Atheist, Agnostic, Christian, Muslim etc.. I would also be interested in finding out which groups of missionaries are doing the force feeding, as I regularly pass on my hard earned cash to many tsunami aid organizations both religious based and nonreligious, I would be sure to not fund missionaries behaving in what I consider to be an unethical and unchristian like way.