"Because God asks too much."

[Crazedclerkthe2nd]

I was talking with a non Christian friend of mine about the faith and in particular why he has no interest in it. This was NOT an attempt to convert him on my part, it was just curiosity as I always have an interest in differing viewpoints.

He said he felt God asks too much.

As an example of this he used the following: Church every week, no sex outside of marriage, only heterosexuality permitted, spread the Gospel, tithe of 10% of your income, abortions prohibited and so forth.

Now, not all of these are a directly prohibited by the Bible, but they are generally accepted things most Christians do (or don't do). I explained to my friend that while God does ask a lot, you also must take into account the rewards promised. Repeatedly in the Bible, there are scriptures basically stating "If you are loyal to God in everything you do, He will bring good things your way" and beyond that, you are also guaranteed entrance into Heaven upon leaving this earth.

My friend replied that he was uncomfortable with the notion that everyone who was NOT Christian was condemned to burn in Hell for eternity, even otherwise good, moral, decent people.

I admit I didn't have much of a reply for him because honestly that's something I ponder heavily as well and it's also an issue debated in certain Christian circles as well.

My friend said he wanted as many freedoms in life as he could get and God just couldn't deliver that.

So the point of this thread is to ask you how you feel about my friends viewpoints. Is he right or not?

[Hyena Dandy]

I assume you mean "This was not an attempt"?

[Hyena Dandy]

I feel all God asks is love. The sex before marriage, no homosexuality, etc. are not the purpose. God asks us to love each-other, and Him. Those are the greatest commandments. God doesn't ask anything else.

If someone says that He does, they do not understand the spirit of Christianity.

[BlaqueKatt]

http://www.evilbible.com/why_i_am_not_a_christian.htmSo the point of this thread is to ask you how you feel about my friends viewpoints. Is he right or not?

does it matter?

for him it's the right decision, why do you care?

personally I don't have enough evidence that god(s) exist, so by following some very arbitrary rules penned down some 2000 years ago, I may easily miss out on some very important and fulfilling joys in my life.

Heck if I was a "true believer" I'd still be married to my first husband..well check that, he probably would have killed me by now. He used the bible to justify his abuse of me, and tried to use it to prevent my leaving him.

this (http://www.evilbible.com/why_i_am_not_a_christian.htm)is a decent essay on why some people don't believe-and it does cover some of your friends points.

and if you want some very well written and well thought out arguements for Atheism. Greta Christina's blog (http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2008/09/the-ten-main-reasons-i-dont-believe-in-god.html) is a great source of reading, on the right she has a lost of her most popular archived Atheist blog articles, if you want to understand the Atheist viewpoint, it's a good starting point.

[Andara Bledin]

As an example of this he used the following: Church every week, no sex outside of marriage, only heterosexuality permitted, spread the Gospel, tithe of 10% of your income, abortions prohibited and so forth.
Huh. I must be the worst Christian ever.

It's not that God doesn't offer those freedoms - it's the Church that is the problem.

^-.-^

[Hyena Dandy]

Perhaps your friend is insisting on a literal interpretation of every word of the Bible.

A lot of people do that. Its easier to argue against a gospel of restrictions than one of love.

[Greenday]

I explained to my friend that while God does ask a lot, you also must take into account the rewards promised. Repeatedly in the Bible, there are scriptures basically stating "If you are loyal to God in everything you do, He will bring good things your way" and beyond that, you are also guaranteed entrance into Heaven upon leaving this earth.

My friend replied that he was uncomfortable with the notion that everyone who was NOT Christian was condemned to burn in Hell for eternity, even otherwise good, moral, decent people.

Pretty much this. Plus the fact that I see so much good happen to bad people and bad happen to good people that it tends to make God look full of it.

[HYHYBT]

Christianity isn't about rules. The rules your friend lists, and any number of others, are (vain) attempts to spell out in detail how people who really did love God above all else and who loved all people as much as themselves would behave, nothing more.

You've seen product warning labels. Some things are so covered with warnings that they almost become invisible again. MOST of them, along with such things as "dead man" switches, are an attempt to turn "be careful, pay attention, and don't do anything stupid" into a list of rules which, if followed to the letter, will keep you from harm. But many of them tell you *never* to do things which, under certain circumstances, are not only safe, but beneficial. And people following the rules to the letter still manage to injure themselves or others out of carelessness.

For example: for the last 20+ years, riding lawn mowers have been designed to shut off if the seat is unoccupied. This is great if you fall off, or if you forget the mower deck is running and step in the way of flying debris, etc... but have you ever had to jump-start one? It can't be done by one person. Either the battery is under the seat (in which case you can't sit on the mower while the jumper cables are connected, and therefore cannot start the engine) or it's under the hood (where you can't reach to disconnect the cables without getting up, causing it to shut off again.)

My friend replied that he was uncomfortable with the notion that everyone who was NOT Christian was condemned to burn in Hell for eternity, even otherwise good, moral, decent people.Whether the idea's pleasant or not doesn't matter so much as whether you believe it to be true or false. If you believe it's true that anyone who is not Christian will spend eternity in Hell (and you believe Hell to be an unpleasant place) then to me it seems foolish not to be one. Not that all Christians believe that anyway... and on that, though I try not to quote C. S. Lewis, I cannot resist pasting in a favorite:We do know that no man can be saved except through Christ; we do not know that only those who know Him can be saved through Him. But in the meantime, if you are worried about the people outside, the most unreasonable thing you can do is remain outside yourself. Christians are Christ's body, the organism through which he works. Every addition to that body enables Him to do more. If you want to help those outside you must add your own little cell to the body of Christ who alone can help them. Cutting off a man's fingers would be an odd way of getting him to do more work.

[Ladeeda]

God never asked me for anything. Never had a chat with the dude himself.

But then, I don't inhale the smoke from a "burning bush", ifyaknowhatimean.

[BlaqueKatt]

God doesn't ask anything else.

If someone says that He does, they do not understand the spirit of Christianity.

wha? I'm confused:confused:

so the 10 commandments didn't come from god then?

and the entirety of leviticus was made up?(a lot of christians are going to be denied if they ate surf n' turf if that one turns out to be real, also see revelations that lists the number admitted to heaven as 144,000 only)

and then turns around and has his son(Jesus) tell people to break one of the major commandments(honor thy father and mother)
Matthew 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

or is this one of those non-literal parts, depending on whom you ask*:rolleyes:, even though it is supposed to be the actual words of Jesus.


*this is why Atheists have a major issue with the bible. Selective literalism, oh that part's literal, but the next isn't, but the next two are, then four others chime in with "no the first part isn't but the parts before and after are. quite frankly it's migraine inducing.

sorry you don't get to cherry pick your beliefs and accuse us of being irrational.

And that's what it is, cherry picking to suit your beliefs, not god's, because by cherry picking and saying, "oh he didn't meant that literally" you are presuming to know the mind of god.

[Rageaholic]

My friend said he wanted as many freedoms in life as he could get and God just couldn't deliver that.

He nailed it with that. No matter what spin I took on Christianity, be it the hellfire baptists or the more spiritual liberal denominations, there was always some catch. You had to live according to a certain standard, which meant giving up a lot of things in this life. Well I prefer to enjoy the life I have because it may be the only one I get.

[RecoveringKinkoid]

Perhaps your friend is insisting on a literal interpretation of every word of the Bible.

A lot of people do that. Its easier to argue against a gospel of restrictions than one of love.


Thank you. I've seen that time and time again.

And BTW, Hyena Dandy is right. It's not about the restrictions. Jesus himself blew off the restrictions.

Old Testament=Old. New Testament=New. It's not a hard concept. Of course, all the really good reasons against are in the Old Testament, so it's easier to go with that.



saying, "oh he didn't meant that literally" you are presuming to know the mind of god.

Saying "Oh, but he did", so are you.

[Ladeeda]

You can't take some parts as literal and some not and still say it's the True Werd of Gawd.

[Andara Bledin]

You can't take some parts as literal and some not and still say it's the True Werd of Gawd.
We've had a whole thread about this. The bible is based on the word of God and then fucked up for centuries by the humans that have been handling it.

If you want to be minimalist the only real thing that is required of a Christian is that you honestly repent your sins and accept Christ as your savior. The end.

I also like to go with the more spiritual aspects, myself. You know, love thy neighbor, don't be a fucktard... All that jazz.

The materialistic stuff is pretty obviously mostly about the Church and I have no use for a middleman.

^-.-^

[Crazedclerkthe2nd]

I assume you mean "This was not an attempt"?

Yes, I have corrected my original post.

[Crazedclerkthe2nd]

Ok, so let me ask this:

If a man (or woman) gives their life to Christ and asks forgiveness for their sins, why would they continue to sin after accepting Christ? Doesn't that defeat the purpose?

Also, who decides what is and isn't sin? Logic says God does, by way of the scriptures, but if some scriptures are intended literally and others not how does a person know when they are "sinning"?

[Ladeeda]

I also like to go with the more spiritual aspects, myself. You know, love thy neighbor, don't be a fucktard... All that jazz.



But most people can and DO do that without religion. And don't need the threat of eternal damnation to do so.

[Andara Bledin]

If a man (or woman) gives their life to Christ and asks forgiveness for their sins, why would they continue to sin after accepting Christ? Doesn't that defeat the purpose?
We're human. We screw up, we make mistakes, we do stupid shit in moment's of weakness. It's part of that whole free will thing. The idea is to try your best not to do those things and to be truly remorseful over the times when your best isn't good enough.

Also, who decides what is and isn't sin?
That is a much more difficult question, and open for a lot of interpretation. However, since you're supposed to obey the laws of the land, you can usually look to them for a handy guide of things that you just shouldn't do.

Beyond that, you can mostly just avoid being a dickhead and be pretty much covered.

^-.-^

[Kheldarson]

so the 10 commandments didn't come from god then?

and the entirety of leviticus was made up?(a lot of christians are going to be denied if they ate surf n' turf if that one turns out to be real, also see revelations that lists the number admitted to heaven as 144,000 only)

Um...Leviticus was a rule book. Written for Hebrews living back in the time before Christ. And living in a particular time period that made eating certain things kind of dangerous. In fact, later in the letters of Paul, God apparently rescinds that stuff in Leviticus. I'll find the verse later. But simple fact is 10 Commandments deal a lot with how not to be a dick to other people. Leviticus deals with how the Hebrews can survive as a collective society. So, yes, as a Christian, with an understanding of context and knowing that the Old Testament is to serve as a history of how we get to the New Testament, I don't have to necessarily follow the rules in Leviticus. Not because it's not true--it was for the time--but because it's no longer applicable.

and then turns around and has his son(Jesus) tell people to break one of the major commandments(honor thy father and mother)
Matthew 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.


My understanding of this one was that he's talking about the fact that not all will accept him. Particularly at that time period. So not so much "go out and disrespect your parents" but more "be prepared for the shit storm that's going to follow after accepting me as your teacher".



As for the OP, by technicality, your friend is right. For him. It's like I had an openly gay acquaintance who asked me about the Roman Catholic Church's position on homosexuality. So I told him. He then proceeded to say that that's too hard a stance. So I said, "Well, good thing you're not Catholic, right?"

But do remind your friend that the various churches (including the RCC) are just means to an end. They help provide a structure to help us with the most important commandment given to us, which is, "Love God with all you heart, all your soul, and all your might; and love thy neighbor as thyself."

[Crazedclerkthe2nd]

We're human. We screw up, we make mistakes, we do stupid shit in moment's of weakness. It's part of that whole free will thing. The idea is to try your best not to do those things and to be truly remorseful over the times when your best isn't good enough.


That is a much more difficult question, and open for a lot of interpretation. However, since you're supposed to obey the laws of the land, you can usually look to them for a handy guide of things that you just shouldn't do.

Beyond that, you can mostly just avoid being a dickhead and be pretty much covered.

^-.-^

Most Christians don't consider it appropriate to watch porn because the Bible warns against sexual immorality. Pornography is legal in most industrialized nations.

How do you reconcile the two? If there is an issue where the law of the land and the scriptures contradict each other the Bible takes precedence?

[Gravekeeper]

Christianity isn't about rules.

Christianity is all about rules, it is just that Christians do not by and large agree on which of the rules to follow and how to follow them. Arguable, all religions are about rules in one sense or another. As the very purpose of them, or any philosophy, is to encourage one behaviour as superior over others.


We've had a whole thread about this. The bible is based on the word of God and then fucked up for centuries by the humans that have been handling it.


Imma have to chew on you a little again. The Bible is *not* based on the word of God, it is based on the words of people claiming to have heard the words of God. Big difference.


If you believe it's true that anyone who is not Christian will spend eternity in Hell (and you believe Hell to be an unpleasant place) then to me it seems foolish not to be one.

There are people who believe in Christian Hell and that they will go to Christian Hell if they are not Christians, but yet are not Christians? That is indeed....foolish. But is anyone actually like that?

[Hyena Dandy]

If you believe it's true that anyone who is not Christian will spend eternity in Hell (and you believe Hell to be an unpleasant place) then to me it seems foolish not to be one.


I... I think you're either quoting me out of context on that one and I was referring to something other than not being Christian, or I did honestly say it in context, and in this context, that's a really odd statement.

I can't think of many people who believe they'll go to hell who aren't trying to avoid it, but... I have no idea why I said that. I've been awful sick the last few days, and I just had a semi-lucid hallucination and professed my love to Alley, a character I play in a GURPS game.

I think I may not be mentally composed enough to debate, especially if I'm saying things like that.

Seriously, when did I say that? That sounds very silly to me...

Not doubting you! Pretty much just doubting me on that one.





Edit: I can sort of see where that statement may have come from (That is, my thought process) but there seem to have been a LOT of steps cut out of my thought process there.

I'll detaili t when I'm feeling a little better.

[HYHYBT]

You didn't say that: I did. It may sound silly by itself, but if you go back to the first page of the thread, it made sense in the context of the quote I was responding to.

Most Christians don't consider it appropriate to watch porn because the Bible warns against sexual immorality. Pornography is legal in most industrialized nations.

How do you reconcile the two? If there is an issue where the law of the land and the scriptures contradict each other the Bible takes precedence?What's to reconcile, unless you assume that anything sinful must also be illegal? Or: why would you assume that?

[Andara Bledin]

Most Christians don't consider it appropriate to watch porn because the Bible warns against sexual immorality. Pornography is legal in most industrialized nations.

How do you reconcile the two? If there is an issue where the law of the land and the scriptures contradict each other the Bible takes precedence?
What's to reconcile. I merely stated that not breaking the laws is a good starting point for how to figure basic behavior.

And that's not a contradiction, anyway. If one required that you do something that the other prohibited, then that would be a contradiction. All this amounts to is "the law of the land" being more lenient than "scripture." Just because it's legal, doesn't require that you partake.

^-.-^

[BlaqueKatt]

And BTW, Hyena Dandy is right. It's not about the restrictions. Jesus himself blew off the restrictions.

Old Testament=Old. New Testament=New. It's not a hard concept. Of course, all the really good reasons against are in the Old Testament, so it's easier to go with that..

I can find no referance to Jesus saying the old testament doesn't apply, and from reading the bible years ago, I don't remember it.

as a matter of fact all I can find is that he DIDN'T-nothing in the bible (http://www.crivoice.org/beyonddoctrine.html) saying that.


In other words, the NT, for example in the "fulfillment" formulas of Matthew or in the four-chapter introduction of Luke, most often uses the Old Testament to reinforce and illustrate the truths that the early church was already expressing about Jesus. That certainly does not invalidate the Old Testament, or in a any sense render the Old Testament subservient to the New Testament, nor does it imply any supercessionist view of the New Testament.

It means as pastors and leader that we have the responsibility to study Scripture diligently for the evidence that is there rather than imposing onto the biblical text what we think it needs to say, what the Church says that it must say, or what society demands that it say (or not say!). The Biblical evidence must move beyond doctrine and opinion if it is to be the living word of God for a new millennium.

good news magazine (http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn15/otnt.htm)
One of the common misconceptions among readers of the Bible is that a large part of it is obsolete-irrelevant for modern life. Sadly, some professing Christians have unwittingly turned a blind eye to much of God's revelation by rejecting what is known as the Old Testament. They believe that the New Testament-the writings of the apostles-is what really matters; that the Old Testament was valid up until Christ came, but at that time became old and outdated.
The general view is that the Old Testament was old-and thus obsolete or worn out-and that it has been replaced by the New Testament. Is this view found in the Bible? No, it isn't.

The "Sermon on the Mount" is one of the first recorded examples of His teaching, and what does He say? "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets [the Old Testament]. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill" (Matthew 5:17).

Lest anybody get the wrong idea about what He was saying, Jesus clarified His teaching even more: "For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 5:18-19).


Saying "Oh, but he did", so are you.

nope, just pointing out that those who do have not read the bible-see above-nothing passes from the law.

kind of difficult to presume to know the mind of something I don't believe exists.

[Ladeeda]

How about gender discrimination? That's illegal in most first-world countries, but the Bible positively revels in it. So by going with the law, isn't that going against the Werd of Gawd?

[Gravekeeper]

You didn't say that: I did. It may sound silly by itself, but if you go back to the first page of the thread, it made sense in the context of the quote I was responding to.


Did I get the wrong H? Crap, I did too. Sorry, Hyena. ><

And no, rereading it, it still sounds odd.

Whether the idea's pleasant or not doesn't matter so much as whether you believe it to be true or false. If you believe it's true that anyone who is not Christian will spend eternity in Hell (and you believe Hell to be an unpleasant place) then to me it seems foolish not to be one.

What does "one" refer to then in the sentence?

[Kheldarson]

I can find no referance to Jesus saying the old testament doesn't apply, and from reading the bible years ago, I don't remember it.


Some of us don't go by Bible alone. From the Catechism of the Catholic Church (http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c3a1.htm#1965):

1968 The Law of the Gospel fulfills the commandments of the Law. The Lord's Sermon on the Mount, far from abolishing or devaluing the moral prescriptions of the Old Law, releases their hidden potential and has new demands arise from them: it reveals their entire divine and human truth. It does not add new external precepts, but proceeds to reform the heart, the root of human acts, where man chooses between the pure and the impure,22 where faith, hope, and charity are formed and with them the other virtues. The Gospel thus brings the Law to its fullness through imitation of the perfection of the heavenly Father, through forgiveness of enemies and prayer for persecutors, in emulation of the divine generosity.23

Link goes to full section. Essentially, if you're Christian, OT gives you the basis, but NT gives you the true meaning. So a lot of stuff in Leviticus? Completely overridden because it violates the idea of loving one another. Yeah, the Hebrews needed it when they started out, but we don't need it now. The 10 Commandments? Finds completion in the idea of loving others.

[Boozy]

...So by going with the law, isn't that going against the Werd of Gawd?

That's the second time you've used that misspelling, and I'm not sure what point, if any, you're trying to make. Explain?

[Ghel]

It's not us non-Christians' fault that the early Christians decided to base their new religion on Judaism. Since they hooked their god-in-human-form on the Jewish notions of the Messiah, Christianity can never do away with the Old Testament and all the vindictive, spiteful, genocidal, and misogynist things the Old Testament God did.

And anyone who claims that Jesus gets rid of the Old Testament laws needs to listen to Jesus' own words, as reported by Matthew 5:18-19: "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or tittle shall nowise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven." There are, of course, other passages in the Bible that suggest that Christians can ignore Old Testament laws, but they are not in Jesus' own words, if that has any weight in this discussion.

[Ladeeda]

That's the second time you've used that misspelling, and I'm not sure what point, if any, you're trying to make. Explain?

None. Just makes me giggle.

[Boozy]

It's disrespectful and is not conducive to civil debate. Please use proper spelling from now on.

[Hyena Dandy]

Thank you for that, Boozy. :)

[HYHYBT]

Did I get the wrong H? Crap, I did too. Sorry, Hyena. ><

And no, rereading it, it still sounds odd.



What does "one" refer to then in the sentence?

a Christian.

[Hyena Dandy]

I believe I understand what HYHYBT was saying.

That he says he has a problem with the going to hell for anyone who's not a Christian. HYHYBT was saying that if you believe in hell, and everyone who's not Christian goes there, it doesn't make sense not to be.

I believe what the person was saying, though, was he has a problem that anyone not a Christian goes to hell, and that's why he doesn't follow Christian teachings. Because he sees that as incongruous, therefore, Christian teachings are untrue.

[Mytical]

Respect for others beliefs, regardless of if you follow them or not, has always been a bit lacking I believe. Why do you care if somebody believes in something or not? Is it really that important to you to be 'right'? (even if you can't prove you are 'right'). Live and let live.

My personal belief is there is 'something' out there, and I base it upon things I've personally witnessed.

Are there too pushy Christians out there, absolutely. Just as there are zealots that for some reason can't stand to see a 'believer'. Just as there are people who have never raised a child who think they know best how YOU should raise your child..etc.

It's not your job to change their minds, nor is it theirs to change yours.

Peace - Mytical

[Gravekeeper]

a Christian.

Thats what I thought, hence my statement stands. I don't misread it or take it out of context.



I believe what the person was saying, though, was he has a problem that anyone not a Christian goes to hell, and that's why he doesn't follow Christian teachings. Because he sees that as incongruous, therefore, Christian teachings are untrue.

That makes a tad more sense.

[BlaqueKatt]

Respect for others beliefs, regardless of if you follow them or not, has always been a bit lacking I believe. Why do you care if somebody believes in something or not? Is it really that important to you to be 'right'? (even if you can't prove you are 'right'). Live and let live.

and that is one of the infamous "because shut the hell up, that's why (http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2009/02/shut-up-thats-why.html)" arguments

Atheists care what believers believe, because people act on their beliefs. Beliefs have consequences in the real world. And that includes religious beliefs.

To ask atheists to ignore what believers believe, even though it has an enormous impact on our lives and everybody else's lives, is just an attempt to get us to shut up.

yeah no-entire article, No, Atheists Don't Have to Show "Respect" for Religion (http://www.alternet.org/belief/149588/no,_atheists_don%27t_have_to_show_%22respect%22_fo r_religion)


It's not your job to change their minds, nor is it theirs to change yours.

um what? You are aware that one of the cornerstones of every major religion is to prolethysize or gain followers right? I give everyone exactly one free pass, they approach, I say "I'm an Atheist, good day to you sir/ma'am", if they persist, they have just shown a lack of respect for my lack of belief, and I will verbally let them have it.

[Hyena Dandy]

Thats what I thought, hence my statement stands. I don't misread it or take it out of context.





That makes a tad more sense.

Explanation yena to the rescue.

[Andara Bledin]

You are aware that one of the cornerstones of every major religion is to prolethysize or gain followers right?
Wow, and here I was thinking Buddhism was a major religion.

^-.-^

[Gravekeeper]

Wow, and here I was thinking Buddhism was a major religion.

^-.-^

We've been downgraded <sniff>



You are aware that one of the cornerstones of every major religion is to prolethysize or gain followers right?

No offence, but to be bluntly honest I don't think you've ever looked at anything save Christianity and Islam if you seriously believe that. You are also fantastically wrong. That is not a corner stone of every major religion. Hell, purely by numbers, its barely even a cornerstone of the majority of major religions ( aka Abrahamic religion makes up something like 48-55% of the world's population ).

Buddhism considers it abusive, Hinduism too, Sikhism as well, etc etc. Once you get past the top two on the list, pretty much everything below it is a non-prolethysizing religion. Please learn before you speak.

That's not even touching how many in the Arbahamic religions just don't follow that particular tenant and are quite content to leave everyone else alone to their own beliefs. Factor that in and its not even a majority of the world population.

[Hyena Dandy]

You are aware that one of the cornerstones of every major religion is to prolethysize or gain followers right?


Neither part of that sentence is true.

1) Not all major religions encourage prosthelytizing

2) The ones that do would not count it as a cornerstone. More as a bonus. Unless you're an Evangelical in which case, yeah, evangelizing is the point. Otherwise, its generally something that's encouraged, but hardly the cornerstone.

[Crazedclerkthe2nd]

I often see common evangelical approaches as more or less "Christian salesmen". In other words, people trying to use the same tactics they would use to make a sale (exaggerated claims, sense of urgency, deceptive information) to try and convince someone to "Buy into" Christianity.

I disagree with this.

Consider this scripture from Matthew:

"Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature"

Note this mentions nothing about converting anyone, only telling people about Jesus and what he's about. I've often wondered if that's more what they had in mind with these scriptures i.e. tell people about Jesus and let them decide whether or not they want to follow him (become a Christian).

Christianity is viewed negatively enough by a large enough group that oftentimes there are stiff (and occasionally violent) responses to conversion attempts.

[linguist]

um what? You are aware that one of the cornerstones of every major religion is to prolethysize or gain followers right?

Have you ever looked into what it takes to convert to Judaism? Not only do they not proselytize, they actively try to discourage you from converting.

[AdminAssistant]

And some Orthodox Jewish groups don't even consider converted Jews to be "real" Jews. I met a woman who converted to Judaism, and she told me that when she lived in New York, she had a hard time finding a synagogue that would accept her.

[BlaqueKatt]

Buddhism considers it abusive

6%


Hinduism too,
14%

Sikhism as well

0.36%


not quite sure how such tiny numbers are considered "major" religions

and Judism sits at 0.22% of the world's population.

apparently my definition of Major/majority is not the same as yours...

Hell, purely by numbers, its barely even a cornerstone of the majority of major religions ( aka Abrahamic religion makes up something like 48-55% of the world's population ).


hmmm

100% of the world's population
minus 20% that is non-religious(agnostic/atheist)
leaves 80%
and 55% of that is Islam/Christian
which leaves 25% other religions
and you're saying the 25% is the majority-yeah our definitions of majority are not in sync...

[Gravekeeper]

not quite sure how such tiny numbers are considered "major" religions


You realise the only two religions above those are Christianity and Islam, right? aka 2 of 10 or so commonly recognized major religions? And that the Christianity chunk is subdivided into around 34,000 seperate subgroups? Not all of which give a shit about what you think or believe nor have any interest in making you believe the same as they do?

PS. There's no actual world concensus for how many Buddhists there are as they are not an organized religion. Estimates actually range from between 6 to 23% and could it be the second, third or fourth largest religion in the world.



apparently my definition of Major/majority is not the same as yours...


Yes, mine is based on logic, yours seems to be based on desperately trying to support a biased point of view.



minus 20% that is non-religious(agnostic/atheist)
leaves 80%
and 55% of that is Islam/Christian
which leaves 25% other religions
and you're saying the 25% is the majority-yeah our definitions of majority are not in sync...


Yes, that would be because my definition is correct while yours is still trying to twist things to fit a weak argument. You cannot subtract the agnostic/atheist category, they are just as capable of prolethyzing as anyone else. So yeah, 55%, and thats only if you use the most conservative estimate of Buddhism and only if you're seriously claiming that all 34,000 denominations of Christianity prolethyze. ( Hint: They don't ).

Sorry, but your statement was wrong to begin with and its still wrong now.

[Hyena Dandy]

and 55% of that is Islam/Christian

And I don't know about all Muslims, but I can tell you for sure that not ALL Christian sects give a damn what you believe. And even for a lot of the ones that do, its hardly a CORNERSTONE of their beliefs.

[Greenday]

Christians are the only ones I've experienced actually trying to recruit people. I never seen another religion do it. And even then, I've only seen it a couple times.

Muslims here in Afghanistan are good people. They don't try to recruit people at all. They bother no one with their praying. If it's such a cornerstone of their religion, they must be terrible Muslims.

[Mytical]

Just remember something about statistics...

One .. a smart person can twist statistics to support just about any position..including two exact opposite positions at the same time.

Two ... the validity of statistics can be brought into question depending on WHO issues the statistics. An article in a beauty magazine that suggests that X% of women think they are more beautiful using Y substance/item/etc is to be questioned. Especially when the statistics are brought to you by the maker of said Y item..or a 'independent' lab that is hired and paid by the makers of Y item.

As a wise person once said...
86% of statistics can mean whatever you want it to
and an additional 90% of statistics are made up on the spot. :angel:

[Andara Bledin]

PS. There's no actual world concensus for how many Buddhists there are as they are not an organized religion. Estimates actually range from between 6 to 23% and could it be the second, third or fourth largest religion in the world.
Isn't also possible that Buddhists could be considered Atheists by some counts due to, you know, generally being atheistic?

Gotta love the imprecision of statistics without the methodology to support them.

^-.-^

[Gravekeeper]

Isn't also possible that Buddhists could be considered Atheists by some counts due to, you know, generally being atheistic?


Possible I suppose, though they would have to identify as Atheist over Buddhist when asked the survey question. Its possible to be Buddhist and Atheist, but I don't think too many people are. The majority school of thought is Mahayana Buddhism, and Atheism isn't really compadible with it.

Though the different schools of thought is why there's no clear estimate for Buddhists. The numbers change based on how you define Buddhism in the question.

[DrFaroohk]

Thing about those Church rules and Bible rules is that many of them are for your benefit. Like, don't have sex outside of marriage. which sucks. Who wants to have no sex until they're married? But let's face it...unwanted kids and herpes are awful. While sex outside of marriage doesn't guarantee at least one of these happening, and sex within the marriage doesn't guarantee it won't happen, odds are you'll be dealing with a lot less stress if you don't whore yourself around and just stick to one steady partner.

Drugs. I'm pretty sure somewhere it says you shouldn't get drunk, high or stoned or anything else. But that sucks! I personally love getting blitzed once in a while. who doesn't? It's awesome! But guess what - that shit is expensive. And it can get you in trouble with the law, whether it's a DUI or possession of narcotics. And it can get you killed. Or raped in federal prison.

Of course, these aren't solely Christian ideas, but they like to take credit for it. I've found a good belief structure is to just try and be a good person. I don't steal, I don't cheat on my wife, I drink sometimes but not in terrible excess. I don't beat my kids and I don't murder people...unless they deserve it.

Just kidding. If you couldn't tell, you suck. :)

[BookstoreEscapee]

odds are you'll be dealing with a lot less stress if you don't whore yourself around and just stick to one steady partner.

Just out of curiosity, why does sex outside of marriage = "whoring yourself around"? Could there, maybe, possibly, be some middle ground there?

[Gravekeeper]

Just out of curiosity, why does sex outside of marriage = "whoring yourself around"? Could there, maybe, possibly, be some middle ground there?

I don't think thats what he meant seeing as the full sentence was "whore yourself around and just stick to one steady partner". You can do that regardless of marriage. Unless I am reading it wrong.

[DrFaroohk]

Yeah that's what I meant. And I'm not condoning whoring onesself around. I used to whore around a bit. I don't anymore, and I'm glad of it. But people who whore around generally have some sort of negative consequences, even if its just bad emotions.