Are Christians harmless? (page 7)

frankiespeakin

I think Christians are harmless if they don't take the Bible literally, don't imitate the vengeful God of the Bible, don't go around like the JWs and mislead every one to beleive a certain way to get salvation, don't pratice shunning, don't pray for God support in wars, don't condem homosexuals, don't try to impose their beliefs on nonbeleivers by influencing politioins to make laws that follow the Bibles narrow views, if they don't do these things then I suppose they are pretty harmless. It's the real zealous ones that cause all the harm.

czarofmischief

The Inquisition was perpetrated by people specifially claiming to Christians, acting in the name of Christ for the purpose of spreading and enforcing Christianity. But claiming to be Christian obviously doesn't make it so. Am I correct in assuming that you would denounce all those involved as unchristian, despite their claims?

The "Inquisition" was over three centuries in length. It had different purposes, was administered by different orders; etc. The Spanish Inquisition was different from the earliest Inquisition against the Waldenses in Languedoc.

Atheism has as many different sects as Catholicism; more even, since there is no way to determine "purity" of belief. But to indict Christianity, as this thread does, on the acts of Christians throughout the ages; is to indict atheism by the acts of atheists. It's ridiculous and counterproductive. Don't judge people by what they are. Judge them by what they've done.

CZAR

funkyderek

Atheism has as many different sects as Catholicism; more even, since there is no way to determine "purity" of belief.

Catholicism is a religion, with particular tenets and beliefs. Atheism is simply not believing in gods. There are no sects of atheism, any more than there are sects of people who don't believe in aliens.

But to indict Christianity, as this thread does, on the acts of Christians throughout the ages; is to indict atheism by the acts of atheists.

Not exactly. If someone is a member of a particular organisation, then they hold some responsibility for the teachings and practices of that organisation. If someone is not associated with a particular group, then they don't really bear any responsibility for the behaviour of others who are also not in that group.

It's ridiculous and counterproductive. Don't judge people by what they are. Judge them by what they've done.

I agree. And I'm sure all the Christians here would be happy to denounce all the perpetrators of the atrocities of the Inquisition as unchristian and distance themselves from them.

LittleToe

So why bring up the Inquisition at all?

Bear in mind that it was mainly one "Christian" denomination attempting to eradicate people from other denominations and it's own.

The Crusade might be a better example of inter-religious warfare, but there the battles for Jerusalem weren't one-sided.
It's a better argument against religion in general than specifically Christianity.

Regardless of all that, you'd be stretched to find a contemporary Christian denomination that would support such actions.
Hence looking at historical accounts bears little revelance to the thread title, IMHO.

shamus

Too much garble, everyone.

Are christians harmless?

The answer is a resounding no. History proves it; and it doesn't matter who's fault it is, or percieved to be. They are harmful, and have been the cause of countless wars and countless tales of misery.

funkyderek

Regardless of all that, you'd be stretched to find a contemporary Christian denomination that would support such actions.

Which means that they should have no problem condemning those actions and those who performed them, right?

LittleToe

Derek:
I don't know what you're getting at.
You surely know that I condemn the Spanish Inquisition and stake burnings.

Most Christians that I know do, too.

Shamus:
I thought you were done with black and white thinking

William Penwell

Here's the deal..............if believers can live a happy, good, healthy life, and take this to the grave with them..........should a non-believer try to mess all that up.....or leave well enough alone?

I agree that a person should respect others way of thinking without trying to convert them. I have no problem with Christian believeing what ever they like, just leave me alone but you know it goes both ways.

Will

gumby

I agree that a person should respect others way of thinking without trying to convert them. I have no problem with Christian believeing what ever they like, just leave me alone but you know it goes both ways.
Will

Hi Will.

I think there is a difference between trying to convert.....and just plain discussing something. When I refute a christians ideas on this board....it's not that I desire thyr leave Christianity, but rather a desire to discuss the arguments involved and reasoning on them. The tuff part is, accepting their decision when when a solid proof is given and they do not acknowledge it because of a stronger desire to believe than to reason. It's not converting....it's simply reasoning with them the way I see it.

On the other hand.....for a Christian to sway a person to believe something on faith....with no SOLID proof for that faith, then that would fit the criteria of conversion. I know I'm wrong as far as a dictionary is concerned, but I have my OWN dictionary

Gumby

LittleToe

Gumby:Yeah, we need to look at that dictionary again sometime.
We don't see eye to eye on your definition of "faith", either, when it comes to our bedtime discussions.

But if it's any consolation, you've comvinced me of the finer qualities of lambswool

Are Christians harmless?

Share this