Christianity

[Samuraikoku]

The fundamentalist believers would still hate me anyway.

Ni que decir.

Thank goodness we don't have them around these parts. They barely have anything to say, and their rare opposition to controversial issues (like was gay marriage in 2010) is little else than token resistance.

[Sunny Marionette]

Christianity is a religion that, like all religion, can be used for more harm than good. I believe that it's intentions are good, but that the teachings of Christianity in general do not significantly improve the world (especially since the main thing Christians are supposed to do is convert others to their belief system). While I don't believe all Christians are bad people, because of personal experience I will say that I think the majority have the tendency to teabag others with their belief systems, and that friendly discussions on religion can turn into a "fire and brimstone" form of harassment.

You don't think that loving others, treating them well - as you would yourself be treated - are good? I wonder what you think Christians are taught to believe. As for converting others, no, that's not the main thing Christians are supposed to do. The main thing is worshiping Jesus and God and following the rules for living laid down by them.

I was raised Christian and am still forced to attend church services and bible study once a week. There is a strong emphasis placed on mission work in the New Testament, especially to converting others to Christianity even if it's through not-so-nice ways (not necessarily open war, but force). I said that Christianity can be used for good. Gotta go, will continue later.

[Samuraikoku]

I said that Christianity can be used for good.

I can agree with that. Most things aren't harmful by themselves as much as by the way they are used. The Christian church here aids some people in the manners they can, I know that because I know a priest (friend of the family, even though I haven't seen much of him) who does.

[Farnhamia]

You don't think that loving others, treating them well - as you would yourself be treated - are good? I wonder what you think Christians are taught to believe. As for converting others, no, that's not the main thing Christians are supposed to do. The main thing is worshiping Jesus and God and following the rules for living laid down by them.

I was raised Christian and am still forced to attend church services and bible study once a week. There is a strong emphasis placed on mission work in the New Testament, especially to converting others to Christianity even if it's through not-so-nice ways (not necessarily open war, but force). I said that Christianity can be used for good. Gotta go, will continue later.

You having to attend church is a personal problem, not one of doctrine.

When the NT was being composed, yes, there was an emphasis on spreading the good news as far and as wide as possible, but I'd like to see where the NT says people should be converted by force.

My point in contesting what you said is because your post struck me as a sweeping generalization. I hate those.

[Urcea]

I'm a devout Catholic.

[Farnhamia]

I'm a devout Catholic.

*checks hand-held device* Devout Catholic, devout Catholic ... yes, here we are. Oh, I'm so sorry, we're full up with devout Catholics at the moment.

[The Archregimancy]

maybe i need to look up those "left behind" guys. they seem to have enough of a handle on it to write speculative fiction about how it is supposed to all play out.

given that their interpretation is bullshit but i bet they have lots of places where satan is talked about under this idea that revelations is straightfoward prophecy of the coming end times.

I do apologise, Ash, that you find my approach to Revelation to be insufficiently batshit insane, though I am pleased that you've been able to find Evangelical Protestants who do meet your exacting standards for batshit insanity.

I do assure you that I can find you examples of batshit insane Orthodox Christians if you were to insist - though I suspect that batshit insanity is not a trait that's inherently unique to any group.

[Volnotova]

I don't care. Religion is a personal thing, and it shouldn't mess around with politics.

Why?

Personally: I am personally aligned the most to Christianity.

Although I must stress that I am particularly pantheist and that to many there seems to be a remarkable lack of "faith" in my religiosity.

Also, we are talking about Christianity right? Not about the abomination known as Paulism.

(And I now hear many say "But Volnotova! You are a Jew!", yes, indeed I am, [i]but that doesn't mean I actually see the Tanakh as a work of truths, for I tend to see it as a culturally significant document, let alone a book of facts. )

[Copenhagen Metropolis]

OP's flag is funny. Ironic, but funny.

Not sure why. What do you think they were doing in the Book of Acts?

The apostles used the hammer and sickle symbol?

[Halgrond]

I have been raised in a christian family, and we go to a church called Reformation Fellowship. It is a unique church that doesn't really fall into any denomination. We do not have very many rituals there. We just just sing, have announcements and then a "sermon" which we don't really call a sermon.

Sounds like heresy to me.

Why?

[Genivaria]

Not sure why. What do you think they were doing in the Book of Acts?

The apostles used the hammer and sickle symbol?

But of course.

[Farnhamia]

Sounds like heresy to me.

Why?

Not very many rituals? Singing? A sermon that isn't really a sermon? Ridiculous! That's not a church, it's an after-school club. Burn them all!

[Condunum]

Christianity? What's that?

[Shnercropolis]

I love Christianity. I mean, instant benefits, free salvation, and a God that loves me unconditionally? Hell yeah I'm in! I was born into a Christian family, we go to a non-partisan church.

[Neutraligon]

I'm meh about it. I have a great many Christian friends, but we agree Christianity has had a pretty bad history, and continues to have some issues with repression. That said, the parts about loving kindness and charity are a good part of the religion.

[Mike the Progressive]

I consider myself a Christian. I believe in the teachings of Christ, who was a great man. He spoke of charity, he spoke of humility, and he spoke of love.

[Bosiu]

Better than Islam in the modern world.

[Zeetopolis]

Proud Catholic, by choice
I was largely raised Protestant, but I re-converted later on.

[The Archregimancy]

The apostles used the hammer and sickle symbol?

But of course.

The symbol of the Holy Hieromartyr Saint Stalin!

[Erinkita]

I'm not a fan of Christianity, personally. I understand it's very popular, and I'd never try to get in the way of anyone else enjoying it, but a lot of the dogma just rubs me the wrong way.

If I was going to follow a religion, which is unlikely, it wouldn't be this one.

[Distruzio]

Why aren't more of those cynical towards Christianity as observant as you, Ash? Yes, there was a specific manner in which Christ was referring to Satan when he responded to Peter. In that context Satan is the conformist, the modernist, the self-righteous - each a term appropriately used to describe those Jews that Christ criticized and none of whom were willing to suffer for the Faith. Peter, who implored Christ to flee, lest he suffer, was seeking the easy way out of the coming events. Satan had, momentarily, gripped his mind and turned him against Christ. Peter allowed his will to come before his consideration for Gods will. Gods will, in this event, was that Christ should suffer if necessary for the Faith. It was necessary, but it was not (I personally think) a forgone conclusion.

its a very ... relatable...moment. his best friend suggests to him to take the easy way out as if he really were satan back in the desert with jesus.

we all have those moments where we have to resist our friends bad suggestions.

but there isnt all that much in the bible about satan. the NT seems to have a very strong concept of this character but it doesnt come from the OT. satan is barely in the OT. where did this idea of satan as a personal tempter come from?

Tradition. The Bible is not authoritative without the Christian Tradition to guide it, and the Church to interpret it. If you'll notice, the NT does not explain how to be a Christian nor what a Christian is. It is ambiguous at best about the nature of Christ, the Godhead, and much more. Therefore, as you extrapolate, there must be more to the story than what is in the text.

[Neutraligon]

Why aren't more of those cynical towards Christianity as observant as you, Ash? Yes, there was a specific manner in which Christ was referring to Satan when he responded to Peter. In that context Satan is the conformist, the modernist, the self-righteous - each a term appropriately used to describe those Jews that Christ criticized and none of whom were willing to suffer for the Faith. Peter, who implored Christ to flee, lest he suffer, was seeking the easy way out of the coming events. Satan had, momentarily, gripped his mind and turned him against Christ. Peter allowed his will to come before his consideration for Gods will. Gods will, in this event, was that Christ should suffer if necessary for the Faith. It was necessary, but it was not (I personally think) a forgone conclusion.

its a very ... relatable...moment. his best friend suggests to him to take the easy way out as if he really were satan back in the desert with jesus.

we all have those moments where we have to resist our friends bad suggestions.

but there isnt all that much in the bible about satan. the NT seems to have a very strong concept of this character but it doesnt come from the OT. satan is barely in the OT. where did this idea of satan as a personal tempter come from?

If you read the Torah rather than the NT there is literally no Satan. The snake was not Satan.

[Erinkita]

its a very ... relatable...moment. his best friend suggests to him to take the easy way out as if he really were satan back in the desert with jesus.

we all have those moments where we have to resist our friends bad suggestions.

but there isnt all that much in the bible about satan. the NT seems to have a very strong concept of this character but it doesnt come from the OT. satan is barely in the OT. where did this idea of satan as a personal tempter come from?

If you read the Torah rather than the NT there is literally no Satan. The snake was not Satan.

Who was it in Job's story?

[Neutraligon]

If you read the Torah rather than the NT there is literally no Satan. The snake was not Satan.

Who was it in Job's story?

An Angel, no mention of which one, or any relation to the snake. There were no fallen angels mentioned.

[Erinkita]

Who was it in Job's story?

An Angel, no mention of which one, or any relation to the snake. There were no fallen angels mentioned.

This is interesting. Thank you for these interesting facts.