What is a good Christian?

[Washington Resistance Army]

Tolerance is overrated, after all, we wouldn’t be very Christian Christians if we passively tolerated the things we find morally repugnant. Of course, tolerance is sometimes the correct approach when dealing with certain situations.

"Tolerance is overrated..."

Dangerous words if there ever were any.

Not shocking given the history though. If late classical Christianity popped up today and did the same things it did historically we'd treat them the same way we treat ISIS.

It's a really interesting historical comparison honestly, and shows how much general morality has changed.

[Salus Maior]

"Tolerance is overrated..."

Dangerous words if there ever were any.

Not shocking given the history though. If late classical Christianity popped up today and did the same things it did historically we'd treat them the same way we treat ISIS.

It's a really interesting historical comparison honestly, and shows how much general morality has changed.

If any Classical civilization popped up today we'd probably treat them like ISIS.

Just a reminder that the Romans turned POW's and civilians into slaves. War crimes weren't a thing.

[Jedi Council]

"Tolerance is overrated..."

Dangerous words if there ever were any.

If a Christian should say that we should tolerate sin then they have no integrity nor conviction.

Does not mean they are any less dangerous, in fact, rather proves my long held argument that faith and organized religion are, in fact, quite problematic.

[FelrikTheDeleted]

If a Christian should say that we should tolerate sin then they have no integrity nor conviction.

Does not mean they are any less dangerous, in fact, rather proves my long held argument that faith and organized religion are, in fact, quite problematic.

Right, why would I care what you believe about it? I’ll tell you now that I don’t.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Not shocking given the history though. If late classical Christianity popped up today and did the same things it did historically we'd treat them the same way we treat ISIS.

It's a really interesting historical comparison honestly, and shows how much general morality has changed.

If any Classical civilization popped up today we'd probably treat them like ISIS.

Just a reminder that the Romans turned POW's into slaves. War crimes weren't a thing.

Forget turning POW's into slaves, what Caesar did in Gaul took it to a whole new level lol. Dude was monstrous.

[Salus Maior]

Tolerance especially, given the religions less than accepting history.

We're perfectly able to live in peace with people who are different from us. Hell, I go to a Protestant school. Most of my irl friends are Protestant.

I've had co-workers that believed completely different things than me, and I worked fine with them and made plenty of friends. Religion isn't some kind of ticking time bomb for violence. That's just bullshit.

[Jedi Council]

Does not mean they are any less dangerous, in fact, rather proves my long held argument that faith and organized religion are, in fact, quite problematic.

Right, why would I care what you believe about it? I’ll tell you now that I don’t.

Never said you should care, just giving my opinion. Your response to it is your business.

Sorry if this tolerance is confusing, or wrong to you.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Tolerance especially, given the religions less than accepting history.

We're perfectly able to live in peace with people who are different from us. Hell, I go to a Protestant school. Most of my irl friends are Protestant.

I've had co-workers that believed completely different things than me, and I worked fine with them and made plenty of friends. Religion isn't some kind of ticking time bomb for violence. That's just bullshit.

Oh certainly Christians are capable of living in peace with other faiths today. But that has very much not been the case historically until the past 100-200 years or so.

[Atheris]

If any Classical civilization popped up today we'd probably treat them like ISIS.

Just a reminder that the Romans turned POW's into slaves. War crimes weren't a thing.

Forget turning POW's into slaves, what Caesar did in Gaul took it to a whole new level lol. Dude was monstrous.

And yet he had the best one-liner in history.

"Let the die be cast."

[Salus Maior]

Right, why would I care what you believe about it? I’ll tell you now that I don’t.

Never said you should care, just giving my opinion. Your response to it is your business.

Sorry if this tolerance is confusing, or wrong to you.

What tolerance? lol

Your position as far as I can tell is that, more or less, all religious people are prone to violence and are out to burn nonbelievers.

You're not the tolerant voice in this thread, boyo.

[Salus Maior]

We're perfectly able to live in peace with people who are different from us. Hell, I go to a Protestant school. Most of my irl friends are Protestant.

I've had co-workers that believed completely different things than me, and I worked fine with them and made plenty of friends. Religion isn't some kind of ticking time bomb for violence. That's just bullshit.

Oh certainly Christians are capable of living in peace with other faiths today. But that has very much not been the case historically until the past 100-200 years or so.

And the point of that assertion is?

[FelrikTheDeleted]

Right, why would I care what you believe about it? I’ll tell you now that I don’t.

Never said you should care, just giving my opinion. Your response to it is your business.

Sorry if this tolerance is confusing, or wrong to you.

Tolerance isn’t confusing to me, nor is it necessarily wrong. Some situations call for tolerance, but being tolerate of sin is a ‘no-no’.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Oh certainly Christians are capable of living in peace with other faiths today. But that has very much not been the case historically until the past 100-200 years or so.

And the point of assertion is?

If you go back to the beginning it was that Christianity does not get any sort of ownership of the concept of tolerance or kindness.

[Andechs-Sisebut]

And the point of assertion is?

If you go back to the beginning it was that Christianity does not get any sort of ownership of the concept of tolerance or kindness.

Incidentally, neither does Paganism.

[Washington Resistance Army]

If you go back to the beginning it was that Christianity does not get any sort of ownership of the concept of tolerance or kindness.

Incidentally, neither does Paganism.

Indeed. Nobody does.

Except maybe the Jains, I guess? I'm not super well versed in their history but they have a solid record afaik.

[Jedi Council]

Never said you should care, just giving my opinion. Your response to it is your business.

Sorry if this tolerance is confusing, or wrong to you.

What tolerance? lol

Your position as far as I can tell is that, more or less, all religious people are prone to violence and are out to burn nonbelievers.

You're not the tolerant voice in this thread, boyo.

Want to show me where I have said any of that?

[Andechs-Sisebut]

Incidentally, neither does Paganism.

Indeed. Nobody does.

Except maybe the Jains, I guess? I'm not super well versed in their history but they have a solid record afaik.

I think it’s impossible for anyone to be free of violence in life. Jainism, no exception. Though I have no special knowledge of its history, I’m sure you’ll find violence there.

[Katganistan]

It's the anti-theist answer. They want a Christian who does not act like a Christian. Our whole schtick, after all, is evangelism.

I will once again point to Mr Rogers. Evangelizing tends to just piss people off

Exactly. He got his point across without hitting people over the head with his faith. He just treated others with grace and dignity, and tried to teach people to do the same.

[Neanderthaland]

Incidentally, neither does Paganism.

Indeed. Nobody does.

Except maybe the Jains, I guess? I'm not super well versed in their history but they have a solid record afaik.

I'm not sure if they've ever had enough political power to really orchestrate intolerance.

A lot of religions have inconstant bouts of tolerance. Zoroastrianism was very tolerant, until it suddenly wasn't. Islam seems to go back and forth. I mentioned the wars of reformation earlier. Those were shockingly intolerant, but in the wake of them the Christian culture of Northern Europe became more tolerant. Buddhism has a pretty good record, but also tends to overlook people doing horrible things on it's behalf (Christianity and Hinduism have this problem sometimes as well.)

IDK. It's almost as though tolerance is a cultural value more than a religious one.

[Atheris]

I will once again point to Mr Rogers. Evangelizing tends to just piss people off

Exactly. He got his point across without hitting people over the head with his faith. He just treated others with grace and dignity, and tried to teach people to do the same.

Bob Ross taught everybody to paint. He didn't care where you came from, he taught you that no matter what kind of person you are, whatever your background is, that you can do whatever you set your mind to.

[Joohan]

There have been terrible things done by Christians in the name of the Lord, no one is saying anything to the otherwise. For one who is truly filled with the holy spirit though, to spread the truth of the gospels is never wrong.

No true Scotsman. And ignoring the actual point.

Well, technically, this is all a no true scotsman argument to you - as you don't believe that an objective standard of moral measurement beyond your own.

I've ignored your insinuation that Christians do wrong by spreading the gospel because it's ridiculous. By your standards of desiring our apathy, perhaps it makes sense that we should merely hide ourselves in the corner for all times - but according to Christians, we are commanded to evangelize.

Mathew 28:18-20
And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you.

Apathy is antithetical to Christianity.

No his actions where purely secular for a reason. He was a good Christian because he was a good person first.

It wasn't secular.

Just like the carsalesman or the cult leader does not expect everyone to delight in what you have to say, but you must go on anyway.

The difference being, there is no material gain for us. The reward, is that we come closer to God.

You do not have 2000 years of martyrdom

What are you talking about

you have a few hundred years of martyrdom and centuries upon centuries of intolerance, violence, and hatred. Tell that to ISIS, who believes what they are doing is the will of their god.

You will find that Hernan Cortez is the exception, and not the rule among missionaries. I will say again, as I have before, that men have done terrible things in the name of the Lord - but that their actions are not representative of what is to be Christian. For those men and women who are filled with holy spirit, spreading the gospels have works of love. It's easy to point at the conquistadors as an example of how evil evangelism is - while ignoring the fact that nearly all missionary work throughout history has consisted of charity and education. Pointing to the actions taken by a few men throughout out a nearly 2000 year history as being representative for the whole of the faith, is as ridiculous as trying to assign ISIS as the standard bearer of Islam.

Point to your tyrant's, I will point to you multitudes of saints who have suffered for their faith. Point to your murders, I will point to you the orders and missions that drown their misery with charity and love. The history of the Church is one of the Lords's compassion and the struggles of man, and if you've doubts on what it is to spread the truth of the gospels, then perhaps you should read them for yourself?

[Neanderthaland]

Indeed. Nobody does.

Except maybe the Jains, I guess? I'm not super well versed in their history but they have a solid record afaik.

I think it’s impossible for anyone to be free of violence in life. Jainism, no exception. Though I have no special knowledge of its history, I’m sure you’ll find violence there.

The more extreme Jains drink through cheesecloth so as to not accidentally swallow any bugs that might happen by, and gently sweep in front of their footsteps with a broom to avoid stepping on anything.

I doubt that it's possible for anyone to have a childhood that's free of violence. Since kids are assholes. But it's safe to generalize Jains as being non-violent.

[Katganistan]

"Pissing people off is the best way to approach a group."

Not if you are trying to convince them that you are right and they are wrong.

I'm going to go ahead and say that pissing people off is basically never the best way to win over people.

Neurology has shown that people don't really listen to those who they view as an enemy.

I don’t know, pissing people off and then beating down their objections, etc, has worked before in my own experience. Take my word for it or not, I don’t really care.

I don't take your word for it. *shrug*

[Luminesa]

Right, why would I care what you believe about it? I’ll tell you now that I don’t.

Never said you should care, just giving my opinion. Your response to it is your business.

Sorry if this tolerance is confusing, or wrong to you.

You kinda continually said that Christians should just keep to themselves and not talk about their faith, which sounds like a lack of tolerance. Tolerance isn’t a virtue, it’s a social expectation. We should strive for a higher virtue, which is love.

[Salus Maior]

Indeed. Nobody does.

Except maybe the Jains, I guess? I'm not super well versed in their history but they have a solid record afaik.

I'm not sure if they've ever had enough political power to really orchestrate intolerance.

A lot of religions have inconstant bouts of tolerance. Zoroastrianism was very tolerant, until it suddenly wasn't. Islam seems to go back and forth. I mentioned the wars of reformation earlier. Those were shockingly intolerant, but in the wake of them the Christian culture of Northern Europe became more tolerant. Buddhism has a pretty good record, but also tends to overlook people doing horrible things on it's behalf (Christianity and Hinduism have this problem sometimes as well.)

IDK. It's almost as though tolerance is a cultural value more than a religious one.

I personally think it's foolish to separate religion from culture.