\”your statement that priests and The Church have higher standards than non-Christians is blatantly Euro-centric and biased thinking.\”
Is \”Euro-centric\” thinking inherently wrong? Where would you rather have heart surgery, Paris or Calcutta? I thank GOd that I am an heir of European Christian culture and am not worshiping cows or trees. If I am biased in favor or Christian culture, you are biased against it – despite the vastly superior culture spawned by Chsitianity as opposed to e.g. animism.
I agree that atheists have morals. These morals however are founded on no permanent or transcendent basis, and therefore can change any time. Atheism has spawned cultures like the USSR and Red Cuba. If you think that these are equal to Christian cultures than you are welcome to indulge your fantasy and go live in Cuba, and enjoy the wonderful advances that atheism has achieved for its slavers – er, citizens.
Please note that I am not an atheist but a dissident baptised RC on his way to clear agnosticism. I am not against any religion – Christian or others – but have pity for those that humanise God and think that they can interpret the inscrutable in human terms. Most religious people – I mean those that have reached priest level (or rabin or pastor or buddhist monk or whatever) – are convinced about their faith and live according to its laws and principles. But, as priesthood is another human venture (God/Allah/Buddah &c inspired if you wish), its results can be measured by a Gauss curve. The problem that have those who act within the more prestigious sects is that they become \’too public\’ and every time they sneeze the noise is distinctly heard across the city and, in these mediatic days, across the world.
I\’d say two things: i) True Christians should not be \’anti\’ anything. They ought to pray for salvation of those that have not understood Christ\’s message; ii) Who owns most of the media and how it works was very clearly explained in a (very racist and outrageous) book by Henry Ford which name I won\’t give here and you shouldn\’t read if you\’re a good Christian (no pun at all intended). However, it was Mr. Ford\’s opinion that some will always do what others wouldn\’t and, therefore, only the non-doers are to be blamed if things are not the way they would like them to be.
Turning the other cheek has nothing to do with pardoning offenses or being \”anti-anything.\” Again, may a Christian be anti-murder, anti-theft, etc?
As for your trip to the dictionary, it changes my point not a whit. If there were no God there would be no agnostics or atheists. Agnostics ignore God, atheists are at war with Him. To say that one has no knowledge of life\’s greatest question is only an admission of laziness at best.
Sorry. I retyped my first paragraph and mangled it. It should have read, \”Turning the other cheek has to do with pardoning offenses, not being \”anti-anything.\” Again, may a Christian be anti-murder, anti-theft, etc?
You\’ve got your point P.B. Chapeau! But I am not an ignorant (not the kind you suspect)on religion issues, although perhaps somewhat ironic after 11 years\’ Bible & Apologetics. Btw, there\’s another dictionary to look for \’ignoramus\’ (standing happily in one of my library\’s bookshelves): The Unabridged Devil\’s Dictionary by Ambrose Bierce (edited by David E. Schultz and S. T. Joshi) wherein you can find
Ignoramus: n. A person unacquainted with certain kinds of knowledge familiar to yourself, and having certain other kinds that you know nothing about.
Bierce quotes these lines there:
Dumble was an ignoramus,
Mumble was for learning famous.
Mumble said one day to Dumble:
\”Ignorance should be more humble.
Not a spark have you of knowledge
That was got in any college.\”
Dumble said to Mumble: \”Truly
You\’re self-satisfied unduly.
Of things in college I\’m denied
A knowledge — you of all beside.\”
(Borelli)
You studied apologetics for 11 years? I hope you didn\’t pay tuition, otherwise I\’d sue for my money back if I were you. Please respond to my inquiry about whether a Christian should be against lying, murder, etc.
All humans should be against their own wrongdoing in all fields, including Christians who should not divert their parishioner\’s donations to their own pockets. And they should refrain of attacking or criticising others for not sharing their beliefs, whatever they are. One thing is to defend and quite another to attack or retaliate (don\’t forget Romans 11:19). Lasting hatred destroys the hater, not the hated. Be careful when you pray: you can get what you\’re asking for when you ask the Lord to forgive your tresspasses in the same way you forgive others\’.
Love and Peace to you.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
\”your statement that priests and The Church have higher standards than non-Christians is blatantly Euro-centric and biased thinking.\”
Is \”Euro-centric\” thinking inherently wrong? Where would you rather have heart surgery, Paris or Calcutta? I thank GOd that I am an heir of European Christian culture and am not worshiping cows or trees. If I am biased in favor or Christian culture, you are biased against it – despite the vastly superior culture spawned by Chsitianity as opposed to e.g. animism.
I agree that atheists have morals. These morals however are founded on no permanent or transcendent basis, and therefore can change any time. Atheism has spawned cultures like the USSR and Red Cuba. If you think that these are equal to Christian cultures than you are welcome to indulge your fantasy and go live in Cuba, and enjoy the wonderful advances that atheism has achieved for its slavers – er, citizens.
Please note that I am not an atheist but a dissident baptised RC on his way to clear agnosticism. I am not against any religion – Christian or others – but have pity for those that humanise God and think that they can interpret the inscrutable in human terms. Most religious people – I mean those that have reached priest level (or rabin or pastor or buddhist monk or whatever) – are convinced about their faith and live according to its laws and principles. But, as priesthood is another human venture (God/Allah/Buddah &c inspired if you wish), its results can be measured by a Gauss curve. The problem that have those who act within the more prestigious sects is that they become \’too public\’ and every time they sneeze the noise is distinctly heard across the city and, in these mediatic days, across the world.
I\’d say two things: i) True Christians should not be \’anti\’ anything. They ought to pray for salvation of those that have not understood Christ\’s message; ii) Who owns most of the media and how it works was very clearly explained in a (very racist and outrageous) book by Henry Ford which name I won\’t give here and you shouldn\’t read if you\’re a good Christian (no pun at all intended). However, it was Mr. Ford\’s opinion that some will always do what others wouldn\’t and, therefore, only the non-doers are to be blamed if things are not the way they would like them to be.
\”True Christians should not be \’anti\’ anything.\”
Howsabout anti-murder, anti-theft, anti-adultery, anti-idolatry, etc.
\”They ought to pray for salvation of those that have not understood Christ\’s message;\”
That\’s rich, a professed agnostic telling Christians what they ought to believe and do.
You know, don\’t you, that the Latin cognate for agmostic is ignoramus?
It holds: Christians shouldn\’t be \’anti\’ anything. They should pardon and offer the other cheek.
Ignoramus=Ignore: To refuse to pay attention to; disregard.(The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th Ed)
Turning the other cheek has nothing to do with pardoning offenses or being \”anti-anything.\” Again, may a Christian be anti-murder, anti-theft, etc?
As for your trip to the dictionary, it changes my point not a whit. If there were no God there would be no agnostics or atheists. Agnostics ignore God, atheists are at war with Him. To say that one has no knowledge of life\’s greatest question is only an admission of laziness at best.
Sorry. I retyped my first paragraph and mangled it. It should have read, \”Turning the other cheek has to do with pardoning offenses, not being \”anti-anything.\” Again, may a Christian be anti-murder, anti-theft, etc?
You\’ve got your point P.B. Chapeau! But I am not an ignorant (not the kind you suspect)on religion issues, although perhaps somewhat ironic after 11 years\’ Bible & Apologetics. Btw, there\’s another dictionary to look for \’ignoramus\’ (standing happily in one of my library\’s bookshelves): The Unabridged Devil\’s Dictionary by Ambrose Bierce (edited by David E. Schultz and S. T. Joshi) wherein you can find
Ignoramus: n. A person unacquainted with certain kinds of knowledge familiar to yourself, and having certain other kinds that you know nothing about.
Bierce quotes these lines there:
Dumble was an ignoramus,
Mumble was for learning famous.
Mumble said one day to Dumble:
\”Ignorance should be more humble.
Not a spark have you of knowledge
That was got in any college.\”
Dumble said to Mumble: \”Truly
You\’re self-satisfied unduly.
Of things in college I\’m denied
A knowledge — you of all beside.\”
(Borelli)
You studied apologetics for 11 years? I hope you didn\’t pay tuition, otherwise I\’d sue for my money back if I were you. Please respond to my inquiry about whether a Christian should be against lying, murder, etc.
All humans should be against their own wrongdoing in all fields, including Christians who should not divert their parishioner\’s donations to their own pockets. And they should refrain of attacking or criticising others for not sharing their beliefs, whatever they are. One thing is to defend and quite another to attack or retaliate (don\’t forget Romans 11:19). Lasting hatred destroys the hater, not the hated. Be careful when you pray: you can get what you\’re asking for when you ask the Lord to forgive your tresspasses in the same way you forgive others\’.
Love and Peace to you.