Christian intolerance shows they are not Christian

[Switch Radic]

Ah, Okay I understand what you were saying thanks for clearing that up.

 

[freespirit2001]

"For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive...ungrateful...unholy, inhuman...haters of good, treacherous....holding the form of religion but denying the power of it. Avoid such people...."
[bible]2 Timothy 3:1-5[/bible]
II Timothy 3:1-5

"Look carefull then how you walk, not as unwise men, but as wise, making the most of the time, because the days are evil."
---Ephesians 5:15

 

[Phillip Lorenz]

Intolerance is not a very christian way to live. I try to overcome it everyday.

 

[Clarity]

a highly interesting quote from a book about the implications of absolute tolerance and moral relativity and this is the sort of tolerance i oppose in all circumstances and this appears in many liberal churches.


The Confuddling world of moral relativity, of which tolerance is a central pillar.

You can believe whatever you want as long as you don't believe it to be absolute truth.

The teacher instructs her students. "this is the first day of class so i want to lay down some ground rules. First since no one has the truth about morality you should be open minded to the opinions of your fellow students"
The teacher recognises the raised hand of elizabeth who asks "If no-one has the truth is that not a good reason not to listen to them? After all if nobody has the truth why should i waste my time listening to other peoples opinions? What is the point? Only if someone has the truth does it make sense to be open minded.Don't you agree?"
"No i don't Are you caliming to know the truth? Isn't that a bit arrogant and dogmatic?"
"Not at all. Rather i think it is arrogant and dogmatic to assert that no single person on earth knows the truth. After all have you met every person in the world and quizzed them? If not how can you make such a claim.Actually i believe it is the opposite of arrogance to say that i will alter my opinions to fit the truth wherever and whenever i find it. And if i happen to think that i have good reason to believe the truth and would like to share it with you why wouldn't you listen to me? Why would you automatically discredit my view before it is even uttered? i thought we were supposed to listen to eveybodys opinions.
Tolerance supports objective morality not relativism as it assumes that tolerance is the ultimate moral objective truth however this contradicts relativism that states there is no such thing as real truth.
To claim "there is no moral truth" is self refuting as this means that this assumption cannot be true if it is false it is false and if it is true it still false as it means there are no truths including the statement itself. eg. if i say " i cannot write a word in english" this is self refuting as i have just written words in english it is the same with relativism.
what about the question of moralilty and indecency in the media many would reply that " if you don't like a program then don't watch it" this is like saying " if you don't like murder then don't kill anyone". However this is a form of relativism and denies that there is any absolute moral standard and what the point is is that these programs are having a bad influence on children and are adverse to the public good. These programs will effect other peoples children for worse and then when the children who do not watch them go to school they will be affected for the worse by those children that do watch them. The real question is what serves the public good not what an individual wants. For relativism to be true you must deny that public good exists or matters.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

The only thing that cannot be tolerated is intolerance itself.

As that little, polemic tale above clearly illustrates, monotheism carries intolerance at its very core, because it automatically assumes that one specific religion has a monopoly on truth, and all others are wrong by default.
This notion spawns hate, fear and violence, as history has shown countless times. Intolerance doesn't serve the public good. Quite the contrary.

 

[Outspoken]

Intolerance is not a very christian way to live. I try to overcome it everyday.

Christ didn't tolerate sin...


"go and sin no more"

mat 23:13--christ telling people they are serpents that won't escape damnation.

mark 3:29 talks about the unpardonable sin, for which you will never be forgiven.

Christ calls people out on sin and doesn't tolerate it in the least, nor gives his blessing to people who are sinning.

God is loving, but that is not ALL HE IS. He is RIGHTEOUS and I think most people forget that aspect about him. This includes, just and keeping people accountable for their wrong actions.

 

[Outspoken]

The only thing that cannot be tolerated is intolerance itself.

As that little, polemic tale above clearly illustrates, monotheism carries intolerance at its very core, because it automatically assumes that one specific religion has a monopoly on truth, and all others are wrong by default.
This notion spawns hate, fear and violence, as history has shown countless times. Intolerance doesn't serve the public good. Quite the contrary.

There is a conflict in your statements. You say all religions are wrong, and that is saying you have a monopoly on truth, thus you have three fingers pointing back at you as you point one at someone else

 

[CaDan]

There is a conflict in your statements. You say all religions are wrong, and that is saying you have a monopoly on truth, thus you have three fingers pointing back at you as you point one at someone else

You have spotted the wrong error. Polytheism can be just as intolerant as monotheism.

I think what Jane was actually getting at is that commandments-based morality is by its nature intolerant.

I would contend that Christianity is not commandments-based, but rather principle-based.

The ethical preaching of Jesus describes a new situation which one must take possession of, a new horizon of life in which there is no longer room for that which was once valid . . . Jesus' radical demand is not a new law, but a sign of new conduct in the realm of freedom in which love is both possible and necessary​

Helmut Köster, Introduction to the New Testament: History and Literature of Early Christianity, p. 81.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

You have spotted the wrong error. Polytheism can be just as intolerant as monotheism.

That's true, of course. Look at the ancient Romans, who were so horrified by the blatant "atheism" of the Christians that they persecuted them.

I think what Jane was actually getting at is that commandments-based morality is by its nature intolerant.

Exactly. Thanks for clarifying my point!

I would contend that Christianity is not commandments-based, but rather principle-based.

The ethical preaching of Jesus describes a new situation which one must take possession of, a new horizon of life in which there is no longer room for that which was once valid . . . Jesus' radical demand is not a new law, but a sign of new conduct in the realm of freedom in which love is both possible and necessary​

Helmut Köster, Introduction to the New Testament: History and Literature of Early Christianity, p. 81.

Well, if that's what Christianity is about, I'd not necessarily consider myself a lost sheep, because I'd subscribe to the concept Jesus preaches.
Unfortunately, most Christian denomination seem to rely almost exclusively on Paul's theology, and not on Jesus's ethics.

 

[CaDan]

Well, if that's what Christianity is about, I'd not necessarily consider myself a lost sheep, because I'd subscribe to the concept Jesus preaches.
Unfortunately, most Christian denomination seem to rely almost exclusively on Paul's theology, and not on Jesus's ethics.

The key is to make both work together. Paul is all about getting rid of "religion"--he just sometimes uses some awkward phrases.

Paul in context is all about liberty. Paul in prooftexts is all about whatever the speaker wants him to be.

 

[Clarity]

As that little, polemic tale above clearly illustrates, monotheism carries intolerance at its very core, because it automatically assumes that one specific religion has a monopoly on truth, and all others are wrong by default.
This notion spawns hate, fear and violence, as history has shown countless times. Intolerance doesn't serve the public good. Quite the contrary.

Christianity does assume that it has a monopoly on truth and i see nothing wrong with this and it certainly doesn't make christianity wrong, this notion shouldn't spawn hate, fear and violence as christian teaching is to love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you and christianity is unique in this way that it doesn't spawn hate, fear and violence in most circumstances as this would be contrary to christian teaching unlike other religion eg the jihad in islam and if you look at statistics in christian countries people are free to practise whatever religion they want whereas in other countries where christianity in not the main religion this is not he case.

One of the main points of the tale was to illustrate that tolerance when taken to extremes makes truth become nonsensical, it basically is saying that nobody can or ever will be able to know the truth about anything so truth as a concept dies if this is the case.

Intolerance doesn't serve the public good. Quite the contrary.

So we should be tolerant of everything and shouldn't punish murderers, rapists, paedophiles as that is being intolerant of these people or are you saying we should be be intolerant of certain things such as those above and tolerant of other things in which case you are defining rules for tolerance just like all religions do.

The ethical preaching of Jesus describes a new situation which one must take possession of, a new horizon of life in which there is no longer room for that which was once valid . . . Jesus' radical demand is not a new law, but a sign of new conduct in the realm of freedom in which love is both possible and necessary

Helmut Köster, Introduction to the New Testament: History and Literature of Early Christianity, p. 81.

What on earth does this mean it sounds impressive but is very vague and unconcise(what is a sign of new conduct in the realm of freedom suppossed to refer to) in its meaning and different people will interpret it in different ways and it could mean anything you want it to in which case it is meaningless. Where are the bible verses to support this view?

Christianity is commandment based in that it contains clear rules for what is considered right/wrong (which is how i would define commandment based) in many cases as well as being principle based when a commandment is not given then certain biblical principles need to be applied to discover what is right/wrong.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Christianity does assume that it has a monopoly on truth and i see nothing wrong with this[.]

Yes, you do not. That's the problem, isn't it? You basically confirm all my prejudices.

t certainly doesn't make christianity wrong, this notion shouldn't spawn hate, fear and violence as christian teaching is to love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you[.]

One would believe that this is the case, and yet the Christian religion HAS spawned hate, fear and violence for hundreds of years. From the blood-drenched streets of Jerusalem to the torture chambers of Torquemada, from religiously inspired pogromes against the "Christ killers" a.k.a. jews to the burning of "witches", from Luther's antisemitic preachings to Bush's black-and-white-polemics, from Northern Ireland to former Yugoslavia: Christianity has ALWAYS spawned hate, fear and violence. Uncannily so. And exactly like any other religion that claims to possess the absolute and exclusive truth.

In christian countries people are free to practise whatever religion they want whereas in other countries where christianity in not the main religion this is not he case.

Freedom of religion is not a Christian issue. It is the product of a constant progress towards secularization of the state. As most bible-thumping fundamentalists will assure you, allowing other religions to be practiced in your country is a sure way to invoke the wrath of God. Just look at what happened to Israel in the Bible.

One of the main points of the tale was to illustrate that tolerance when taken to extremes makes truth become nonsensical, it basically is saying that nobody can or ever will be able to know the truth about anything so truth as a concept dies if this is the case.

Well, yeah, that's the point! There is no such thing as an absolute truth.

Christianity is commandment based in that it contains clear rules for what is considered right/wrong (which is how i would define commandment based) in many cases as well as being principle based when a commandment is not given then certain biblical principles need to be applied to discover what is right/wrong.[/font]

Yes, and this is another problem. Instead of examining your own conscience, you just follow the book, and this can be abused by interpreting the book whichever way you like. You *do* know that slavery and the suppression of women were actively supported by the Bible, don't you?

 

[John 15:13]

Jesus said, "Love thy neighbor as thyself," because it provides an effective answer to the many problems of modern life. This call for love tells us that we are united and that no other person is separate or apart in God's spiritual consciousness. Recognizing that we are all one in God's consciousness gives us full protection in His unity by integrating our individual life with the world around us and providing a basic harmony and equilibrium in our hearts and minds.

Wow. That was a mouthful. I'll agree about intolerance. I just know that some people, even if they're Christians, sometimes have a hard time seeing eye to eye.

 

[CaDan]

What on earth does this mean it sounds impressive but is very vague and unconcise(what is a sign of new conduct in the realm of freedom suppossed to refer to) in its meaning and different people will interpret it in different ways and it could mean anything you want it to in which case it is meaningless. Where are the bible verses to support this view?

Calling Köster "unconcise" makes me chuckle, considering how long other theologians get around to saying the same thing.

If you demand Bible verses, I would suggest Matthew 5-7 taken as a whole. Note especially the critique of legalism found in Matthew 5:21-48.

Christianity is commandment based in that it contains clear rules for what is considered right/wrong (which is how i would define commandment based) in many cases as well as being principle based when a commandment is not given then certain biblical principles need to be applied to discover what is right/wrong.

I respectfully disagree. Christian morality is derived from application of two principles--Love God and love your neighbor. The Law is dead. Dead dead dead. Fulfilled in Christ and nailed to the Cross.

Pax Christi

 

[heartnsoul]

The bible teaches us to "love the sinner but hate the sin."

Ouch! But that is easier said than done. As humans, we all have emotions that dictate our actions and attitudes. Therefore, unconditional love is a major challenge to all of us each and everyday.

I don't believe anyone of us have the right to judge others. We're not like God who is omniscient. Only God knows the true heart of each individual. We cannot possibly know the true heart of someone. I think we should do our best to love all and have compassion. If someone is viewed by us as evil, then we still need to give that person the minimal respect and keep a distance if that person becomes destructive to our peace of mind...hence, "flee from evil."

 

[Clarity]

One would believe that this is the case, and yet the Christian religion HAS spawned hate, fear and violence for hundreds of years. From the blood-drenched streets of Jerusalem to the torture chambers of Torquemada, from religiously inspired pogromes against the "Christ killers" a.k.a. jews to the burning of "witches", from Luther's antisemitic preachings to Bush's black-and-white-polemics, from Northern Ireland to former Yugoslavia: Christianity has ALWAYS spawned hate, fear and violence. Uncannily so. And exactly like any other religion that claims to possess the absolute and exclusive truth.

Chrsitianity has also spawned many things all the amendments of free speech etc were laid down by americas founding fathers who were puritans and strict christians and it was a group of christians who brought about the abolition of slavery and countless charity work for the poor has been done by christian organisations yet you conveniently ignore this. The fact is that many other systems have caused similar results and to say it has happened in all cases is ridiculous when was the last time you encountered hate,fear and violence from christians. The fact is that these are isolated incidences that do not properly represent christianity in general remember there have been billions of christians over hundreds of years and there are only a handful of isolated examples to support your point. Those that did these things were disobeying christian commandments and principles and they were wrong to do them.

As most bible-thumping fundamentalists will assure you, allowing other religions to be practiced in your country is a sure way to invoke the wrath of God.

Unfortunately the vast majority of christians do not believe or act as if this were true and i certainly do not hold this view as in the bible jesus visted and cared and talked to many non christians eg samaritans, gentiles apart from the jews and he did not preach hate etc but the complete opposite love.

Freedom of religion is not a Christian issue. It is the product of a constant progress towards secularization of the state.

Freedom of religion has been present in all christian countries for hundreds of years and is by no means a product of progress, there is not currently a single christian country where freedom of religion is not allowed whereas if you look at many non christian countries this is still not the case eg north korea, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, china and many christians are persecuted for their religion today and there have been many martyrs killed for their christian faith. In fact rather than being the perpetrators christians are often those who are persecuted by non christians.
Just look at http://www.persecution.org/newsite/ for examples.

You *do* know that slavery and the suppression of women were actively supported by the Bible, don't you?

You do know that it was a group of christians who abolished slavery and without christianity this would not happen as atheism also support slavery ever heard of survival of the fittest whereby there is nothing wrong with abusing those weaker than yourself as it means that the stronger more adapted humans who take others as slaves are helping to ensure that the weaker races of slaves die and the stronger masters survive.
How can you say that suppression of women is wrong or that slavery is wrong after all

Well, yeah, that's the point! There is no such thing as an absolute truth.

You say there is not absolute truth yet maintain that christianity is wrong because it is supposedly in support of suppression of women and slavery however how can you tell that slavery or oppression is wrong if there are no absolute or how can you say that hate, fear and opression are wrong for that matter if there is no such thing as right or wrong.

Ever heard of the marquis de sade who believed that because men were the stronger sex then they could do whatever they wanted to women(this is where the term sadism comes from), this is the logical conclusion that follows from belief in evolution.

How can you define that some things such as opression of women, hate, slavery etc are wrong? if you do not believe in absolutes then nothing including these things can be wrong as they are only a matter of opinion there is no absolute truth. The Bible says that these things are wrong and it appears you are just taking things that are said to be wrong in the bible, in fact you are just copying principles from christian morality and using them to say that slavery, hate , opression of women etc are wrong however you only take the bits that you like from christian morality and those you do not like you disgard. It is obvious that you do believe some things such as slavery and opression of women are absolutely wrong.

My argument against God was that the universe seemed unjust. But how had I got the idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line.
- C.S. Lewis

There is one evident, indubitable manifestation of the Divinity, and that is the laws of right which are made known to the world through revelation.
- Leo Tolstoy

Two possible explanations as to why your concept of right or wrong is the same as that of christianity is that you copied it or that god placed it in your heart.

Instead of examining your own conscience, you just follow the book, and this can be abused by interpreting the book whichever way you like.

This is much easier for non christians as they can literally do whatever they want if they wake up one morning and decide to steal something or lie and their conscience tells them this is fine then they will go ahead and steal something or lie whereas for a christian this is not the case as when they consider these things they are clearly condemned by the bible and it would be impossible to justify them as not being wrong if you know the bible so a christian is much less likely to do it and rarely will lie or steal, and even if they do sin a christian will feel more guilt as they know they have sinned and won't do it again while a non christian can just ignore the opinions of others as there is no absolute truth and is unlikely to feel guilt/remorse.

 

[Clarity]

If you demand Bible verses, I would suggest Matthew 5-7 taken as a whole. Note especially the critique of legalism found in Matthew 5:21-48.

If you look at matthew 5:21-48 it is clearly not a satirical critique of legalism in fact it is the complete opposite it is a critique of lawless christians who try to find loopholes in gods word and ignore the principles behind the commands.

As if Jesus' words in 5:3-16 were not strong enough, he presents even more stringent demands of the kingdom in these verses. While various groups of Christians today may differ concerning exactly how Jesus intended his disciples to interpret the law, one point is clear: Jesus was not an antinomian. He expected his followers to understand and apply the moral principles already revealed in Scripture.



This passage seems to suggest that an uncommitted Christian is not a Christian at all (see 5:20). Like other Jewish teachers, Jesus demanded whole obedience to the Scriptures (5:18-19); unlike most of his contemporaries, however, he was not satisfied with the performance of scribes and Pharisees, observing that this law observance fell short even of the demands of salvation (5:20). After grabbing his hearers' attention with such a statement, Jesus goes on to define God's law not simply in terms of how people behave but in terms of who they really are (5:21-48).

Jesus' High View of Scripture (5:17-18)

Jesus' view of Scripture did not simply accommodate his culture, a fact that has implications for the view of Scripture Jesus' followers should hold (J. Wenham 1977:21; D. Wenham 1979). Here Jesus responds to false charges that he and his followers undermine the law. First, when Jesus says that he came not to abolish the Law or the Prophets but to fulfill them, he uses terms that in his culture would have conveyed his faithfulness to the Scriptures (v. 17). Second, Jesus illustrates the eternality of God's law with a popular story line from contemporary Jewish teachers (5:18). Jesus' smallest letter (NIV), or "jot" (KJV), undoubtedly refers to the Hebrew letter yod, which Jewish teachers said would not pass from the law. They said that when Sarai's name was changed to Sarah, the yod removed from her name cried out from one generation to another, protesting its removal from Scripture, until finally, when Moses changed Oshea's name to Joshua, the yod was returned to Scripture. "So you see," the teachers would say, "not even this smallest letter can pass from the Bible." Jesus makes the same point from this tradition that later rabbis did: even the smallest details of God's law are essential.

From http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/webcommentary?language=english&version=niv&book=matt&chapter=5

Whosoever shall break. What an awful consideration is this! He who, by his mode of acting, speaking, or explaining the words of God, sets the holy precept aside, or explains away its force and meaning, shall be called least-shall have no place in the kingdom of Christ here, nor in the kingdom of glory above. That this is the meaning of these words is evident enough from the following verse.


Matthew
17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

21"You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder,[1] and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' 22But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother[2] will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,[3] ' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.
27"You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.'[5] 28But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.
38"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'[7] 39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
43"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor[8] and hate your enemy.' 44But I tell you: Love your enemies[9] and pray for those who persecute you, 45that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

I respectfully disagree. Christian morality is derived from application of two principles--Love God and love your neighbor. The Law is dead. Dead dead dead. Fulfilled in Christ and nailed to the Cross.

2 Timothy 3
16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
This is a clear statement that ALL scripture is useful and we are not merely to rely on two rather unconcise principles. What is the point of the bible if all we need is two principles the fact is that all the bible is useful when determining what is right.

Proverbs 3
"Trust in the LORD with all thine heart;
and lean not unto thine own understanding.
In all thy ways acknowledge him,
and he shall direct thy paths."

We should not rely on our own understanding to determnine what is right but we should trust in him by trusting what he has said in the bible is the way that we are to live and we should trust in his word the bible for guidance.

Psalm 118 v 105
Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light for my path

Yet again you have failed to provide a single verse to support your belief about morality being derived from these two principles. Unless there are verses in the bible to support a belief then that belief cannot be called christian.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Dear Clarity,

when Paul wrote his letter to Timothy, most of the gospels weren't even written, and there wasn't such a thing as a canon of officially approved books, or the compilation we call the "Bible" nowadays.

As for your other claims:
In fact, it wasn't *I* who ignored one side of the story, but *you* who claimed that Christians would never do any harm. I merely pointed out that some of them obviously *do*, and not in spite of their religion, but because of it. That's not the same as ignoring the positive achievements, it is merely pointing out that all's not as well as you'd like it to be.

As for your ridiculous claims concerning Christianity's humanistic values, well, I guess the facts speak for themselves. It was the Rennaissance that brought us freedom of speech and religion, as well as the age of enlightenment. And both of these were primarily secular movements that lessened the hold of religion on people's minds instead of tightening it.
If you want to see what religion does to the people, look at medieval times. And if you want to see what kind of science and scholarship your fundamentalist brethren prefer, study medieval scholastics.

Humanism was, is and will always be a secular movement.

As always, I have but one piece of advice for you:
Read more books. And not just the ones written by Christian revisionists, please. That's like trying to learn something about the history of the Soviet Union by studying communist textbooks.

And as for our concepts of right and wrong - I'd like to give you a detailed account on neuroscience, but somehow I doubt that you'd be willing to grasp it. Let me just add this much:
There was a guy who suffered from brain damage due to a wound he received in WW2. Due to that, he wasn't able to grasp the concept of "red" any more. But he wasn't colourblind, mind you: He was perfectly well aware of all the different colours - still, he lacked the ability to put a name to the concept of "red".
That's how language works. It creates certain structures and shapes the way we perceive the world. That's why the inuit perceive snow completely differently, and that's why Christians will always quote scripture: Because it's a way of seeing the world. Still, that doesn't make it objective.
How do we know then what's right and what's wrong? Because it's in the BOOK? Or because our compassion compels us to protect the weak? Our instincts urge us to protect our offspring and our own life - and our empathy enables us to extend this urge to protect to those around us.
Do I see God in this? You bet I do.
Do I see the God of the Bible in this, YHVH the baby slayer? You bet I don't.

P.S.: It seems to me that many Christians suffer from a persecution complex, judging by the fact that they feel harassed by the U.S. government for keeping prayer out of the classroom, for example. Oh well, I'd like to see the faces of all those Christians if the government said okay, pray if you want to, but that right is extended to every religious group out there. There'll be prayers to Allah and to Vishnu, as well as buddhistic meditations.
You BET those Christians would cry "persecution" again.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Where are the bible verses to support this view?

And THIS is the sentence that says it all. How can you support equal rights for women? It's not in the Bible! Women are told to bow to their fathers and/or husbands at any time. They have no rights whatsoever.
How can you support the abolishment of slavery?
It's not in the Bible! Even Paul tells the escaped slave to go back to his master, although he adds that "it'd be nice" if the master set him free.

So how is this possible? Only through a permanently shifting *interpretation*, according to the values we hold so dear at this point of history.
I'm sure that the end of discrimination aimed at non-heterosexuals will one day be attributed to the compassionate and forgiving nature of the Christian religion.

 

[Clarity]

And THIS is the sentence that says it all. How can you support equal rights for women? It's not in the Bible! Women are told to bow to their fathers and/or husbands at any time. They have no rights whatsoever.
How can you support the abolishment of slavery?
It's not in the Bible! Even Paul tells the escaped slave to go back to his master, although he adds that "it'd be nice" if the master set him free.

I think that women are entitled to equal rights in some areas but not others as the bible teaches that men and woman have equal worth despite having different roles(the bible also tells wives to submit to their husbands and i see nothing wrong with this and think women should submit to fathers/husbands). Slavery is not always wrong although it is sometimes wrong eg when black slaves were treated like animals and many died needlessly which was what i was referring to. In the OT

Exodus 21

1 Now these are the judgments which thou shalt set before them. 2 If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. 3 If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him.

20 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.

Deuteronomy 15

12 And if thy brother, an Hebrew man, or an Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee, and serve thee six years; then in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free from thee. 13 And when thou sendest him out free from thee, thou shalt not let him go away empty: 14 Thou shalt furnish him liberally out of thy flock, and out of thy floor, and out of thy winepress: of that wherewith the LORD thy God hath blessed thee thou shalt give unto him. 15 And thou shalt remember that thou wast a bondman in the land of Egypt, and the LORD thy God redeemed thee: therefore I command thee this thing to day.

You have failed to explain why you think slavery is wrong and womans equality is right

Oh well, I'd like to see the faces of all those Christians if the government said okay, pray if you want to, but that right is extended to every religious group out there. There'll be prayers to Allah and to Vishnu, as well as buddhistic meditations.

You have a clear stereotype that all christians are completely intolerant,unreasonable and unloving hyprocrites which i don't think is totally accurate.

How do we know then what's right and what's wrong? Because it's in the BOOK? Or because our compassion compels us to protect the weak? Our instincts urge us to protect our offspring and our own life - and our empathy enables us to extend this urge to protect to those around us.

What about those who have urges to mistreat woman or take slaves, kill or become paedophiles by your definition these things as right these peoples instincts tell them to do these things and so they are right. Not everyone feels instinct to protect those around them what about those evil people who persecute others that you were talking about or what about sadists who actually enjoy inflicting pain. You have absolutely no method of defining right/wrong so slavery could be right/wrong depending on how you feel and so could murder.
The other huge flaw is that there is no logical reason not to steal, murder, rape or cheat if you can do it without getting caught and it will benefit you and you wont suffer any consequences. There is also no reason to waste resources caring for the very sick/elderly so you should practise euthanasia on these people.

Why should you not do evil(murder, stealing, taking bribes etc) if it benefits you and you can get away with it?

In fact you should live life to the full and become a hedonist and if stealing or crime helps to get you money so you can enjoy yourself there is no reason not to do this. This is in sharp contrast to christianity where everyone will be judged for their every action, word and deed and where life doesn't end at death but goes on forever in heaven/hell, there is also a motivation to care for and love others as the god who created the human race and know what is best commands it.

There is a major difference between the renaissance, enlightment, materialism , marxism, postmodernism, relativism etc and christianity and that is that it has survived the test of time whereas all these other philosophical systems have died out as they have been inadequate unlike the bible that has suvived for thousands of years across hundreds of countries and changing circumstances. It is not christianity that will change as it has been unchanged since the time of Jesus but i am sure in a couple of years the whole notion of relativism that you are advocating will be completely forgotten about and a new system will come to replace it like always happens with secular philsophy.