Declaring myself a Christian has cost me, too - though not nearly as much as it has Christians elsewhere. In some countries, being a Christian has fatal consequences. In fact, more Christians have been killed because of their fidelity to the faith in the last century than in all the centuries since the beginning of Christianity. I don't think atheists can make the same claim to persecution.
Just this morning...
Prominent Bangladeshi-American blogger Avijit Roy killed - CNN.com
Again, atheists are executed, beaten and marginalized in other parts of the world as well. It tends to go under-reported. This American was murdered abroad, and responsibility taken by a Islamic Terrorist cell. Doesn't make headlines anywhere. After all, he was just an atheist.
My goal in bringing up Christian persecution wasn't to get into a contest with you over which group, Christian or atheist, is more persecuted, but to remind you that you are not unique in being persecuted. You have the problem of persecution in common with
Christians.
There should have been ten. These are the top 10 Christian or Biblical films of the year (just the top 10).
How many atheist films came out this year?
Your question is beside the point, which was the marginalization of religion in American culture. Regardless of whether or not atheist films were made, the vast majority of movies coming out of Hollywood are not in any way Christian. And if this trend in movie-making is reflective of the culture generally, America is well on its way toward abandoning its Judeo-Christian roots. In light of this, your assertion that America is a Christian nation antagonistic toward atheism doesn't appear to hold water.
I can show you dozens upon dozens of quotes from Christians telling us that "Science can take a hike", that "Progressives are trying to destroy America", and that "Rationality is Satan's way of turning you away from the Almighty". It is not a stretch to say that these are part of their Christian belief system, and if you don't share them then they would at least question whether you are really a Christian. Which makes me wonder why you're bothering to argue with me, and not with them.
Even if you could show me ten thousand quotations of Christians saying things like what you offer above, they would still represent only a tiny fraction of the entire Christian population (which numbers in the
multi-millions). Judging a majority based upon the actions or statements of a few is a characteristic of much of the bigotry and racism that has afflicted America for so long.
In the meantime, can you show me some atheists quotes telling people they should be immoral, arrogant, or in which they are demonstrating being bloodthirsty. I don't think you'll find them.
You misunderstood my point. It wasn't to suggest that atheists actually have been immoral, arrogant or bloodthirsty. It was to highlight that
if such things were true of a few atheists and I argued that these few represented the character of
all atheists, you would object strongly to such a line of unreasonable thinking. But this is exactly what you're trying to do with Christians.
Nope. I have never made any comment about a superior Christian culture.
One of your fellow Christians did. Perhaps you would like to explain why she's wrong? Otherwise, I have to assume you are of the same faith as she is.
You don't
have to assume anything. What I see in this thread, though, is that you very much
want to lump all Christians together under the most unpleasant of characteristics possible.
There is an ideal kind of living that all Christians are commanded in the Bible to aim at. Do they all succeed in achieving that aim? No. The ideal is, I believe, a superior one, but the actual living out of that ideal is often less than perfect. In light of this, I am very reluctant to claim that Christian culture (a phrase that remains very vague) is "superior."
Christian culture is in fact morally superior, when it is influenced more by Christ than by the wisdom of man and the greed of the unredeemed human soul. And yes, we are in better spiritual shape - or why would we be Christians? Just sayin'.
There it is. Now either this is a fact like she claims it is, or it is not and she's lying to us. I certainly didn't see you disagree with it.
Again, the quotation does
not say that Christian culture as a whole is superior, only that where Christian culture is influenced more by the divine teachings of Christ than the wisdom of men the resulting morality is of a superior kind.
The problem is Christians make claims like this constantly, each and every one presented as a fact.
Well, if they believe it to be true, of course they claim that it is. You have different claims you make as an atheist for the very same reasons. What's the problem? Christians aren't allowed to make statements about what they believe?
Claims about Christians, claims about God, claims about the universe, claims about science, progressives, rationality, and atheists. These claims are presented as facts of the Christian faith.
And all of these claims need to be assessed in the light of the contents of the defining source of Christian doctrine and practice, the Bible. It is the foundational source of Christian belief - or it ought to be - not the individual Christian (who may not be truly Christian at all).
Now you can say you are not responsible for what Christians believe, except how are the rest of us to know what claims of the Christian faith each individual Christian subscribes to and does not? Are we supposed to guess?
No. You are to examine the primary text of the Christian faith, the Bible, and judge all that Christians say and do by what the Bible says they ought to say and do.
My point is, if you want the full force of God behind your claims then we have to assume Christians everywhere believe it.
This is a non sequitur. The claim to divine authority for Christian belief has nothing whatever to do with what Christians everywhere believe. Christian doctrine is not derived by majority vote but from the contents of divine revelation found in the Bible.
Whether you like it or not, every Christian speaks for all Christians until they say otherwise.
You are certainly free to think this if you like but you do so in glaring opposition to reason and common sense.
Are you really going to argue that these few quotations speak for all of Christianity? If a handful of atheists began to declare that all Christians eat their babies and must be hunted down and killed, would you agree to being identified with them simply because you are also an atheist? Of course not!
Atheism is not a religion. We are not an actual group. We are not organized. We are not a club. We do not have an agreed upon faith. We do not have a holy book. We do not receive messages from any spirits, nor are we guided by the great atheism. We're just the ones who don't believe in God.
Your response here completely misses (or ignores?) my point. Whether or not atheism can be called a religion has nothing to do with the reasonableness of tarring all those who can be identified by a particular characteristic (like atheism or Christian faith) with the same brush. You would object stridently, I think, if I suggested that because a certain serial killer was atheistic in his view all atheists must therefore be serial killers. Such a charge on my part would be outrageous! But this is essentially what you are trying to do with Christians.
If a Christian gets up and says that Jesus died on the cross, does he not speak for all Christians? When a Christian says that God is great, or God is against sin, or is the creator of all, does he not speak for Christians. When a Christian says that Jesus loves you, does he not speak for all Christians?
Well, of course not! He is making assertions about the beliefs of Christianity
the religion, not about what all adherents to Christianity may believe. He can't possibly speak for millions of people he doesn't know.
When a Christian states something about the faith that you do not agree with, do you not say so?
Yes, I do.
He doesn't.
John 3:16-17
16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.
17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.
That says nothing about unbelievers.
Yes, it does. "The world" is an implicit reference to all people, most of whom are unbelievers.
Are you implying I am guilty of the No True Scotsman fallacy? If you are, you don't understand the nature of the fallacy. I know what a true Christian is (and whether or not I am one), not because I have created some ad hoc definition of my own that allows me to establish for myself that I am a true Christian, but because the centuries-old definition of a Christian found in the Bible tells me what a true Christian is and I meet that definition.
Do you think the Christians that you are claiming are not True Christians would not also say the same thing?
They may, but then they would have to make their case from the Bible - just as I would. The debate, then, would not be, ultimately, about what I think or the other person thinks, but about what God's Word says.
And so on.
Okay, but do you see that they're a little different? In nearly all of these (except the last one), these guys are attacking the concepts that believers believe, not the believers themselves. The very first one, and the very last one are too much to be certain. Admittedly, I've never read Dawkins, Harris or Hitchens, but I honestly thought it would be a lot worse.
But my point in offering the quotations wasn't to argue degree of unpleasantness but simply to show that both sides have been less than "nice" about their comments about the opposing side. Atheists can't claim that the lack of nicety has been all on one side. (I have, by the way, heard both Harris and Dawkins in debate with Christians say very offensive things, but I just don't have sufficient incentive to wade through all the hours of debate to find them and post them here.)
Depends upon who you ask. I am more expert than some regarding the Bible and less expert than others.
How does one know who is an expert? What are your qualifications?
How is expertise determined in any situation? By a demonstration of the degree of knowledge and/or skill in a particular field of study or practical endeavour.
A text taken out of context becomes a pretext.
Great, because that is another one presented to me by a Christian as evidence that God hates atheists.
Sorry, I don't follow you here...
What do these quotes really mean? How do they fit into the Bible narrative?
To answer your questions it is necessary to ask some basic hermeneutical questions:
1.) To whom was the writer writing?
2.) What is the form of the writing?
3.) What is the cultural context of the writing?
4.) What is the immediate scriptural context surrounding what is written?
5.) How does the entire context of Scripture qualify or clarify what is written?
As you can see, actually explaining how the verses you quoted are best understood will not be possible in a few short comments.
Selah.
