Distribution of Fear in Christianity

@Justin,

Agree or disagree, that's up to each person individually. All I'm saying is I live here and this is real. The fear is real and it's being spread. Maybe it's just a small percentage of fundamentalists but for some reason I think it could be a larger percentage than what we see.

I think Lisa Miller wrote an excellent article here and I also think her response was appropriate. If you really want to try to understand condemnation and judgment, read some of the responses written by some of these good Christian folk.

@Justin,

Justin wrote:

Agree or disagree, that's up to each person individually. All I'm saying is I live here and this is real. The fear is real and it's being spread. Maybe it's just a small percentage of fundamentalists but for some reason I think it could be a larger percentage than what we see.

I think Lisa Miller wrote an excellent article here and I also think her response was appropriate. If you really want to try to understand condemnation and judgment, read some of the responses written by some of these good Christian folk.

Crazy stuff true, but alot of responses from those on the other side were preety weird as well. It was a completly unbiased article but somehow everyone responding seemed to manage to be offended by it or decide It meant the rapture was come. Madness.

@Justin,

People are just downright cruel. There's no reason people had to run off at the mouth like they did.

@Justin,

Justin wrote:

People are just downright cruel. There's no reason people had to run off at the mouth like they did.

Some people are determined to be offended, it's in their officious nature. Unofortunatly their nature makes them more vocal as well. I think there is a silent majority who are fine with the article.

@avatar6v7,

avatar6v7 wrote:

'a self described humanist' not a self-described christian. Try again.

You do realize that humanism and Christianity are not mutually exclusive, right? You can look this guy up - he happens to be a Christian. He argues against Biblical literalism and favors humanistic Christianity. Wild, huh?

This is all beside the point, anyway. I've shown that the question of Jesus' historical existence is spiritually irrelevant, which means that a Christian can doubt or even outright reject the historical existence of Jesus without losing any of their Christian faith.

Justin wrote:

Agree or disagree, that's up to each person individually. All I'm saying is I live here and this is real. The fear is real and it's being spread. Maybe it's just a small percentage of fundamentalists but for some reason I think it could be a larger percentage than what we see.

The fear is real - fundamentalists rely on fear. This is true of all fundamentalism, Christian or otherwise. There are Buddhist fundamentalists waging war on non-Buddhist Sri Lankese in the island's north.

@Justin,

Justin,

You claim in your first response on the link you provide that this end-time stuff is "Pauline Theory". Why? As I recall, a fellow named John wrote the Revelations. Also Peter made a claim that they were living in the end times. I'm not all that familiar with Paul having said it anywhere. But certainly if he did, he wasn't alone in the opinion, since John and Peter thought the same thing.

@Solace,

Apocalyptic language can be found in various parts of the Bible. I don't have a handy source, but as I recall, Paul does make some mention of this sort of notion, though nothing nearly as fantastical or psychedelic as Revelations.

We have to remember - apocalyptic revelation is understood in two ways: as literally true, or as allegory. The fundamentalists take these passages as literally true, which is not only absurd but terrifying - we certainly don't want that kind of person in office... oh wait a second, they have been running the government since Nixon.

Did you know Reagan's environmental honcho thought that deforestation was not an issue because the world would end soon anyway? Yeah, thanks GOP.

Back to the point, though; the authors of these apocalyptic messages were not fundamentalists, they wrote the passages as allegory. Crazy fundies.

@Didymos Thomas,

It has been posited by some that John may have been referring to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans when he wrote the Revelations. Certainly some of it seems to fit. I agree that it is meant as allegory, but like many prophecies out there it can be molded to fit a lot of what has happened in history.

Certainly all the religious apocalyptic folk that are around today would have been completely freaking out a hundred years ago when the whole world was on the verge of war. And again twenty years afterward. Nothing that we're seeing happening today comes even close to seeming as apocalyptic as the two world wars must have seemed to those who were around in those days.

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

You do realize that humanism and Christianity are not mutually exclusive, right? You can look this guy up - he happens to be a Christian. He argues against Biblical literalism and favors humanistic Christianity. Wild, huh?

This is all beside the point, anyway. I've shown that the question of Jesus' historical existence is spiritually irrelevant, which means that a Christian can doubt or even outright reject the historical existence of Jesus without losing any of their Christian faith.

The fear is real - fundamentalists rely on fear. This is true of all fundamentalism, Christian or otherwise. There are Buddhist fundamentalists waging war on non-Buddhist Sri Lankese in the island's north.

humanist christians are better known as the scoiety for comfortable looking potbellied american proffessers who sit in armchairs and write long winded pretentious books.
As for what you have 'shown' you can say alot about it but to claim it is spiritually irrelavent is farcical. Anyone who disbelieves in Christ as a historical figure has a different spritual outlook than one who does, which I should have thought obvious. As for 'christians' who 'sought of believe in Jesus' most certainly they have less faith if they are not willing to believe in Christs existance as a physical being, which is fundamental to the nature of God.
As for those driven by fear that could be anyone in world, atheists afraid fo religion, fundamentalists afraid of scince, americans afraid of muslims, neighbours frightened of one another. All simply becuase some man in a pulpit, or in a lab, or behind a desk, or on TV, or on a stage or in the white house has told them to be afraid. Fear is a tool used by many, of all points of view, to further their cause.

@avatar6v7,

What we need to keep in mind is that for some the lessons we learn through the stories of Christ and his teachings is more important than whether or not he actually lived or really was God in the flesh. To say that someone has less faith if they do not believe Jesus lived than someone who does believe it is simply misguided. One can believe with a great deal of conviction that we should apply the lessons learned to our daily lives. Another could believe that Jesus was real, but not really care too much about it. Who then has more faith?

Christ taught love and understanding, among other things. Is it more important that we apply these lessons in our daily lives, or is it more important that we believe he was real? Moreover, if one applies Christ's teachings simply because they believe he was real and thus fear for their immortal soul should they not obey, but another applies the same teachings because they truly believe this is how man ought to live irregardless of whether Jesus ever existed, which man is the more righteous?

@Solace,

Solace wrote:

What we need to keep in mind is that for some the lessons we learn through the stories of Christ and his teachings is more important than whether or not he actually lived or really was God in the flesh. To say that someone has less faith if they do not believe Jesus lived than someone who does believe it is simply misguided. One can believe with a great deal of conviction that we should apply the lessons learned to our daily lives. Another could believe that Jesus was real, but not really care too much about it. Who then has more faith?

Christ taught love and understanding, among other things. Is it more important that we apply these lessons in our daily lives, or is it more important that we believe he was real? Moreover, if one applies Christ's teachings simply because they believe he was real and thus fear for their immortal soul should they not obey, but another applies the same teachings because they truly believe this is how man ought to live irregardless of whether Jesus ever existed, which man is the more righteous?

this misses the point. If you deny the incarnation and the ressurection, how can you theologically justify redemption? Redemption is the greatest as best gift of the christian faith and it is grounded theologically in the ultimate miracle of the ressurectin- which is of course reliant on christs incarnation. Additionally a belief in the trinity is incompatible with any kind of denial of Jesus's existance as a human.

@Solace,

Solace wrote:

Christ taught love and understanding, among other things. Is it more important that we apply these lessons in our daily lives, or is it more important that we believe he was real?

Well, you teach the same things. If I live my life according to those precepts does that make me a Solacian ? More so, if you take away the spells and magic Jesus supposedly performed, the zombie-ism, and all the afterlife torture nonsense, what is it that's left ? A list of precepts to guide one through life, much like the teachings of the Buddha. If only these guiding ideas are acknowledged, (and we know they don't originate only from the alleged Christ), why would one call oneself Solacian, Christian or even Buddhist instead of simply "humanist" ?

@ariciunervos,

ariciunervos wrote:

Well, you teach the same things. If I live my life according to those precepts does that make me a Solacian ? More so, if you take away the spells and magic Jesus supposedly performed, the zombie-ism, and all the afterlife torture nonsense, what is it that's left ? A list of precepts to guide one through life, much like the teachings of the Buddha. If only these guiding ideas are acknowledged, (and we know they don't originate only from the alleged Christ), why would one call oneself Solacian, Christian or even Buddhist instead of simply "humanist" ?

I certainly wouldn't advocate that one should call theirself anything other than human. I don't call myself Christian either.

@avatar6v7,

avatar6v7 wrote:

this misses the point. If you deny the incarnation and the ressurection, how can you theologically justify redemption? Redemption is the greatest as best gift of the christian faith and it is grounded theologically in the ultimate miracle of the ressurectin- which is of course reliant on christs incarnation. Additionally a belief in the trinity is incompatible with any kind of denial of Jesus's existance as a human.

It strikes me as remarkably narrow-minded of some Christians that they put so much emphasis on the existential aspects of their faith, salvation, redemption and the like, and not enough on the practical application of it, love and goodwill. Frankly, if one is truly to be a living example of God's love on earth, to follow in Christ's footsteps, then how you live your life should be the main concern of your faith, and not where you're going to end up when your life is done. If you are saved, truly saved, then concerns over salvation should be the least of your worries.

More to the point, Christ's act of salvation, his crucifiction and ressurection, become utterly meaningless if we do not heed his word and take his teachings to heart. What good is a man to God or the world if he is saved by grace but has no love for others? The Christian concept of accepting Jesus into your heart loses all meaning when our concern is first for our immortal souls and caring for others becomes a distant second. Too many Christians seem unable to comprehend the complete and utter displacement of righteousness when their first worry is for the self, that is the post-mortem condition of the soul, and all else is of lesser importance.

@Solace,

Solace wrote:

It strikes me as remarkably narrow-minded of some Christians that they put so much emphasis on the existential aspects of their faith, salvation, redemption and the like, and not enough on the practical application of it, love and goodwill. Frankly, if one is truly to be a living example of God's love on earth, to follow in Christ's footsteps, then how you live your life should be the main concern of your faith, and not where you're going to end up when your life is done. If you are saved, truly saved, then concerns over salvation should be the least of your worries.

More to the point, Christ's act of salvation, his crucifiction and ressurection, become utterly meaningless if we do not heed his word and take his teachings to heart. What good is a man to God or the world if he is saved by grace but has no love for others? The Christian concept of accepting Jesus into your heart loses all meaning when our concern is first for our immortal souls and caring for others becomes a distant second. Too many Christians seem unable to comprehend the complete and utter displacement of righteousness when their first worry is for the self, that is the post-mortem condition of the soul, and all else is of lesser importance.

a longwinded repetition of the old myth that christians care only for the soul and never the living. The spirtual events of the bible and the moral teachings are as one. It is you who are trying to seperate them not me. Do I have to name the thousands of christian charities, or christs own actions among the poor? Or describe how for hundreds of years the only care for the poor and sick at all in europe came from the church? Do I really need to explain how the immortal soul is as much here and now as it is in the afterlife. Have you not thought a little about why suicide is considered a sin?

@Solace,

Solace wrote:

More to the point, Christ's act of salvation, his crucifiction and ressurection, become utterly meaningless if we do not heed his word and take his teachings to heart.

You got it all backwards.

If no one would "sin" ONLY THEN `his crucifiction and resurrection, become utterly meaningless', because nothing would be there to forgive or to "save from"! Without "sin" the so called Saviour has no purpose.

The Church figured this one out and declared all human beings are born "sinners" by default, because of Adam. A man which they effectively established as all humans' BIOLOGICAL father, in spite of what biology and genetics have to say about the detrimental effects of inbreeding and incest. So believe or be damned. Funny stuff, ain't it ?

It's really amazing how many people blindly believe this nonsense.

@ariciunervos,

ariciunervos wrote:

You got it all backwards.

If no one would "sin" ONLY THEN `his crucifiction and resurrection, become utterly meaningless', because nothing would be there to forgive or to "save from"! Without "sin" the so called Saviour has no purpose.

The Church figured this one out and declared all human beings are born "sinners" by default, because of Adam. A man which they effectively established as all humans' BIOLOGICAL father, in spite of what biology and genetics have to say about the detrimental effects of inbreeding and incest. So believe or be damned. Funny stuff, ain't it ?

It's really amazing how many people blindly believe this nonsense.

Caps Lock- the tool of the ignorant

@avatar6v7,

avatar6v7 wrote:

a longwinded repetition of the old myth that christians care only for the soul and never the living. The spirtual events of the bible and the moral teachings are as one. It is you who are trying to seperate them not me. Do I have to name the thousands of christian charities, or christs own actions among the poor? Or describe how for hundreds of years the only care for the poor and sick at all in europe came from the church? Do I really need to explain how the immortal soul is as much here and now as it is in the afterlife. Have you not thought a little about why suicide is considered a sin?

Well, what can I say? Except you're the one who said that one cannot be a Christian without believing that Christ existed, no matter what else that person believes. You're the one that said that such a person has less faith. By saying these things you put the existential aspects of your religion above the rest.

Because everyone who believes in Christ's message of love and hope, but can't wrap their head around the idea of a dead man walking, don't deserve the wonderous Christian mantle. And that person's faith is much less significant than the sychophants who suck at the church's preverbial teats and cry, "Look at the wonderful things that Mother Church has done for us!" (but God forbid you look at the any of the truly dispicable things she has done).

@ariciunervos,

ariciunervos wrote:

You got it all backwards.

If no one would "sin" ONLY THEN `his crucifiction and resurrection, become utterly meaningless', because nothing would be there to forgive or to "save from"! Without "sin" the so called Saviour has no purpose.

The Church figured this one out and declared all human beings are born "sinners" by default, because of Adam. A man which they effectively established as all humans' BIOLOGICAL father, in spite of what biology and genetics have to say about the detrimental effects of inbreeding and incest. So believe or be damned. Funny stuff, ain't it ?

It's really amazing how many people blindly believe this nonsense.

Actually one could make the argument (from a school of thought that is quite rationally backed by scripture,) that only because the supposed converted continue to sin is Christ's sacrifice made meaningless. Instead Christians see sin everywhere and in everything, because they project their own sin unto a world which is largely unconcerned with the Christian's misguided sensitivity. Such is the true fiction that the Church has been peddling for centuries.

@Solace,

Solace wrote:

Actually one could make the argument (from a school of thought that is quite rationally backed by scripture,) that only because the supposed converted continue to sin is Christ's sacrifice made meaningless. Instead Christians see sin everywhere and in everything, because they project their own sin unto a world which is largely unconcerned with the Christian's misguided sensitivity. Such is the true fiction that the Church has been peddling for centuries.

Logic. It was nice wasn't it?

Philosophy Forum

Distribution of Fear in Christianity

Quick Links

My Account

able2know