Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Only the most watered-down, ineffectual versions of Christianity make being inoffensive to the non-religious a goal. (We all, of course, try not to be so offensive that the gospel message is lost in the process.)
It is not possible to be offensive at all and deliver the actual Gospel message of love and reconciliation. Love does NOT offend.
Quote:
I really don't think that what you're calling moderate are those who "believe the traditional religious doctrines." I think they are those who essentially don't believe the traditional religious doctrines and promote a weak, warm and fuzzy, ineffectual version of Christianity that is indeed inoffensive to the non-religious. But feel free to correct me or clarify what you mean by moderate.
Christ's Gospel is completely inoffensive. It is the corrupted "precepts and doctrines of men" that offend the sensibilities of every decent person as they query the Comforter on what God has "written in our hearts." It is those who query the words "written in ink" and interpreted into the "precepts and doctrines of men" and ignore what God has "written in our hearts" who offend.
Exactly. I am not sure if moderate believers actually believe any less but that they are more accepting that not everyone wants that religion in their face.
I have a more positive experience with a Catholic priest than do most of the stories in the news. We lived across from his home and church and he knew my family was Jewish. He was very popular with the kids in town and was the coach for us in both baseball and hockey as well as he had a playground built in the church yard and would play horseshoes with us. He never, in my experience, treated non Catholics any different from Catholics and never dope to us kids about religion nor did he ever approach my parents about religion.
He is one who I would count as a moderate and yet religious person. He was eventually transferred out of town as the church thought he had to close of a relationship with his live in housekeeper so they both went to another town. In retrospect I am s9 fortune that he liked an adult female over little boys.
I have lived most of my life not knowing how religious or non religious my friends and coworkers are and that includes small towns, and mid and larger cities. It was the main reason for me coming to this board, trying to understand how those who are not moderates think, belief and interact with others.
I think I have mentioned this before, in my experience people are more likely to let you know which hockey team they are fans of then any views about God or religiins.
It does. But in fact we never got Islam or Judaism in R/S very much and hardly ever in A/A. We got Christians arguing with us all the time. But we have Won the ground. Atheism pretty much owns R/S (religion and Secularism ) and the main peeve is that we get few Christians to play with and even less that last two rounds.
What's there to mention? You either believe, or you don't. Anything in between is hypocrisy.
There's saying in the East - you can yell baklava all you want to, does not make it taste sweet in your mouth.
You can claim being believer of any "grade", does not make one out of you. You either are, or you are not.
Besides, who's to judge this anyway? That's strictly between object of faith and subject of that faith.
It's not about the degree of belief. Moderate Christians (for example) believe in the Trinity. But preaching and evangelizing is not their whole life. They may or may not even attend church.
The first Christmas Eve I attended at the parish to which I belong, the priest said, "It is hard to believe. It is hard not to believe." It is one of the things that made me continue to attend there.
It wasn't hypocrisy. For some of us, it is honesty.
He is right. It isn't easy - belief or unbelief. 'Well - maybe there's a god': That's easy Belief is easy too, if you get indoctrinated early - getting out of that, that's harder.
Doing the research - I mean Both sides - not Strobelsearch - is not 'easy'. But by the ever - loving cringe, it's worth doing. It's even enjoyable.
He is right. It isn't easy - belief or unbelief. 'Well - maybe there's a god': That's easy Belief is easy too, if you get indoctrinated early - getting out of that, that's harder.
Doing the research - I mean Both sides - not Strobelsearch - is not 'easy'. But by the ever - loving cringe, it's worth doing. It's even enjoyable.
I had to look up "Strobelsearch" to see what you were talking about. LOL.
But I don't see how research is applicable to believing or not believing in some sort of force, if you will, whether you call it God or something else, or whatever path one might latch onto to seek a connection to it. My sense of something beyond our physical presence could not be altered by browsing the Internet.
If you're referring purely to biblical-type research to "prove" a specific spiritual framework, no thanks. As you already know, I'm not a person who believes that the Bible came about supernaturally or that it's literally true. I have neither the need nor the patience to do the sort of research you've done to prove that nor the desire to argue about it.
I had to look up "Strobelsearch" to see what you were talking about. LOL.
But I don't see how research is applicable to believing or not believing in some sort of force, if you will, whether you call it God or something else, or whatever path one might latch onto to seek a connection to it. My sense of something beyond our physical presence could not be altered by browsing the Internet.
If you're referring purely to biblical-type research to "prove" a specific spiritual framework, no thanks. As you already know, I'm not a person who believes that the Bible came about supernaturally or that it's literally true. I have neither the need nor the patience to do the sort of research you've done to prove that nor the desire to argue about it.
I had to look up "Strobelsearch" to see what you were talking about. LOL.
I'm amazed that you were able to look it up! It is snark (I confess) at Lee Strobel's claim to have 'researched' the resurrection claim. In fact he appears to have only look at One side of the argument. He certainly doesn't even mention the other aside a few objections that are brushed aside.
Quote:
But I don't see how research is applicable to believing or not believing in some sort of force, if you will, whether you call it God or something else, or whatever path one might latch onto to seek a connection to it. My sense of something beyond our physical presence could not be altered by browsing the Internet.
If you're referring purely to biblical-type research to "prove" a specific spiritual framework, no thanks. As you already know, I'm not a person who believes that the Bible came about supernaturally or that it's literally true. I have neither the need nor the patience to do the sort of research you've done to prove that nor the desire to argue about it.
I said it wasn't easy. Xampl. Apologetics requires a little knowledge about all sorts of things - one at least knows where to look. Thus t be able to come to any conclusions about this crap - and it can be anything from Bible literalism to a sorta revelation in the head, you need to take a particular line of research. For ones'self, that is. Not so much for the other side, who Believer rather than research, but they are pretty good at feeding in relevant apoloogetics sites that the doubter is them expected to refute.
Now I know that you are not the Bible Is Literal fact type, and it's more 'God speaks to me' . And that's a different matter entirely, and even if I am content to leave you to it as you don't seem to me to be a problem, to give your ideas a fair whack just so I can have a basis for what i am prepared to credit, can take a lot of work, even if I don't post a word of it here.
Since the Bible stories were never intended to be taken literally to begin with, then any attempt by atheists to "prove" the stories false is like an ever descending rabbit hole that will lead to nowhere.
There is truth in the stories, just like in any popular ancient story or modern Star Trek story. Trying to say that they are false is impossible, because the Bible literalists know the stories contain truth of some kind. The stories would never have endured as long as they had without that symbolic truth that they contain.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) and the main peeve is that we get few Christians to play with and even less that last two rounds. 
by the way.
Belief is easy too, if you get indoctrinated early - getting out of that, that's harder.
