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.
Being aware that not everyone is Christian does not constitute political correctness. I'm an atheist. I understand that not everyone is an atheist. I hardly think that somehow entails me being politically correct.
The term 'happy holidays' does, I think, constitute political correctness. But so what? The term political correctness is just a relatively new phrase that describes normal respect in speech. And those Christians who decry 'happy holidays' and instead insist on 'merry Christmas' are practicing political correctness. A lot of people fail to realize that both sides of a speech conflict can be practicing political correctness. But most people who see political correctness as a scourge only see it in things that offend others, and not them. If they're the ones offended, it can't be political correctness. At least, that's what they tell themselves.
Here's an example:
I used to have this coworker, a Catholic (the kind who had the Pope's picture in his cubicle - the previous Pope, I mean, not the 'liberal abomination' [his words, not mine!] that is the current Pope), and every December it was the same thing. He would rant about 'happy holidays' and insist that he would only accept 'merry Christmas' as a greetings. Now, so far as I could see he didn't actually get any 'happy holidays'. And again, so far as I could see, this was a great disappointment to him. He seemed to really want to be offended. But me? I have no issue with 'merry Christmas', or with 'happy holidays'. Can you tell which one of us, me the atheist or my coworker the Christian, was being politically correct? Hint: it wasn't me.
Perhaps some of the more militant ones around here could learn a few things from you.
It is inaccurate to characterize failure to believe as you do as "rebellion". It suggests that everyone not of your faith is some sort of libertine, looking to party with impunity or something. It is assuming way too much about the motivations and goals of others.
More often in my experience, it is simple indifference. But it is also very frequently that the truth claims of religion do not meet even a minimalist bar of actual proof.
To the point about "few there be that find it", I wonder if you've ever done the math on that claim, and considered its implications?
Last time I looked it up, on a global basis, evangelicals make up about 17% of Christianity. That is a fairly broad tent, but let us assume that 17% of Christians are correct about the need for a particular salvation "experience" as the means to elude the fires of hell -- and that the rest are simply wrong.
As of 2020, some 2.4 billion Christians are in the world. If 83% of them have an insufficient, "saving" understanding of god's claims on their lives by reason of not being sufficiently correct doctrinally, that means that nearly 2 billion Christians plus the other 5.4 billion non-christians, are hell-bound -- a whopping 7.4 billion people in all.
And it gets worse. Consider that throughout human history, 107 billion people have lived and died. How many of those did the supposedly self-evident truth of the gospel somehow fail to reach?
60 million people die each and every year. Christians make up about 30% of those deaths, and evangelicals, about 5%. If evangelical Christians are the ones who are correct, some 57 million people go straight to hell, year after year after year, and have been doing so since at least the time of Jesus if not the dawn of man itself (though we must adjust for a smaller world population in the past).
All this seems to me to be a pretty poor showing for a belief system built around the notion that god wants to save everybody ("god is not wiling that any should perish"). Heck, after 2,000 years, he hasn't even persuaded two thirds of the populace to even culturally associate with Christianity, much less be devoted to it.
How does one enjoy eternity in heaven, knowing that tens of billions will burn in hell for eternity, including loved ones? Do you honestly think that this world is just a big meat factory, sending people to eternal perdition for the most part, and saving a privileged few such as yourself?
When extrapolated like this, the ancient barbaric beliefs about a wrathful God and eternal Hell become so obviously nonsensical. It is utterly astounding that such beliefs have survived intact for so long.
It is inaccurate to characterize failure to believe as you do as "rebellion". It suggests that everyone not of your faith is some sort of libertine, looking to party with impunity or something. It is assuming way too much about the motivations and goals of others.
More often in my experience, it is simple indifference. But it is also very frequently that the truth claims of religion do not meet even a minimalist bar of actual proof.
To the point about "few there be that find it", I wonder if you've ever done the math on that claim, and considered its implications?
Last time I looked it up, on a global basis, evangelicals make up about 17% of Christianity. That is a fairly broad tent, but let us assume that 17% of Christians are correct about the need for a particular salvation "experience" as the means to elude the fires of hell -- and that the rest are simply wrong.
As of 2020, some 2.4 billion Christians are in the world. If 83% of them have an insufficient, "saving" understanding of god's claims on their lives by reason of not being sufficiently correct doctrinally, that means that nearly 2 billion Christians plus the other 5.4 billion non-christians, are hell-bound -- a whopping 7.4 billion people in all.
And it gets worse. Consider that throughout human history, 107 billion people have lived and died. How many of those did the supposedly self-evident truth of the gospel somehow fail to reach?
60 million people die each and every year. Christians make up about 30% of those deaths, and evangelicals, about 5%. If evangelical Christians are the ones who are correct, some 57 million people go straight to hell, year after year after year, and have been doing so since at least the time of Jesus if not the dawn of man itself (though we must adjust for a smaller world population in the past).
All this seems to me to be a pretty poor showing for a belief system built around the notion that god wants to save everybody ("god is not wiling that any should perish"). Heck, after 2,000 years, he hasn't even persuaded two thirds of the populace to even culturally associate with Christianity, much less be devoted to it.
How does one enjoy eternity in heaven, knowing that tens of billions will burn in hell for eternity, including loved ones? Do you honestly think that this world is just a big meat factory, sending people to eternal perdition for the most part, and saving a privileged few such as yourself?
Assuming you believe in God, how does one connect with Him, in your opinion?
Assuming you believe in God, how does one connect with Him, in your opinion?
A far better question is, how does god (assuming, in the context of this discussion, the Christian god) connect with us? I mean, he's the one who is supposed to care about us, love us, and desire communion with us. He's the one with all the knowledge and power, so he seems like the logical source of a solution.
Given the simple fact of my point about results (2,000 years of effort = only a third of the world under the sway of Christianity in any big way, and that mostly cultural rather than pious; the vast majority of humanity simply lost to god and his heaven) it seems that however he's going about it, isn't working ;-)
My personal thought is that all this roundabout business of writing a book that people can't seem to agree on what it means, all this being coy and invisible, demanding blind leaps of faith rather than simply manifesting, is way inferior to just relating to us in the way he allegedly made us -- the way we even write hymns about -- "he walks with me and he talks with me" -- literally, not metaphorically. Failing that (maybe he's shy) being that he's all-knowing and all-powerful, he could simply preinstall full knowledge and correct understanding of him in every newly-minted human. Problem solved. Direct revelation for everyone. He wouldn't even break a sweat doing it. My guess is it would be a lot LESS effort than the way he's going about it anyway.
The beauty of that is you wouldn't even need carrot (heaven) and stick (hell). Everyone would be personally acquainted with and trusting of god, and eager to work with him toward his goals. Earth would be war-free, disease-free, and basically its own heaven.
And again, being all-powerful, he can do away with the "sin nature" or any distracting "lusts", too, or anything else he's always on about.
The basic problem with Christianity is that it neuters god, making him powerless against our disobedience, and reducing him to barbecuing us forever in response, because for some weird reason, he can't convince us to love him. The Abrahamic god is always surprised, disappointed, angry, and jealous because he can't get us to "date" him. Maybe, like every human incel, that is evidence he should change his approach. Dude doesn't seem very happy ... maybe there's a reason!
Think about it: Christianity 100% puts the locus of the problem on the creatED, not the creatOR. Who made us this way, anyhow? I certainly don't recall signing up for it. Seems pretty self defeating to create humans with a propensity to behave in certain ways, label that misbehavior, and then get one's knickers in a twist about it ... again, he's all powerful, didn't have to do it that way. I mean I'm being a bit irreverent and humorous here, but I'm actually asking a serious question that no one in the major faiths ever seem to -- they just assume we are wretched, unworthy worms, but why is that the setup?
I know, I know, he created us perfect in the beginning, then we messed it up and it's been wrong ever since. Again ... seems like this elevates humanity to a place of power over god. Seems counterproductive.
Anyway ... if you really want an answer to this question I should have my wife do a guest post, she's the PR expert in this family ... but those are my thoughts, since you asked for them.
Think about it: Christianity 100% puts the locus of the problem on the creatED, not the creatOR. Who made us this way, anyhow?
Greta point. Pretty much, everywhere in the world, until certain age of maturaty, parents are responsible and liable for their children.
But no, not God the Father. Oh no, no no. Just like Pfizer, full clearance from any wrongdoing. He is whatever else - LOVE, BLESSING, CARING and what not BUT! Not responsible. No, that he is not. And for those, who watched Game of Thrones, you might have noticed, what The Hound once said: My father told that, everything said before the word but, is ....
Besides, what loving father will slaughter all his children because he screwed up making them right?
A far better question is, how does god (assuming, in the context of this discussion, the Christian god) connect with us? I mean, he's the one who is supposed to care about us, love us, and desire communion with us. He's the one with all the knowledge and power, so he seems like the logical source of a solution.
Given the simple fact of my point about results (2,000 years of effort = only a third of the world under the sway of Christianity in any big way, and that mostly cultural rather than pious; the vast majority of humanity simply lost to god and his heaven) it seems that however he's going about it, isn't working ;-)
My personal thought is that all this roundabout business of writing a book that people can't seem to agree on what it means, all this being coy and invisible, demanding blind leaps of faith rather than simply manifesting, is way inferior to just relating to us in the way he allegedly made us -- the way we even write hymns about -- "he walks with me and he talks with me" -- literally, not metaphorically. Failing that (maybe he's shy) being that he's all-knowing and all-powerful, he could simply preinstall full knowledge and correct understanding of him in every newly-minted human. Problem solved. Direct revelation for everyone. He wouldn't even break a sweat doing it. My guess is it would be a lot LESS effort than the way he's going about it anyway.
The beauty of that is you wouldn't even need carrot (heaven) and stick (hell). Everyone would be personally acquainted with and trusting of god, and eager to work with him toward his goals. Earth would be war-free, disease-free, and basically its own heaven.
And again, being all-powerful, he can do away with the "sin nature" or any distracting "lusts", too, or anything else he's always on about.
The basic problem with Christianity is that it neuters god, making him powerless against our disobedience, and reducing him to barbecuing us forever in response, because for some weird reason, he can't convince us to love him. The Abrahamic god is always surprised, disappointed, angry, and jealous because he can't get us to "date" him. Maybe, like every human incel, that is evidence he should change his approach. Dude doesn't seem very happy ... maybe there's a reason!
Think about it: Christianity 100% puts the locus of the problem on the creatED, not the creatOR. Who made us this way, anyhow? I certainly don't recall signing up for it. Seems pretty self defeating to create humans with a propensity to behave in certain ways, label that misbehavior, and then get one's knickers in a twist about it ... again, he's all powerful, didn't have to do it that way. I mean I'm being a bit irreverent and humorous here, but I'm actually asking a serious question that no one in the major faiths ever seem to -- they just assume we are wretched, unworthy worms, but why is that the setup?
I know, I know, he created us perfect in the beginning, then we messed it up and it's been wrong ever since. Again ... seems like this elevates humanity to a place of power over god. Seems counterproductive.
Anyway ... if you really want an answer to this question I should have my wife do a guest post, she's the PR expert in this family ... but those are my thoughts, since you asked for them.
Don'[t worry. They'll come up with some good excuses...well, not good.
A far better question is, how does god (assuming, in the context of this discussion, the Christian god) connect with us? I mean, he's the one who is supposed to care about us, love us, and desire communion with us. He's the one with all the knowledge and power, so he seems like the logical source of a solution.
Given the simple fact of my point about results (2,000 years of effort = only a third of the world under the sway of Christianity in any big way, and that mostly cultural rather than pious; the vast majority of humanity simply lost to god and his heaven) it seems that however he's going about it, isn't working ;-)
My personal thought is that all this roundabout business of writing a book that people can't seem to agree on what it means, all this being coy and invisible, demanding blind leaps of faith rather than simply manifesting, is way inferior to just relating to us in the way he allegedly made us -- the way we even write hymns about -- "he walks with me and he talks with me" -- literally, not metaphorically. Failing that (maybe he's shy) being that he's all-knowing and all-powerful, he could simply preinstall full knowledge and correct understanding of him in every newly-minted human. Problem solved. Direct revelation for everyone. He wouldn't even break a sweat doing it. My guess is it would be a lot LESS effort than the way he's going about it anyway.
The beauty of that is you wouldn't even need carrot (heaven) and stick (hell). Everyone would be personally acquainted with and trusting of god, and eager to work with him toward his goals. Earth would be war-free, disease-free, and basically its own heaven.
And again, being all-powerful, he can do away with the "sin nature" or any distracting "lusts", too, or anything else he's always on about.
The basic problem with Christianity is that it neuters god, making him powerless against our disobedience, and reducing him to barbecuing us forever in response, because for some weird reason, he can't convince us to love him. The Abrahamic god is always surprised, disappointed, angry, and jealous because he can't get us to "date" him. Maybe, like every human incel, that is evidence he should change his approach. Dude doesn't seem very happy ... maybe there's a reason!
Think about it: Christianity 100% puts the locus of the problem on the creatED, not the creatOR. Who made us this way, anyhow? I certainly don't recall signing up for it. Seems pretty self defeating to create humans with a propensity to behave in certain ways, label that misbehavior, and then get one's knickers in a twist about it ... again, he's all powerful, didn't have to do it that way. I mean I'm being a bit irreverent and humorous here, but I'm actually asking a serious question that no one in the major faiths ever seem to -- they just assume we are wretched, unworthy worms, but why is that the setup?
I know, I know, he created us perfect in the beginning, then we messed it up and it's been wrong ever since. Again ... seems like this elevates humanity to a place of power over god. Seems counterproductive.
Anyway ... if you really want an answer to this question I should have my wife do a guest post, she's the PR expert in this family ... but those are my thoughts, since you asked for them.
Clearly, the mainstream Christian dogma is bonkers! I have no idea how it ever lasted as long as it has without even the hint of revision of its absurd beliefs about God and His motives. Jesus revealed a God that is 180 degrees opposite of the OT tyrant adopted and revered by those who follow the Bible but claim to be Christians and follow Jesus. It is an enigma.
I puzzled over these same issues you have and determined that we exist to develop and independently acquire the character and motivations revealed and demonstrated by Jesus. It would be pointless to be robots preprogrammed to be obedient to some tyrant God or to avoid eternal punishment or to acquire some reward.
Even having perfect knowledge and certainty that God exists and that it is our purpose to become like Him would be counterproductive. Any external motivation would be self-defeating. Since God is the way He is without external motivations, clearly, the desired outcome is for us to actually prefer it and consider it the best and most decent way to be all on our own.
The question "how does one connect with God" can mean so many things without clarity and intent from the one who asks it. I grew up in a very manipulative environment, yet those who sought to manipulate didn't realize that was what they were doing. But I will share my twisted perspective on the main question and I will allow my sensitivity and bias to show.
I think this is just a nicer way of saying what have you done for God since he has done so much for you even something as small as loving you. That is the first step in building a sensitive person. To have done something for me without ever asking for it? Then having to reciprocate and having that reciprocation judged by other humans? Is it passionate enough? Is it good enough? If not, what are the consequences? Banishment from the community? Burn in hell? Lost to God? Have a hard heart?
This is not the sensitivity that I want.
If there is a god, what I have done to "connect" with him is to drop all fear of him.
Perhaps some of the more militant ones around here could learn a few things from you.
There's nothing militant about either 'Merry Christmas' or 'Happy Holidays', nor about a stated preference for either - even if that preferences devolves into petulance and/or crankiness. The framing is ridiculous, and echoes the inane 'war on Christmas' drivel regularly tossed out like chum to masses eager to feel victimized, who duly regurgitate it far and wide.
This is not surprising, and it's really not a trait of Christianity but of members of cultural majorities. The loudest chorus of self-appointed victims comes from a majority which perceives (correctly or not) some degree of erosion in its cultural dominance. This is why virtually every historical social movement that has worked to extend some degree of protection or equality to a marginalized group (religious, racial, sexual, etc.) has been greeted with a moral panic delineating the supposed social horrors that will ensure should the proposals in question be adopted.
The word "militant" in regard to anyone on either side in this sub-forum is greatly overused and is hyperbolic. Let's remember the definition of militant: "combative and aggressive in support of a political or social cause, and typically favoring extreme, violent, or confrontational methods". I suggest some people recall what they learned in kindergarten, but have apparently forgotten -- "Sticks and stones..."
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.
When extrapolated like this, the ancient barbaric beliefs about a wrathful God and eternal Hell become so obviously nonsensical. It is utterly astounding that such beliefs have survived intact for so long.
