a question of respect.

C

charles cure

Guest
here's something i've always wondered about:

if you are a christian, and you are friends with someone who isn't a christian, how can you claim to have respect for their beliefs?

since being a christian means that you accept christ as your saviour and necessarily hold the view that anyone who does not do this is going to hell, isn't it your duty to try to convince everyone you love and care for to try to accept jesus so that they won't go to hell? isn't it true that if you actually believe in god and jesus, you must be deeply concerned that your friends will go to hell if they don't convert? if that is true, and you attempt to convert them, then how can you possibly maintain any type of respect for their belief? if you don't attempt to convert them, then aren't you doing them a grave and terrible disservice by allowing their foolish beliefs in a false god (or worse yet, no god) to relegate them to the "lake of eternal fire"? so how does that work exactly - do you not really believe that people go to hell for not accepting god and jesus, or do you just not care about your friends and family or fellow man enough to save them from hell? i would actually go so far as to say that if you are a christian and you are not actively trying to convert every single person you meet over to the way of the lord, then you are violating some rules laid out in the bible about loving thy neighbor and doing unto others as you would have them do unto you...etc. so, christians, my question is - if you believe that everyone in the world who doesn't accept your god is going to burn in hell, why don't you do more to help them? in addition, how could you ever claim to have respect for a system of beliefs other than your own if you know that the person labouring under these illusions will be sent to a place of eternal torment?

i've always been curious about that.
 
I would like to offer two relevant anecdotes.

My mother, who is Catholic, married a Jew, and they gave birth to me. They agreed to raise me into Catholicism, and so I inevitably came home from catechism with the story of how my teacher said that anyone who does not accept Jesus Christ will go to Hell. I asked my mother if this meant that I wouldn't see Dad in heaven. She told me, "I don't believe that God would ever send a good person to Hell."

My uncle, also a Catholic, was approached once by an evangelical Christian who urged him to accept Jesus Christ as his lord and savior before the day of judgment came and he was left behind to burn in Hell after the rapture. My uncle replied, "So you mean that whatever I do before I accept Jesus Christ as my lord and savior, I will go to Heaven when I die?"

"If you are truly repentant, yes," replied the evangelist.

"So if I went on a tirade of decadence for a month and then came back to you and repented, that would be all right?"

"As long as you accept Christ into your life," he insisted.

"What if I went over to your house right now and fucked your wife? Can I still go to Heaven?" And with that, my uncle left the man's company.

Not every Christian actually believes that only Christians will go to heaven, and not every Christian believes that being a Christian will automatically get you there. These beliefs may contradict the doctrines of some Christian churches, but it just goes to show that religious beliefs are ultimately personal. Some might unfairly argue that neither my uncle nor my mother are actually Christians for contradicting doctrine, but their family and pastors, as well as millions of Christians who also personalize their beliefs, would surely disagree.
 
As an atheist I can respect others beliefs, but when I went through a christian phase, I became obnoxiously evangelical and had no time for most non christians, I even gave up best friends that wouldn't convert. :wanker:
 
The type of respect, which is demanded by criminals is risible. Like, these blinged up rappers are always talking about respect! Respect for what? Pimping, dealing drugs and wasting others?
 
charles cure said:
here's something i've always wondered about:

if you are a christian, and you are friends with someone who isn't a christian, how can you claim to have respect for their beliefs?
Click to expand...

Good Questions!

On a more "loving" note! Not! The Jews in the Old Testament part of the Christian Bible were actually told by God to kill those who would not follow Jehovah, even their own family members! And Christians off and on throughout their own bloody history have done the same thing to those who would not convert or who simply disagreed with them over certain doctrinal issues.

They do not generally respect people of other faiths. They regard all other faiths as basically satanic. And if they claim to respect other faiths then they are either lying or they are really just not a very devout Christian.

Thanks!
 
baumgarten said:
I would like to offer two relevant anecdotes.

My mother, who is Catholic, married a Jew, and they gave birth to me. They agreed to raise me into Catholicism, and so I inevitably came home from catechism with the story of how my teacher said that anyone who does not accept Jesus Christ will go to Hell. I asked my mother if this meant that I wouldn't see Dad in heaven. She told me, "I don't believe that God would ever send a good person to Hell."

My uncle, also a Catholic, was approached once by an evangelical Christian who urged him to accept Jesus Christ as his lord and savior before the day of judgment came and he was left behind to burn in Hell after the rapture. My uncle replied, "So you mean that whatever I do before I accept Jesus Christ as my lord and savior, I will go to Heaven when I die?"

"If you are truly repentant, yes," replied the evangelist.

"So if I went on a tirade of decadence for a month and then came back to you and repented, that would be all right?"

"As long as you accept Christ into your life," he insisted.

"What if I went over to your house right now and fucked your wife? Can I still go to Heaven?" And with that, my uncle left the man's company.

Not every Christian actually believes that only Christians will go to heaven, and not every Christian believes that being a Christian will automatically get you there. These beliefs may contradict the doctrines of some Christian churches, but it just goes to show that religious beliefs are ultimately personal. Some might unfairly argue that neither my uncle nor my mother are actually Christians for contradicting doctrine, but their family and pastors, as well as millions of Christians who also personalize their beliefs, would surely disagree.
Click to expand...

right but that's the crux of the whole issue regarding religion - can you just pick and choose what you like and don't like about the religion, follow that, and still be an adherent? i would argue that you can't, because rules are rules, and if they are all "god's rules" then what makes any one of them ok to ignore? if you can pick and choose which ones to follow, then what makes it not ok to follow the pronouncements in the bible where god exhorts people to kill non-believers? so what if you want to believe that god wouldn't send a good person to hell, there's no support for that theory anywhere in christian teaching. if you really believe that this stuff is for real, and that the bible outlines the way to live and the difference between right and wrong, aren't you wrong for ignoring the inconvenient parts? or at the very least, doesn't that split from accepted teaching diminish your faith?
i mean god sent his favorite angel to hell for disagreeing with him once, what do you think he would do to you for ignoring the bible?

ps: by "you" i didn't mean you specifically, i meant any so-called believer.
 
you are called to love as christ loved that means christains as well as nonchristains sure you want to bring others to a religious life but one should "preach the gospel and use words if nessicary" according to a doctor of the catholic church
 
charles cure said:
right but that's the crux of the whole issue regarding religion - can you just pick and choose what you like and don't like about the religion, follow that, and still be an adherent? i would argue that you can't, because rules are rules, and if they are all "god's rules" then what makes any one of them ok to ignore? if you can pick and choose which ones to follow, then what makes it not ok to follow the pronouncements in the bible where god exhorts people to kill non-believers? so what if you want to believe that god wouldn't send a good person to hell, there's no support for that theory anywhere in christian teaching. if you really believe that this stuff is for real, and that the bible outlines the way to live and the difference between right and wrong, aren't you wrong for ignoring the inconvenient parts? or at the very least, doesn't that split from accepted teaching diminish your faith?
i mean god sent his favorite angel to hell for disagreeing with him once, what do you think he would do to you for ignoring the bible?

ps: by "you" i didn't mean you specifically, i meant any so-called believer.
Click to expand...
I would argue that adherence to doctrine is not what makes you a Christian. My whole point in that post was to illustrate how people personalize their beliefs. Their religion is what they believe, not only what parts of them happen to agree with the doctrines of the denominations in which they participate. And speaking of denominations, all sects of Christianity differ from each other in doctrine, sometimes greatly. They're all ostensibly Christian denominations, however, and so their congregations by the same principle. You most certainly can pick and choose, which is why people do it. Whether or not you can get away with it depends on your own personal beliefs.
 
I have a very good friend who is a devout Christian, and I have every respect for him, but I have zero respect for his beliefs.
 
baumgarten said:
I would argue that adherence to doctrine is not what makes you a Christian. My whole point in that post was to illustrate how people personalize their beliefs. Their religion is what they believe, not only what parts of them happen to agree with the doctrines of the denominations in which they participate. And speaking of denominations, all sects of Christianity differ from each other in doctrine, sometimes greatly. They're all ostensibly Christian denominations, however, and so their congregations by the same principle. You most certainly can pick and choose, which is why people do it. Whether or not you can get away with it depends on your own personal beliefs.
Click to expand...


right but if adherence to doctrine doesn't make you christian, what does? if you don't believe in the doctirne that jesus was the son of god, but you revere jesus as a human prophet, does that allow you to still be christian? of course not. so doctrine and accepted teaching do matter. what if you don't believe in the ten commandments, and follow some other set of rules, can you still be a true christian? not really. the point is that people have lulled themselves into the illusion that you can have a "make your own religion" party with the bible and that they can just follow the convenient rules. well, what i'm saying is that on the off-chance that there is a god like the one in the bible who judges harshly and based on whether or not you follow rules, the armchair christians are just as fucked as your average atheist or satan worsipper. christianity has become so dilute and formless at this point that it is basically whatever kind of religion you want it to be, so why should anyone outside of it take it seriously?
 
charles cure said:
right but if adherence to doctrine doesn't make you christian, what does? if you don't believe in the doctirne that jesus was the son of god, but you revere jesus as a human prophet, does that allow you to still be christian? of course not. so doctrine and accepted teaching do matter. what if you don't believe in the ten commandments, and follow some other set of rules, can you still be a true christian? not really. the point is that people have lulled themselves into the illusion that you can have a "make your own religion" party with the bible and that they can just follow the convenient rules. well, what i'm saying is that on the off-chance that there is a god like the one in the bible who judges harshly and based on whether or not you follow rules, the armchair christians are just as fucked as your average atheist or satan worsipper. christianity has become so dilute and formless at this point that it is basically whatever kind of religion you want it to be, so why should anyone outside of it take it seriously?
Click to expand...
Christianity was dilute and formless at its inception. There was no unifying doctrine until the Council of Nicea. For the three hundred years prior to the Council, however, it was easy to make clear who was and wasn't a follower of Christ. Opinions varied during this early stage; some considered Jesus to be divine, others didn't. They were all Christians, however. They were all part of the same movement. That's what Christianity was. It wasn't a stone-carved set of beliefs, it was a movement with a common ground originating from the teachings of Jesus.

It's much later now, and Christianity isn't so much a movement as it is a culture. Opinions still vary widely; the church formed at Nicea has split into many different sects. They all still share a core set of beliefs. Every Christian says the Lord's Prayer. Ask any Christian about God and he will tell you about the both the father and the son. All Christians are told about the stories in the gospels. None of these are good criteria for defining Christianity, however, because as soon as a sizeable group splits off from an established Christian denomination and rejects one of these critical beliefs, then the criteria no longer work. The new church is still arguably Christian because Christians -- who still call themselves Christians after breaking off -- formed it. And I think this is the heart of the matter: It has less to do with belief and more with tradition. If you were raised by Christians and also call yourself one, or if you are a member of a Christian church, I think that makes you Christian. If you are accepted by the established culture, that makes you a part of it. The beliefs and doctrines are part of the traditions of that culture, and as it is with any culture, the people who make it up determine how much deviation from those traditions is acceptable.
 
Last edited:
charles cure said:
here's something i've always wondered about:

if you are a christian, and you are friends with someone who isn't a christian, how can you claim to have respect for their beliefs?

since being a christian means that you accept christ as your saviour and necessarily hold the view that anyone who does not do this is going to hell, isn't it your duty to try to convince everyone you love and care for to try to accept jesus so that they won't go to hell? isn't it true that if you actually believe in god and jesus, you must be deeply concerned that your friends will go to hell if they don't convert? if that is true, and you attempt to convert them, then how can you possibly maintain any type of respect for their belief? if you don't attempt to convert them, then aren't you doing them a grave and terrible disservice by allowing their foolish beliefs in a false god (or worse yet, no god) to relegate them to the "lake of eternal fire"? so how does that work exactly - do you not really believe that people go to hell for not accepting god and jesus, or do you just not care about your friends and family or fellow man enough to save them from hell? i would actually go so far as to say that if you are a christian and you are not actively trying to convert every single person you meet over to the way of the lord, then you are violating some rules laid out in the bible about loving thy neighbor and doing unto others as you would have them do unto you...etc. so, christians, my question is - if you believe that everyone in the world who doesn't accept your god is going to burn in hell, why don't you do more to help them? in addition, how could you ever claim to have respect for a system of beliefs other than your own if you know that the person labouring under these illusions will be sent to a place of eternal torment?

i've always been curious about that.
Click to expand...
Jesus sent us a helper after He died.

Also, God made a new promise to us, a promise that we would have Gods law in our hearts so that no one would have to be taught anymore.

We have to find God individually, sure we can help them, but only to help themselves finding the way for them to reach God. We know that it isn't allways easy to believe and as such respect that, but heaven is inside.

We also see in the way it all works that it has to work the same way with our relation with them.

We could also, of course, pray for them. That they will "see the light".

It's not allways the right way to just face them and tell them "God exist". If we knew that then we wouldn't need faith. Faith is personal, not something we can force on anyone.

Jesus also said to those that got him judged; "God forgive them, cause they don't know what they are doing".
 
baumgarten said:
Christianity was dilute and formless at its inception. There was no unifying doctrine until the Council of Nicea. For the three hundred years prior to the Council, however, it was easy to make clear who was and wasn't a follower of Christ. Opinions varied during this early stage; some considered Jesus to be divine, others didn't. They were all Christians, however. They were all part of the same movement. That's what Christianity was. It wasn't a stone-carved set of beliefs, it was a movement with a common ground originating from the teachings of Jesus.
Click to expand...

you could not be more wrong. the people that didn't consider jesus to be divine still regarded themselves as Jews. The Arians, who didn't believe in the trinity considered themselves Jewish followers of Arius. Christians who believed in the divinity of Jesus sometimes called themselves christians, but were more often than not labeled that by outsiders. and after the council of Nicea, they were not all Christian any longer. The Arians were labeled heretics and were persecuted. Those who didn't consider jesus divine had to hide their beliefs or go back to some accepted form of mystical judaism. after the council of nicea, heretics could be positively identified and excluded from the religion. every single sect of christianity that now exists accepts the nicene creed except for Unitarian Universalists, and there has been much dispute over the centuries as to whether or not they are actually christians. their founder was burned at the stake by john calvin for heresy. so, i would argue that minor doctrinal differences or disputes about whether authority is derived directly from god or the church do not constitute true differences in matters of faith. the sects of christianity interpret the words of jesus in different ways, but must necessarily hold to one set of common doctrines. in order to be a follower of a church, you have to follow its rules. however, a lot of evangelical protestant denominations don't really have any kind of structure like that, they just read the bible and find whatever they want in it. they come up with elaborate and tenuous justifications for the persecution of gays or jews, the denial of birth control to women, the evil nature of abortion, the dangers presented by non-believers or people of other faiths, the corruption caused by watching television...etc. basically what i'm saying is that these people aren't christians, they're just assholes who read in between the lines of the bible and found justifuication in it for their own biases and presuppositions. they don't actually follow any rules or doctrines other than the ones that they think are acceptable. if it is possible to do that and remain christian, then how can you ever tell what christianity really is or really means? you can't. so i guess adherence to doctrine seems like kind of an important defining factor. it was so important in fact, that disputes over what made a person a christian and what didn't resulted in the uniform pronouncements of the council of Nicea all the way back in 325 ad.
 
charles cure said:
you could not be more wrong. the people that didn't consider jesus to be divine still regarded themselves as Jews. The Arians, who didn't believe in the trinity considered themselves Jewish followers of Arius. Christians who believed in the divinity of Jesus sometimes called themselves christians, but were more often than not labeled that by outsiders. and after the council of Nicea, they were not all Christian any longer. The Arians were labeled heretics and were persecuted. Those who didn't consider jesus divine had to hide their beliefs or go back to some accepted form of mystical judaism. after the council of nicea, heretics could be positively identified and excluded from the religion. every single sect of christianity that now exists accepts the nicene creed except for Unitarian Universalists, and there has been much dispute over the centuries as to whether or not they are actually christians. their founder was burned at the stake by john calvin for heresy. so, i would argue that minor doctrinal differences or disputes about whether authority is derived directly from god or the church do not constitute true differences in matters of faith. the sects of christianity interpret the words of jesus in different ways, but must necessarily hold to one set of common doctrines. in order to be a follower of a church, you have to follow its rules. however, a lot of evangelical protestant denominations don't really have any kind of structure like that, they just read the bible and find whatever they want in it. they come up with elaborate and tenuous justifications for the persecution of gays or jews, the denial of birth control to women, the evil nature of abortion, the dangers presented by non-believers or people of other faiths, the corruption caused by watching television...etc. basically what i'm saying is that these people aren't christians, they're just assholes who read in between the lines of the bible and found justifuication in it for their own biases and presuppositions. they don't actually follow any rules or doctrines other than the ones that they think are acceptable. if it is possible to do that and remain christian, then how can you ever tell what christianity really is or really means? you can't. so i guess adherence to doctrine seems like kind of an important defining factor. it was so important in fact, that disputes over what made a person a christian and what didn't resulted in the uniform pronouncements of the council of Nicea all the way back in 325 ad.
Click to expand...
It makes sense that there would be disputes in 325 AD (when Christianity really did need to be defined by a set of beliefs), but the religion has long been established by now. The second paragraph of my last post was really the more important one; I'd rather we discuss that, if you don't mind. I wanted to show how Christianity has taken on "a life of its own" separate from church doctrine, and you kind of just glazed over that.
 
baumgarten said:
It makes sense that there would be disputes in 325 AD (when Christianity really did need to be defined by a set of beliefs), but the religion has long been established by now. The second paragraph of my last post was really the more important one; I'd rather we discuss that, if you don't mind. I wanted to show how Christianity has taken on "a life of its own" separate from church doctrine, and you kind of just glazed over that.
Click to expand...

what you are describing in your second paragraph is not christianity "taking on a life of its own", its christianity devolving into pre-nicene chaos after the advent of protestantism. you can say whatever you want to about it, but the Council of Nicea was called to order so that the christian faith could be unified along one set of beliefs and doctrines. this is no longer the case, the only thing left uniting christians is a belief in the divinity of christ, and that is relatively meaningless if each one of them chooses to follow or emphasize different and contradictory aspects of his teaching.
 
What I described was the way that groups of people work in general, not any particular kind of chaos. At any rate, that's my answer to your question, though in retrospect it seems you were probably being rhetorical.
 
baumgarten said:
What I described was the way that groups of people work in general, not any particular kind of chaos. At any rate, that's my answer to your question, though in retrospect it seems you were probably being rhetorical.
Click to expand...

i mean, i think i understand your point of view there, i'm just saying that i think what christianity has going on right now is pretty much just a version of what was going on before the Council of Nicea established definitive criteria for the religion. maybe we should just agree to disagree on this point?
 
Yeah. I see where you're coming from as well, but I think it's normal. I agree to disagree if you will. :)
 
I have always felt that if you define "Christian" as "a follower and adherent of the techings of Jesus" then I have yet to meet a "real" Christian in my lifetime.

However, if you define "Christian" as "a follower and adherent of the doctrines of the early Christian fathers as codified at the Council of Nicea" then I don't think Jesus would be a Christian.
 
Interesting discussion!

Re: whether doctrine makes you a Christian, and "pre-Nicene chaos", I think it's important to keep in mind that before the proliferation of spin-off literature and pretenders, there was a single unifying factor: Christ's life and the event of his resurrection (1 John 4:1-3 and 1 Cor. 15:1-17). Without a sincere conviction of their reality, Jesus' disciples would have remained a minority Jewish sect with their own failed messiah - something that wasn't new to Judaism (cf. Acts 5:36). And what the resurrection and subsequent events meant, is what Paul and Jesus' first apostles had to explain and apply, and after their deaths these explanations and applications (i.e. gospels and epistles) had to be collected and compiled, to guard against heresy and unwarranted interpretations. Further out from the core beliefs (as taken up in the Apostles' Creed), there was enough room for disagreement, as long as it was done responsibly and could be reconciled with the faith (Romans 14:1;22-23). Some things people argue about today were considered finished and done with (Hebr. 6:1-2) and others were considered unprofitable, useless and contrary to the principle of love (1 Tim. 1:3-5; Titus 3:8-10). These are still the issues that tend to take on a life of their own and cause unnecessary divisions. Following certain doctrines does not make someone a Christian, but significantly deviating from them may definitely preclude someone from being recognizable as one.

charles cure said:
here's something i've always wondered about:

if you are a christian, and you are friends with someone who isn't a christian, how can you claim to have respect for their beliefs?

since being a christian means that you accept christ as your saviour and necessarily hold the view that anyone who does not do this is going to hell, isn't it your duty to try to convince everyone you love and care for to try to accept jesus so that they won't go to hell? isn't it true that if you actually believe in god and jesus, you must be deeply concerned that your friends will go to hell if they don't convert? if that is true, and you attempt to convert them, then how can you possibly maintain any type of respect for their belief? ...
Click to expand...
Like Cris's example shows, one's respect (or lack of it) for someone's beliefs does not have to have the last word. You can hold people in high regard even if you disapprove of their actions; it's even possible to admire the achievements of someone you despise. Societies as a general rule don't respect the beliefs of criminals, for instance, and it isn't always because these societies are particularly narrow-minded or intolerant. But by sending criminals to prison we are, in effect, imposing our beliefs on them, no matter how we justify it. I would argue that it's society's concern for the long-term health and survival of the greatest amount of people that forces it to take such action.

But as Christians, it's not in our authority to judge who goes to hell ("prison") - especially since we've been assured that we will be judged by the same measure by which we judge (i.e. are subject to the same Judge that judges everyone) - and the Christian's goal towards doing the greatest amount of good must be approached from that perspective. To borrow from Jesus' own analogy: we're supposed to be salt to the meat, not fire.

No matter what we believe it is that provides salvation, we cannot decide the outcome of any case where doubt remains. Salvation by Christ is per definition a gift from God, and no man's to dispense or withhold. A Christian's duty is not to convert (the Bible only speaks of conversion in the passive tense, although I agree you would not know this from many Christians' behaviour), but to "spread the good news of God's kingdom" so that people can decide for themselves to enter it. Manipulating people to accept this message (through fear or threat) will at best cause someone to believe insincerely in a badly distorted message. Even worse, that's the message resentful ex-believers and skeptics inevitably end up believing to be the true one. Since this has clearly been the result of over-zealous conversion tactics (and justifiably so), any Christian who really is deeply concerned about someone's fate will take great care to be a genuine and believable messenger, with everything that implies.

It only seems logical to me that to relay a message clearly means staying true to what the sender meant, and for a Christian that should mean remembering that Jesus did not force anyone to convert, but met them in the conditions he found them in. His words and actions compelled a choice: to believe and follow him (and by extension, follow him out of those circumstances if needs be), or to simply stay where they were when he met them (and be without him when he leaves). For a Christian to do any more or any less than that risks defeating the purpose of the message. In simple terms: Jesus wouldn't have convinced anyone of the reality of God's love if he tried beating it into them, and wouldn't have gotten a genuine response if he manipulated anyone into it.

Many of Jesus' parables measure the sincerity of a believer (who is himself an outsider) from the perspective of the people he comes into contact with (the Good Samaritan is perhaps the most familiar, but the parable of the Unmerciful Servant (Matt. 18) is equally relevant). So if you view the way a Christian treats a non-Christian as an indication of his personal reaction to God's grace, you will have a good idea of how God is seeing him.

I think letting someone choose their own reaction to your words shows both concern and respect; while saying or doing nothing out of fear of offending someone shows no concern, and keeping on talking and offending shows no respect.

Long post, I know...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top