Why I Am Not A Christian

[Newby]

Frank-

You have to expect in a thread about 'why I am not a Christian' that non-christians will weigh in on their reasons.

As a non-christian, who is posting on this thread, I take exception to you saying that this thread is full of non-christians bashing Christians and Christianity.

If you want to be respected, be respectful. Quite a few of us have put time and thoughtful energy into this thread. Notice that too. Respect is a two way street and it is earned.

There's a vast difference between you, Sky, and the few others posting in this thread. You have been very respectful.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Frank-

You have to expect in a thread about 'why I am not a Christian' that non-christians will weigh in on their reasons.

As a non-christian, who is posting on this thread, I take exception to you saying that this thread is full of non-christians bashing Christians and Christianity.

If you want to be respected, be respectful. Quite a few of us have put time and thoughtful energy into this thread. Notice that too. Respect is a two way street and it is earned.

There's a vast difference between you, Sky, and the few others posting in this thread. You have been very respectful.

Thank you for the compliment. I don't notice a vast difference between myself and the other non-christians--except for Anguille. She gets a bit gnarly.

 

[Newby]

Frank-

You have to expect in a thread about 'why I am not a Christian' that non-christians will weigh in on their reasons.

As a non-christian, who is posting on this thread, I take exception to you saying that this thread is full of non-christians bashing Christians and Christianity.

If you want to be respected, be respectful. Quite a few of us have put time and thoughtful energy into this thread. Notice that too. Respect is a two way street and it is earned.

There's a vast difference between you, Sky, and the few others posting in this thread. You have been very respectful.

Thank you for the compliment. I don't notice a vast difference between myself and the other non-christians--except for Anguille. She gets a bit gnarly.

Well, while Madeline attempts to come off as having honest questions, as demonstrated by her last post, she is actually very dishonest.

 

[Frank]

Frank-

You have to expect in a thread about 'why I am not a Christian' that non-christians will weigh in on their reasons.

As a non-christian, who is posting on this thread, I take exception to you saying that this thread is full of non-christians bashing Christians and Christianity.

If you want to be respected, be respectful. Quite a few of us have put time and thoughtful energy into this thread. Notice that too. Respect is a two way street and it is earned.

I did not say "full of non-christians" because some do debate and discuss in a somewhat civilized manner. I should have been more clear that I was referring to this entire Religion Forum and not just this particular thread only. However, I have been careful not to use such words as "all" also because that is not the case.

 

[CurveLight]

With all due respect, Sky Dancer, I've found some of what Newby has written to be annoying and it seemed to me he meant it to be hurtful. But whatever -- you're right. There needs to be an elevation of this discussion by those who are capable of it. Enough mud-slinging.

Newby, you seem to believe that any non-christian in my life circumstance (raised christian in the US) has to have a residue of anger towards the religion and its followers. I truly do not think you are right, at least about me. I am outraged by the RCC's continued efforts to suppress news of the sex scandals, etc. but outrage is not anger.

Most times, I accept or reject a person based upon their acts. Since this is a message board, there are no acts, just words. I think entering a thread on "Why I Am Not A Christian" to announce that all non-believers are going to Hell is counter-productive and annoying. I'm not sure why a christian would post to this thread but it would seem to me that exemplifying the peace and better nature y'all keep claiming to have found might be a better use of your time.

All of us reading or posting here who have eliminated christianity from our lives have done so after thought and spiritual quests. No one did so just to aggravate our parents, etc. If you really wish to engage any of us in convo, then a tone of respect is necessary. If you just want to bash us for failing to believe as you do (or claim to) then it seems to me the first step should be asking yourself why you feel the need to do that at all.

You're like an unemployed Liberty University admission counselor.

 

[CurveLight]

With all due respect, Sky Dancer, I've found some of what Newby has written to be annoying and it seemed to me he meant it to be hurtful. But whatever -- you're right. There needs to be an elevation of this discussion by those who are capable of it. Enough mud-slinging.

Newby, you seem to believe that any non-christian in my life circumstance (raised christian in the US) has to have a residue of anger towards the religion and its followers. I truly do not think you are right, at least about me. I am outraged by the RCC's continued efforts to suppress news of the sex scandals, etc. but outrage is not anger.

Most times, I accept or reject a person based upon their acts. Since this is a message board, there are no acts, just words. I think entering a thread on "Why I Am Not A Christian" to announce that all non-believers are going to Hell is counter-productive and annoying. I'm not sure why a christian would post to this thread but it would seem to me that exemplifying the peace and better nature y'all keep claiming to have found might be a better use of your time.

All of us reading or posting here who have eliminated christianity from our lives have done so after thought and spiritual quests. No one did so just to aggravate our parents, etc. If you really wish to engage any of us in convo, then a tone of respect is necessary. If you just want to bash us for failing to believe as you do (or claim to) then it seems to me the first step should be asking yourself why you feel the need to do that at all.

"Stupid" and "sucker" are your words. But if people need a reward for being good, then it would seem they don't really believe in it for it's own sake.

Yes, those are my words...I ask the question because that is the impression you gave, as if Christianity is only for bizarre and delusional masochists (stupid) who are seeking after some mythical reward (sucker) ???


Do you think it is goodness that inspires you to diminish other people's faith?







>>

All of those things are possible without Christ. Christianity does not have a monopoly on goodness and personal growth. Some people actually change their ways and become better people WITHOUT the carrot of eternal life being dangled in front of them.

Since this topic of this thread is "Why I am not a Christian" I gave some of my reasons why I am not a Christian. If you or anyone wants to take that as a condemnation of Christianity, that says more about your way of interpreting what I had to say than what I actually said. One of the reasons that I don't post much in these soerts of threads is because of the thinskinnedness of many Christians who can't accept that their symbols means other things to non Christians and that non Christians are not bound by any law to accept doctrinaire Christian meanings of symbols. I honestly don't see the value in being a Christian if you can't learn from how others feel about being a non Christian in a Christian society.

It's not about Christianity, symbols, or anything else. It's about raggedy dishonest people like yourself who make bullshit claims then run and hide when you are shown wrong. You're fucking life parasites because you pretend to be sincere just long enough to sucker people in.

 

[Anguille]

Anguille, if you think renaming posters in an insulting way isn't bashing then what is?

Ummm, where do I claim not to have bashed ScurvyDelight? Of course renaming him is bashing him or insulting him. After repeated name calling from him I decided to indulge in a a little myself. I nornally don't bother bashing people, or calling them liars such as Booby has called me, it's doesn't seem worth the bother. But sometimes I like to give the trolls a little taste of their own medicine, especially when I come up with something amusing that I know I will get pos rep for it.

 

[Anguille]

Uh no, dear, I'm simply pointing out that you are NOT the victim here, much as you like to play otherwise.

Whatever you say, Church Lady.

I hope that you someday manage to lose the obvious bias that you have against people of faith, or maybe I should say 'christian faith' since I don't know your feelings on the others. The majority are very good people who are only trying to make sense of what life is all about and do their best to make their lives and the world a better place. Respect is the key.

I hope that someday you will learn to actually listen to what people are saying without jumping to the defensive and playing victim and rejecting everything they say as lies.

 

[Anguille]

The term "we cannot change our very nature without Christ" has one meaning for Christians and another for non-Christians. It implies that life cannot have meaning without Christ--a truism for Christians only.

Thanks. Now I have an idea of what is meant by that. Too bad it took a non Christian to have the sense to explain that.

I really don't think you needed it explained to you. But whatever, keep playing dumb, I'm not buying it.

You are either so ignorant that you think everyone in the world understands Christian theology or you are just playing the usual troll game of insinuating someone is a liar. Either way that makes you a less than worthwhile poster to debate with.

 

[Anguille]

With all due respect, Sky Dancer, I've found some of what Newby has written to be annoying and it seemed to me he meant it to be hurtful. But whatever -- you're right. There needs to be an elevation of this discussion by those who are capable of it. Enough mud-slinging.

Newby, you seem to believe that any non-christian in my life circumstance (raised christian in the US) has to have a residue of anger towards the religion and its followers. I truly do not think you are right, at least about me. I am outraged by the RCC's continued efforts to suppress news of the sex scandals, etc. but outrage is not anger.

Most times, I accept or reject a person based upon their acts. Since this is a message board, there are no acts, just words. I think entering a thread on "Why I Am Not A Christian" to announce that all non-believers are going to Hell is counter-productive and annoying. I'm not sure why a christian would post to this thread but it would seem to me that exemplifying the peace and better nature y'all keep claiming to have found might be a better use of your time.

All of us reading or posting here who have eliminated christianity from our lives have done so after thought and spiritual quests. No one did so just to aggravate our parents, etc. If you really wish to engage any of us in convo, then a tone of respect is necessary. If you just want to bash us for failing to believe as you do (or claim to) then it seems to me the first step should be asking yourself why you feel the need to do that at all.

Good post. I couldn't agree with the last sentance more.

 

[Anguille]

"Change our very nature" is a meaningless phrase to me. I'm not sure what quantity of change is being discussed; it seems to me this is circular. Christians believe their lives are without meaning unless they worship Christ. They cannot seem to accept that worship of Christ without belief is also meaningless.

This inability or unwillingness to recognize and honor the Divine in people who are not christian is one of the most damning aspects of the religion IMO.

'Change our very nature' would have a negative meaning for me as a Buddhist. All beings have Buddha nature. Why change that? We find the nature of all beings to be pure in essence.

Getting back to the topic, I thought about your explanation of why Christians only think they can change their nature with help from Christ and it occured to me that their understanding of changing human nature has something to do with their idea of original sin. That is another reason I could not be a Christian. I don't believe we are born sinful.

 

[Anguille]

Frank-

You have to expect in a thread about 'why I am not a Christian' that non-christians will weigh in on their reasons.

As a non-christian, who is posting on this thread, I take exception to you saying that this thread is full of non-christians bashing Christians and Christianity.

If you want to be respected, be respectful. Quite a few of us have put time and thoughtful energy into this thread. Notice that too. Respect is a two way street and it is earned.

There's a vast difference between you, Sky, and the few others posting in this thread. You have been very respectful.

Thank you for the compliment. I don't notice a vast difference between myself and the other non-christians--except for Anguille. She gets a bit gnarly.

"Gnarly" I thought you were calling for a moratorium on insults?

 

[Sky Dancer]

"Change our very nature" is a meaningless phrase to me. I'm not sure what quantity of change is being discussed; it seems to me this is circular. Christians believe their lives are without meaning unless they worship Christ. They cannot seem to accept that worship of Christ without belief is also meaningless.

This inability or unwillingness to recognize and honor the Divine in people who are not christian is one of the most damning aspects of the religion IMO.

'Change our very nature' would have a negative meaning for me as a Buddhist. All beings have Buddha nature. Why change that? We find the nature of all beings to be pure in essence.

Getting back to the topic, I thought about your explanation of why Christians only think they can change their nature with help from Christ and it occured to me that their understanding of changing human nature has something to do with their idea of original sin. That is another reason I could not be a Christian. I don't believe we are born sinful.

Interesting. I don't think we are born 'sinful' either. At the same time, we're not born enlightened. We have to take up a spiritual practice to clear away what obscures us from recognizing that true nature.

Of course, I speak from my bias as a Buddhist.

 

[Sky Dancer]

There's a vast difference between you, Sky, and the few others posting in this thread. You have been very respectful.

Thank you for the compliment. I don't notice a vast difference between myself and the other non-christians--except for Anguille. She gets a bit gnarly.

"Gnarly" I thought you were calling for a moratorium on insults?

LOL. It was the kindest way I could think of desribing some of your posts.

 

[Anguille]

'Change our very nature' would have a negative meaning for me as a Buddhist. All beings have Buddha nature. Why change that? We find the nature of all beings to be pure in essence.

Getting back to the topic, I thought about your explanation of why Christians only think they can change their nature with help from Christ and it occured to me that their understanding of changing human nature has something to do with their idea of original sin. That is another reason I could not be a Christian. I don't believe we are born sinful.

Interesting. I don't think we are born 'sinful' either. At the same time, we're not born enlightened. We have to take up a spiritual practice to clear away what obscures us from recognizing that true nature.

Of course, I speak from my bias as a Buddhist.

It seems to me that Buddhism has a more positive, perhaps even more loving view of humans than the Judeo Christian religions do.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Getting back to the topic, I thought about your explanation of why Christians only think they can change their nature with help from Christ and it occured to me that their understanding of changing human nature has something to do with their idea of original sin. That is another reason I could not be a Christian. I don't believe we are born sinful.

Interesting. I don't think we are born 'sinful' either. At the same time, we're not born enlightened. We have to take up a spiritual practice to clear away what obscures us from recognizing that true nature.

Of course, I speak from my bias as a Buddhist.

It seems to me that Buddhism has a more positive, perhaps even more loving view of humans than the Judeo Christian religions do.

There are certain aspects in Buddhism that are definately positive and friendlier toward human beings. For one thing, everything is impermanent. Even if you earn a hell realm in your next life the negative karma of being in hell will eventually be purified.

Christians have it easy in some respects. They have only one hell. Buddhists have 13, but ours are impermanent. There are heaven realms too, but they aren't to be aspired to. The heaven realms are impermanent and much harder lives to reach enlightenment in. The lifetime we all aspire to is the human realm for it's unique advantages for attaining enlightenment. The other fortunate and unique teaching to Buddhism are the teachings on emptiness. So, in one way, we talk about these realms as if they truly existed and in another way they can be thought of as states of mind.

All beings will one day be enlightened. We all have that potential, even the meekest or most vile creature on the earth has Buddha nature-essential purity. We just have to wake up and realize it.

 

[Madeline]

Newby, after reviewing your posts I agree...you never said all non-christians are going to hell. My apologies.

I agree, little babies are without sin. I don't think consciousness or personality begin to emerge before about a year and I don't think responsible choice is possible before about age six. And even then, it isn't until adulthood (over 21) that I would hold someone 100% responsible for their choices.

This belief that we all have shame and guilt seems unhelpful to me. We all have done things wrong, and should regret them, but I don't find shame or guilt to be positive emotions or ones that prompt change in people.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Madeline--

Since you acknowledge that having regret over misdeeds is useful, don't you consider the regret to be a necessary step in restoring a sense of wholeness to the person who has committed wrongs?

 

[Madeline]

I do acknowledge that Sky Dancer. I think not just regret, but real sorrow is called for if the misdeed is serious enough. But I don't think trying to make children feel shame or guilt is especially useful, nor do I think many adults benefit from a free-floating sense of guilt. Mostly, I think these emotions are destructive to people.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Toxic shame and guilt can be the basis of neurosis. I think that some families mix the teachings of their religion with their family dysfunction. I don't fault the religion itself. It's a misunderstanding that sometimes occurs since it is fallible human beings after all who are interpreting the teachings.