Why Attack Christianity?

[RevJP]

I was just wondering about reasons for what people do. I understand why Christians evangelize. Our faith tells us that we have an eternal soul and that the eternal dispensation of that soul is determined by what happens here on earth. Eternal life, living with the almighty God is based on our faith and acceptance of Him and failure to accept Him as Lord results in our eternal seperation from Him. The choice is clear, eternal glory, or eternal suffering.

So we are commanded to spread the Good news, to allow everyone to accept Christ, and we do so for the sake of their eternal soul, altruistic? Perhaps, but we do it out of love, His love working through us.

So what I am really wondering about is why non-believers need to attack our faith, or feel the need? narrowing it down a bit, why would a non-believer come to a Christianity discussion forum to denounce that faith, or try to persuade those there that their faith is wrong?

I'm really wondering at motivation. We understand the motivation of the Christian for spreading the Word of his/her faith, but what is the motivation for the non-beleiver to attack it? What do they gain or lose? What reward hinges upon them being successful or not at convincing someone to abandon their faith, or to turn away from considering adopting that faith?

If my faith is wrong, and there is no God, no heaven, no hell, what do I lose? In this life nothing, in eternity nothing? As a Christian I lose nothing. For the rabid non-beleiver however, the answer is quite different is it not? If their view is wrong and there is a God in heaven and a devil in hell, what do they lose?

So I'm wondering at why....

[MagusYanam]

In addition, if no one can describe how it works, how do they know it works? In many cases it might be just that the illness has run its natural course. And just what does it mean to bring a patient to a state of harmony with his/her environment? I understand (perhaps someone can correct me) that dissection of the human body was a taboo or was forbidden in ancient China, which would explain the mystical notions about mysterious energies circulating through conduits called "meridians".

Dissection, or autopsies of any sort, were frowned upon in China of old partly because of the attitude that human beings were sacrosanct. China has a long history of humanism, and this is certainly no exception. In the Judge Dee mysteries by Robert van Gulik (recommended reading for anyone who wishes to learn about Imperial Chinese culture), if Judge Dee wanted to have an autopsy performed for a criminal case, he had to have express permission from the victim's family. If he had reason to suspect that the family had something to hide, he needed proof positive in order to get around them. If the autopsy failed to reveal anything, Judge Dee would face a very severe punishment - in extreme cases, death.

Again, here, I'm going to have to refer to Healing and the Mind. Some doctors practicing TCM have reported that they have had patients come in with cancer or other diseases for which Western medicine has no cure, and the symptoms were drastically alleviated in most cases. In over half of one particular doctor's cases, the cancerous growth had been diminished or disappeared completely.

Also, anecdotal evidence doesn't really count for much. I know people who firmly believe that brandy can cure a common cold faster than just lying in bed drinking water (probably it just seems faster to him after the first swigs). I'd like to see rigorous studies validating acupuncture, so far I have seen none, although it has been claimed that electric stimulation of certain nerve endings--not acupuncture points--with special needles can have some effect. I don't want to put Bill Moyers down, but the media are not reliable in general because they are always under pressure to come up with a "good story" and something newsworthy, so it's common for them to stretch the facts.

I realise that it is not good policy to rely completely on anecdotal evidence, but it is just as unreasonable to dismiss it out-of-hand. Even so, if some good studies can be done on TCM, I'd very much like to see the results.

As regards Bill Moyers, he really is not under that much pressure to come up with a 'good story'. Healing and the Mind was a book and a series of documentaries, not really news reporting. Now is more issue-based than 'what happened?' reporting. If you've seen Washington Week in Review or other forum-style news programmes, you'll know what I'm talking about. Usually Moyers will have a guest or a panel with whom he will discuss one or two major topics or social issues. It is true that one should take what he says (as with any other journalist) with a grain of salt, all the same. But Moyers isn't under as much pressure to come up with news material as is, say, Jim Lehrer (who hosts a more headline-style news show).

[trencacloscas]

My point (including the jab at the Argentinians, no offence intended) was that "perfectly rational people", if they exist at all, are a small minority. Most of us believe in something we cannot "see", and don't realize that believing it to be true does not make it true. So it's not a matter of intelligence, it's just a human "frailty" if you will. And our intelligence plays tricks on us: we (atheists and theists alike) are equally human and fall for certain things not because we're stupid, but precisely because we are intelligent.

I, at least, never disputed this. Just curious about the examples you provided. I still don't consider alternative therapies necessarily superstition. Wrong theories, perhaps, but that's a different thing.

[gonkm]

I really have trouble believing that you actually believe this. I certainly don't believe this about myself. For instance, Mother Theresa seems to me to have done a lot more "good" than I. There are plenty of Christians I've met who seem to me to be at least as Godly or more than I.

What you believe is not of importance or relevance here, only that this is what i am. Your opinion of it is not important. So if your "jealous" (one option to why you would give me this kind of answer) because you arent a "good" person, well, life´s hard i guess.

But I do believe that "all have sinned and all fall short of the glory of God". I guess if you feel your some sort of exception, I can't expect you to change your mind about it.

No, as i am not religious, i can not have sinned. So i am without sin, sorry.

It has nothing to do with jealosy. It has to do with the fact that I have trouble believing someone is that unwilling to repent. I know I'm not perfect, and if you believe you are, God will be your judge, not me.

[gonkm]

Doesn't it strike you as truth that relying on the goodness of someone else (someone perfectly good) is the only way you can ever be trully good?

That's completely false. That is a weak way of thinking. The only way you could ever be "truly good" is by being strong and confident yourself. The only way you can be "truly good" is by being good for the sake of being good and not for any other reason. Being truly good is being good because you enjoy it and it feels right.

Actually it is a strong way of thinking. It takes a lot of strength to rely on someone else rather than man made standards of "goodness". I struggle with it every day. It was a lot easier when I compared myself with others and thought I was "good enough". Moral relativism is always an easy way out. If I make up my own definitions of what is good, I can always succeed at fulfilling them.

[LillSnopp]

It has nothing to do with jealosy. It has to do with the fact that I have trouble believing someone is that unwilling to repent.(1) I know I'm not perfect, and if you believe you are, (2)God will be your judge, not me.

1. Interesting, because you are not perfect, you refuse to accept that anyone else is this. Im sorry to hurt your feelings, but i am a good person, and i do not need to repent anything im not, you may do this if you wish, as you already stated that you are not a good person, but i am, so please, dont accuse others because you cant handle the fact that others might be better people then you.

2. That is the thing, isn't it, as No God exist, i will not be Judge by anyone. I will live i peaceful happy life, and enjoy it without being oppressed by a none-existent God. Perhaps you should try the same, it could be liberating for you.

[harvey1]

That is the thing, isn't it, as No God exist, i will not be Judge by anyone. I will live i peaceful happy life, and enjoy it without being oppressed by a none-existent God. Perhaps you should try the same, it could be liberating for you.

How do you know that no God exists? Just curious.

[LillSnopp]

How do you know that no God exists? Just curious.

Lets put it like this, to make it easy for you: You do not believe (a sane person that is) in things you can not logically explain. We did once (if you would accept that the Earth is more then 6000 years, which i assume you dont). So we dont need to prove anything, as there is lack of anything to confirm (your god).

But this is the problem of course, coz, you gota have faith, right ? Strangely enough, Christians do not believe in Santa Claus or the Fairy Godmother, not to mention the green fluffy elves, even when its more proof of them, then any God.


But ignorants refuse to accept all this of course.



But this is only general, i can say that no god exist, because i am an Illuminati.

[harvey1]

Lets put it like this, to make it easy for you: You do not believe (a sane person that is) in things you can not logically explain. We did once (if you would accept that the Earth is more then 6000 years, which i assume you dont). So we dont need to prove anything, as there is lack of anything to confirm (your god).

So, just for clarity, you aren't saying that "no God exists" is an assertion you can prove, right? Rather, it seems you are saying "God exists" is not a provable assertion, is that right?

But ignorants refuse to accept all this of course.

I can insult you back if you like (or match the level of your rhetoric), but will that make your argument or my argument any more compelling?

[LillSnopp]

So, just for clarity, you aren't saying that "no God exists" is an assertion you can prove, right? Rather, it seems you are saying "God exists" is not a provable assertion, is that right?

No, i was talking for the masses.


I know no God exist because I am an Illuminati, You on the other hand, is an ignorant, not much can be done about this, im sorry.

[gonkm]

So, just for clarity, you aren't saying that "no God exists" is an assertion you can prove, right? Rather, it seems you are saying "God exists" is not a provable assertion, is that right?

No, i was talking for the masses.


I know no God exist because I am an Illuminati, You on the other hand, is an ignorant, not much can be done about this, im sorry.

Calling other people ignorant is a funny thing to do when what you choose believe is not based on anything other than yourself. I assume this is true from what you've been saying. If you choose to worship yourself and your own ideas, don't expect others to follow in suite.

Belief in a loving God is a challange for anyone, and I understand that it is difficult for those not accustomed to it. But if you turn back from your thinking Jesus says that he will not turn those who come to him away.

I'll be praying for you.