Why Attack Christianity?

RevJP · Post by **RevJP** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 10:24 am

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....

Dilettante · Post by **Dilettante** » Wed Apr 20, 2005 6:32 pm

LillSnopp wrote:
He may also be using an...er...ostentatious word to mean "enlightened", as the "Brights" movement did.

Congratulation, nice to see that someone knows a bit of Latin. But if you feel that latin is "ostentatious", i guess you are equally impressed by English?

Quosque tandem abutere patienta nostra, LillSnopp...

LillSnopp · Post by **LillSnopp** » Wed Apr 20, 2005 7:31 pm

Quosque tandem abutere patienta nostra, LillSnopp...

If you dont like my opinions, sure enought, argue about it. I will continue to annoy you until you agree with me

Regnat Illuminatos

trencacloscas · Post by **trencacloscas** » Wed Apr 20, 2005 9:11 pm

Quam diu etiam furor iste tuus nos eludet?

On obscure Swedish bands: I kind of like Therion myself.

Yeah!!!

LillSnopp · Post by **LillSnopp** » Wed Apr 20, 2005 9:23 pm

Trencacloscas, I actually read the entire Oration. What do you think of it ?

On obscure Swedish bands: I kind of like Therion myself.

Never heard of them. But we have loads of bands that are not very popular at home, but huge in the States and Asia.

Arch · Post by **Arch** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 12:01 am

LillSnopp wrote:
He may also be using an...er...ostentatious word to mean "enlightened", as the "Brights" movement did.

Congratulation, nice to see that someone knows a bit of Latin. But if you feel that latin is "ostentatious", i guess you are equally impressed by English?

Like I said in my posts I hoped you were just saying that you were inteliigent or "Enlightened"

But hey these days you got to ask

Corvus · Post by **Corvus** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 1:01 am

LillSnopp wrote:
He may also be using an...er...ostentatious word to mean "enlightened", as the "Brights" movement did.

Congratulation, nice to see that someone knows a bit of Latin. But if you feel that latin is "ostentatious", i guess you are equally impressed by English?

Depends on the standard of English. I'm a big fan of the extravagance of Walter Pater, but I'm not at all impressed by your use of Latin, since you were communicating something quite commonplace with a fairly uncreative - and for some people, opaque - method. I identified the intent was to impress, inserted as it was, à propos(now I'm doing it) of nothing. The language by itself is not impressive unless used impressively. Saying "I know no God because I'm a really very clever person, which I can say in Latin" isn't a very convincing argument, no?

trencacloscas · Post by **trencacloscas** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 5:07 am

Trencacloscas, I actually read the entire Oration. What do you think of it ?

You mean the Oration against Catilina? I'm afraid I would only put topic answers forward. A masterpiece of Latin rhetoric. Guess the first sentences are always quoted when issues about patience arise

LillSnopp · Post by **LillSnopp** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 7:15 am

trencacloscas wrote:
Trencacloscas, I actually read the entire Oration. What do you think of it ?

You mean the Oration against Catilina? I'm afraid I would only put topic answers forward. A masterpiece of Latin rhetoric. Guess the first sentences are always quoted when issues about patience arise

Jupp.
I guess a masterpiece of English rhetoric would be one of Bushe´s speeches?