Why are many extreme Christians so nasty?

[Vinayaka]

I think its a great difficulty when those we open up and allow to become close to us betray our trust

Indeed. I've never experienced that other than second hand or through a vivid imagination. The chap I mentioned was a colleague at work (teacher) and the very idea that he was in a position of trust was rather offputting, but it didn't affect me personally. He stole money from the school, and I kept a protective father's eye on his students.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Indeed. I've never experienced that other than second hand or through a vivid imagination. The chap I mentioned was a colleague at work (teacher) and the very idea that he was in a position of trust was rather offputting, but it didn't affect me personally. He stole money from the school, and I kept a protective father's eye on his students.

One of my workmates was the chairman of the Board of trustees at her children's school. The treasurer for many years was misappropriating thousands of dollars over many years - $30,000 in total. Turned out she had a gambling addiction. It was very hard as she had volunteered so much of her time and in good faith co signed many cheques.

 

[djhwoodwerks]

I don't need rules to know what's right and wrong.

You may not need them now, but there was a day you did, just like everyone else.

 

[djhwoodwerks]

I know there is no hell. That's how sure I am.

And what 'tangible' proof do you have for that statement? I'm not asking for your 'opinion', I asked for TANGIBLE proof!

 

[ADigitalArtist]

You may not need them now, but there was a day you did, just like everyone else.

As I said, one does not need any sort of religion to know what right and wrong is, nor have ever been exposed to one. Those who lack the ability or initiative to help rather than harm lack empathy, not religion. And empathy is an evolved trait, not a taught one.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

And what 'tangible' proof do you have for that statement? I'm not asking for your 'opinion', I asked for TANGIBLE proof!

Well, I have plenty of proof. Not that you would accept any or all of it as proof, you'd likely dismiss it and go about your business... but it is plenty enough for me. Here are a couple of things:

1. The Bible - it's a mess. Start at the beginning... God put two lights in the sky. It literally says "two lights" and is referring to the sun and the moon. Problem being, the moon isn't a light. In the "new moon" phase it doesn't even put off any light. This is only one piece of many proving that the Bible is nowhere near "perfect", that it was written by men who were ignorant of the facts in their time. Therefore, any "facts" written within its pages for which there is not "TANGIBLE proof" should be assumed garbage until proven otherwise.

2. The observable physical limitations of our universe do not allow for an entity or "energy" to continue on in activities forever without external energies being input. Here I am speaking about the human soul. By what agency does anyone propose that a piece of you is forever preserved without any refreshment of energies? Any and all "guesses" as to that agency are just that, guesses - "make believe". This is an immutable law of the universe we live in that we're talking about here. While not tangible, it sure exercises its power ALL THE TIME, throughout the entire universe. No souls... no need for Hell. Besides this, in order to explain Hell as existing on "some other plane" - as the excuse for why you can't detect or reach it on Earth - you have to postulate other universes, or other dimensions. There isn't even proof or evidence that universes or dimensions other than ours even exist. To then go on to speculate that one of these "possible" universes or dimensions contains Hell is rather ridiculous. "Not sure if they even exist... but Hell must be out there somewhere." Why?

3. Pick up any book on Greek Mythology. There you will find a collection of stories of all sorts of places - Mount Olympus, Hades, The River Styx, etc. If I were to sincerely ask any Christian where these places are, and press the matter as if I believed they existed somewhere on the globe or elsewhere, they would likely look at me dumbfounded - probably think I was crazy. And yet ask about "Hell"? Completely different reaction, and the "truth" of Hell somehow becomes more than fiction. Even though there still only exists descriptions of it IN A BOOK. Just like the Mythology. I can hold all the "evidence" of Hell in my hand, just as I can all of the "evidence" for Mount Olympus - I can also hold all of the evidence for "Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry" in my hand as well.

All of the above (and much, much more) is the proof that I have... and it will always win out over any "witness" or any tract of scripture. These things speak volumes more than all of the content of The Bible, or all of the hollow words of believers to me. Always have... always will.

 

[djhwoodwerks]

I don't need rules to know what's right and wrong.

As I said, one does not need any sort of religion to know what right and wrong is,

Actually, you said, "I don't need rules"!

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Actually, you said, "I don't need rules"!

Yes, I also said

People who can't distinguish between right and wrong don't lack religion, they lack empathy.

Both statements, you don't need rules nor religion to distinguish between right and wrong, are for the same reason stated above.

 

[djhwoodwerks]

1. The Bible - it's a mess.

That's your opinion!

God put two lights in the sky. It literally says "two lights" and is referring to the sun and the moon.

How do you know it is referring to the moon?

The observable physical limitations of our universe do not allow for an entity or "energy" to continue on in activities forever without external energies being input.

Explain the sun then!!

 

[djhwoodwerks]

Both statements, you don't need rules nor religion to distinguish between right and wrong, are for the same reason stated above.

Ahh, so when you were 5, 6 and 7 and maybe older, you understood the difference between right and wrong, and didn't need rules to teach you the difference?

You may not need them now, but there was a day you did, just like everyone else.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Ahh, so when you were 5, 6 and 7 and maybe older, you understood the difference between right and wrong, and didn't need rules to teach you the difference?

No, I didn't. All I knew was that there was a rule. Rules aren't self-justified. If you confused right and wrong with what someone tells you is right and wrong, then you might be an authoritarian.

 

[whirlingmerc]

I don't know why.... sometimes the impersonal ness of the internet brings out the worse in people

Some people are a bit reductionistic and don't listen well

As far as quoting the Bible literally... I think the Bible is not best taken in a wooden literal sense always... but should be taken in the sense of the literature and this practically means taking in the ordinary sense a listener might or the speaker intended..

The genre of the literature, case law, proverbial maxim, narrative, idiomatic, song, prose, poetry, apocalyptic... all should be considered

 

[metis]

I don't know why.... sometimes the impersonal ness of the internet brings out the worse in people

Ain't that the truth.

Going way back when I was on the AOL religious message boards, the single nastiest person I've ever encountered on any boards was, believe it or not, a Buddhist monk out in California. One day I got p.m.ed by a guy who actually had been doing meditation at where the monk taught, and he was perplexed as to how nice he was there versus how nasty he was on the boards.

 

[Jensen]

Ain't that the truth.

Going way back when I was on the AOL religious message boards, the single nastiest person I've ever encountered on any boards was, believe it or not, a Buddhist monk out in California. One day I got p.m.ed by a guy who actually had been doing meditation at where the monk taught, and he was perplexed as to how nice he was there versus how nasty he was on the boards.

Maybe being the best monk he could be was hard to keep up and he needed an outlet for his frustrations, and the boards gave him that, as it does for many, just a thought.

 

[djhwoodwerks]

Ain't that the truth.

Going way back when I was on the AOL religious message boards, the single nastiest person I've ever encountered on any boards was, believe it or not, a Buddhist monk out in California. One day I got p.m.ed by a guy who actually had been doing meditation at where the monk taught, and he was perplexed as to how nice he was there versus how nasty he was on the boards.

I believe that's why most male watchtower members are so nasty, because they are stripped of their manhood by the org, and forums are the only place they can let off steam without anyone knowing who they are.

 

[metis]

Maybe being the best monk he could be was hard to keep up and he needed an outlet for his frustrations, and the boards gave him that, as it does for many, just a thought.

Ya, that's what both the gentleman who knew him and I agreed was most likely to be the case. Hey, I think each of us at times have been in frustrating circumstances, and we each tend to react in our own way, so I was willing to cut the monk some slack.

 

[metis]

I believe that's why most male watchtower members are so nasty, because they are stripped of their manhood by the org, and forums are the only place they can let off steam without anyone knowing who they are.

I'm not going that far but neither am I going to discount what you're saying.

A large part of the JW approach is their being taught what sometimes is called "theological karate", namely a willingness to tell people their wrong through argumentation and magazines/books to try and convert them. If you belong to the "wrong" religion or "wrong" denomination, then you're a possible victim of their assault. But they see it as they are trying the "save" you, and they're certainly not the only ones who do this. Some religions and denominations find this approach unethical because it stands the chance of stripping away what belief in God people do have, thus possibly leaving them with nothing.

 

[pearl]

As far as quoting the Bible literally... I think the Bible is not best taken in a wooden literal sense always... but should be taken in the sense of the literature and this practically means taking in the ordinary sense a listener might or the speaker intended..

The genre of the literature, case law, proverbial maxim, narrative, idiomatic, song, prose, poetry, apocalyptic... all should be considered

The Bible has always been a stumbling block. Either we abandon it altogether, dismiss it as totally irrelevant or we cherry pic, etc. Bible thumpers get really upset when its pointed out that Moses was not the author of the entire Pentateuch, that its a collection of various traditions collected, that the Creation myth and the Ten Commandments were not original but taken from other cultures and adapted.

 

[atpollard]

QFT.
(... but not just you, all of us.)
Jesus saves (we don't), so those beating anyone up didn't understand the message.

Sorry... I don't much understand any of this. You quoted only part of my post "for truth" - the part about God not being in my heart - then stated "but not just you, all of us." Was this saying God is not in anyone's heart? Then you went on to say "Jesus saves (we don't)" - is this saying that you believe that God isn't in people's heart, but Jesus is? That Jesus saves, but believers don't? And then on top of all of that, you follow up with "so those beating anyone up didn't understand the message." Who is beating who up? Atheists beating up Christians? And is the beating up part what's on their heart instead of Jesus, and that's why they can't understand the message? 'Cause they need to stop beating people up?

I'm just completely confused, and I fear that you will be unable to adequately clarify. If all of this is religious vernacular, or Jesus tech-talk, it will probably simply remain lost on me forever. Which is fine... in the end it isn't going to matter. It just seemed like you were trying to tell me something. This reminds me of that moment from Finding Nemo just after the dad fish got an earful of surfer-dude speak from the young turtle: "It's like he's trying to speak to me, I know it!"

I'll give a shot at explaining and try not to use any Jesus tech-talk. I probably owe you at least that.

You stated ...

I've already looked in my heart, believe me. There is no God there, nor does there need to be.

... let's break this down:

point 1. GOD: A working definition is the all knowing, all powerful creator of everything.

point 2. You state that you went looking for GOD in your heart. You are looking in the wrong place. Any god (note the small 'g') that you can create from inside of you, will not be the GOD (see definition #1). Free Jesus tech-talk ... "idol" = any false 'god' that you create to worship in place of the real GOD.

point 3. You state that there is no GOD to be found in your heart. This was the part that I had 'QFT' and also the part to which I had intended to address the response "(... but not just you, all of us.)". GOD is not found by searching in any human heart, so you cannot find GOD by searching deep inside of you. I cannot find GOD by searching deep inside me. None of the other people you will or have met, in Church or on this site, found GOD by searching deep inside themselves. I promised to avoid Jesus tech-talk, so I will just mention that GOD says in his Bible that the human heart (all of them) is utterly corrupt and incapable of pleasing GOD or even wanting to seek after GOD. Thus GOD will never be found by searching deep inside of ourselves.

point 4. You stated "nor does there need to be." Nothing could be further from the truth. Yes, GOD absolutely does need to be in your heart, and to hear you say otherwise breaks my heart and makes me want to weep. I did not quote this, because this part was not true ... so no QFT. This leads to our problem and my next point.

point 5. I said "Jesus saves (we don't)". Let's strip out the tech-talk and try some straight talk. Once upon a time, GOD was not to be found in my heart. I needed GOD in my heart. There was nothing that anyone could do to place GOD in my heart. Only GOD had the power to do something about that. I can't explain how he does it, people have debated the details for more than 2 millennia. Let me offer an analogy that GOD uses and leave it to you to try and figure out what it means for yourself. GOD says He will pluck out your dead heart of stone, and give you a new, living beating heart. GOD says that your dead heart of stone was incapable of desiring to obey his rules. GOD says he will write his rules on this new heart, so you will not only be able to obey them, but want to obey them. GOD says he will place his spirit inside this new heart to teach and guide you and to guarantee that you will return safely to him in Heaven. No human being could do any of that for me, I can't do any of that for you, nobody else can do any of that for you. GOD is the only one who can perform a dead to living heart transplant. I hope that didn't have too much tech-talk or come across as "nasty" (as described in the OP title).

point 6. I said "those beating anyone up didn't understand the message.", which was directed to the title of the topic and the question about 'nasty' Christians. Since nobody (except GOD) changed my heart, or could have, and we Christians are powerless to ultimately change the heart of anyone else (only GOD can), it really is both pointless and counterproductive, most of the time, to bother arguing with people. There are no commands for Christians to punish any sin or sinner. We are to be ready to explain why we have hope in spite of our circumstances and to tell what GOD has done for us (especially if asked) and we are to correct when Christians say and do what is contrary to GOD's word (but with love and the goal to restore the errant Christian.)

So in summary:
God will not be found in your heart naturally, that is what Jesus came to make possible.
You do in fact need GOD in you, or you are more like a zombie than a man ... a dead man walking.
Only GOD can fix the problem.
Being nasty will not help.

Thank you for listening.
God Bless,
Arthur

 

[atpollard]

Creation myth and the Ten Commandments were not original but taken from other cultures and adapted.

While off topic, this is simply not true. Although commonly repeated, the differences between Genesis 1 and the creation myths of surrounding peoples are not edits of trivial details. You have missed the point that the author (God or Moses) deliberately started with the form used by the pagan neighbors and fired a monotheistic shot across the bow of all other local mythologies. The GOD of Genesis 1 emerges from the Sumerian/Babylonian creation myth saying ... NO, there are no Gods but God and here is how he really did each of the things your false idols claim. It is not merely a story of creation, but a refutation of the pagan creation stories, mythologies and pantheons. It is an astounding work of both literature and theology. It may also contain more scientific truth than should be expected for BC 4000+.

To say the creation myth was "taken from other cultures and adapted" is an oversimplification and literary drivel that should not go unchallenged.