The Image Christians Have of People

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

The 2nd amendment is based on the right to self defense and states protection against the power of the federal government.

Some of those countries that aren’t allowed to have guns also live under oppressive governments.

It’s cute you think a government with nukes are scared of people with guns.

 

[Colt]

It’s cute you think a government with nukes are scared of people with guns.

Governments don’t tend to nuke themselves.

 

[Jagella]

No one is perfect and everyone is a sinner, however some are better than others.

Good and evil in people is more like a volume control than a power switch. It is a continuum between two extremes rather than the two extremes only. So almost any person has both good and bad in her or him. Ted Bundy, for example, I think would have helped a stranger on the street who had fallen.

Some people recognize their limitations and make an effort to be decent human being regardless of any imperfections they were born with. Every day we see people do incredible things, heroic even. There is still a lot of good in this world.

I've pointed out this same fact to some Christians only to have them ignore it or tell me I'm wrong. It seems like they want to believe people are "desperately wicked...and that every imagination of the thoughts of (their hearts) was only evil continually."

Others, blinded by greed and a thirst for power, will go to any lengths to obtain what they perceive belongs to them at any price.

Like TV evangelists?

If that means destroying other people's lives and the planet itself, that doesn't bother them.

Like those on Fox News who deny climate change?

The type of language I would like to use to describe such people is not allowed on RF, but you get the idea.

You may wish to call them reprobates. That's what they call unbelievers.

In the end, we all make choices. I still believe there is more good than bad in people, but the bad is impossible to ignore.

If you enter a room full of ten people nine of whom treat you well while one is rude to you, which one of them will you be thinking about when you leave? We tend to focus on what's bad in people because it represents a potential threat that requires our attention if we wish to survive. This "evolutionary survival mechanism" partly explains the sour outlook Christians have on humanity.

 

[Jagella]

I think there is some wisdom in the Christian teaching that we are all sinners.

The problem with categorizing all people as sinners is that "sin" is essentially innate human behavior. So when we are said to sin we are just acting like the people we are, and, of course, we can't act any other way. So there's no way out of sin for us; it's an idea that traps us.

It keeps those striving to be good humble, focused on constant self-improvement, always trying to be better and remembering that they aren't as good as they could be.

That's fine as long as people think they could be better. If we think we're doing the best we can, then we should be proud of our accomplishments.

At the same time, I don't think it's healthy to label genuinely decent people like Mr. Rogers or Mahatma Gandhi "sinners." I understand the general point that even they were human and had their shortcomings, but come on, for being human they were pretty impressive in how good they were. Their legacies have almost become synonymous with goodness itself in common parlance.

You categorize Mr. Rogers with Mahatma Gandhi? But you are right; both men were good men, and whatever evil they may have done is trivial compared to the good they did.

Personally, I don't think that goodness is some unachievable standard. I think it is a choice. Granted, sacrificing one's own happiness for the greater good is usually quite miserable. I think it's very hard to be a genuinely good person and still be happy, because that seems to suggest that you aren't sacrificing as much as you can for others, but it's still a choice that you can realistically make even if it sucks.

I agree! I've told people that happiness is not my top priority; my top priority is being the kind of man I think I should be. Who in their right mind would envy the happiness of a drunken man lying in the gutter? And for that matter why should I envy the happiness of a Christian who shouts in the street that gays go to hell?

Passages like these end up just being another kick in the teeth to good people, while bad people are left completely unaffected since they are already content to be sinners.

I think the Psalmist was trying to find a reason to explain the attacks on Israel on the part of foreign powers. He couldn't blame God, of course, so he blamed the people of Israel instead. God allowed Israel to be conquered as a punishment for their sin, or so the Psalmist thought.

 

[paradox]

Idk, we have too many people on earth as it is. We could stand to lose. A billion. Or 3.

some scientists claim that count of people on earth should be reduced to golden 2 billion.

 

[The Hammer]

some scientists claim that count of people on earth should be reduced to golden 2 billion.

Neat

 

[Truth in love]

Considering that God likes slavery and genocide, I would not be so sure it is good we are in His image.

Ciao

- viole

It is quite the misrepresentation to say that God likes rather than God tolerated those things. The Bible is filled with his putting up with but not endorsing bad behavior.

 

[Jagella]

But we can to decide a deity has given us rules and subjectively pick which deity, and which rules to follow? That makes no sense, either we are capable of evaluating actions as to their moral rectitude or we cannot, if we can't then subjective religious claims don't help, since we would also be unable to evaluate their morality.

Yes, there's really no getting around subjective values and morals because there are no objective morals or values. Believing in God(s) is personal, and obeying the morality they demand is as much a preferred choice as obeying Confucius. Christian apologists bemoan subjective morality, but it generally works well. Thinking reasonably is usually preferable to blindly obeying a despot in the sky.

 

[rational experiences]

We are told we are made in the image of God which I suppose is good. However, our being made in God's image doesn't keep us people from being really bad. Christianity tells us that we are all sinners falling short of God's glory. We simply cannot be trusted to make our own moral decisions and should trust God to make those decisions for us. In fact, "if there is no God, then everything is permitted." And of course, we sinful people will do that which should not be permitted!

As we are told in Psalm 14:


Are we really that bad?

No man is God was a legal testimony.

After a theists review as a lord of trade invention rich king men had caused and sacrificed human life.

As earth in science rock is first. We have bones like God rock within which we give a secondary position in thinking.

Positions the heavens owns oxygenation biology blood cells by water oxygen garden microbe food.

Was just a teaching versus human rock nuclear dust theism.

As rich man versus rich man was lords in trade about man of sciences invention. Rich man founded church against the evil lords.

Theme rich man was once as a king just an everyday man first. Poor. But not really he should have quoted natural.

So poor rich man king a lord in trade got life sacrificed. Fought against his evil machine Satan brothers. Placated a new legal branch so governing was by the people for the people.

That type of rich man.

Seeing temples were science buildings first and not holy.

 

[viole]

It is quite the misrepresentation to say that God likes rather than God tolerated those things. The Bible is filled with his putting up with but not endorsing bad behavior.

You mean things like "Go and kill women and children" is putting up with bad behaviour?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Truth in love]

You mean things like "Go and kill women and children" is putting up with bad behaviour?

Ciao

- viole

Cleaning house is a bit different from genocide. Orders to wipe out a given city were given several times. A look at the behaviors in those cities which often Included the ritual killing of children it makes sense to ride the nation of the practice. If a body part is too ill amputation may be the best option.

 

[viole]

Cleaning house is a bit different from genocide. Orders to wipe out a given city were given several times. A look at the behaviors in those cities which often Included the ritual killing of children it makes sense to ride the nation of the practice. If a body part is too ill amputation may be the best option.

So, you call killing children "cleaning the house"?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Truth in love]

So, you call killing children "cleaning the house"?

Ciao

- viole

Maybe. You’ve got limited food and shelter. Many of them have been “infected”. It could be the best option.

 

[viole]

Maybe. You’ve got limited food and shelter. Many of them have been “infected”. It could be the best option.

Limited food and shelter? What about God providing food and shelter instead of ordering the elimination of infants?

Can you imagine a three days old infant to be "infected" in such a way that killing it would be the best option?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Truth in love]

Limited food and shelter? What about God providing food and shelter instead of ordering the elimination of infants?

Can you imagine a three days old infant to be "infected" in such a way that killing it would be the best option?

Ciao

- viole

3 days is a bit young to worry about that. However good supplies etc. we’re very limited throughout history. Yes we have the miracle of manna but that was short lived vs history.

I think another detail is the perspective of life. For a non believer death is the final end. To the believer death is another step. If a soccer player gets a red card it’s not that big of a deal as there are other games to be played.

 

[viole]

3 days is a bit young to worry about that. However good supplies etc. we’re very limited throughout history. Yes we have the miracle of manna but that was short lived vs history.

I think another detail is the perspective of life. For a non believer death is the final end. To the believer death is another step. If a soccer player gets a red card it’s not that big of a deal as there are other games to be played.

So, you are fine with, say, abortion?

Ciao

= viole

 

[Truth in love]

So, you are fine with, say, abortion?

Ciao

= viole

No.

Gods command to not kill can only changed by a command from God. Nearly all abortions are for personal whim.
True self defense would be an exception to the don’t kill command. “You annoy me…my career matters”. Etc are not.

 

[viole]

Gods command to not kill can only changed by a command from God.

So, when God commands to kill, it is not wrong to kill. If He commands to rape, it is not wrong to rape. And so on. Correct?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Truth in love]

So, when God commands to kill, it is not wrong to kill. If He commands to rape, it is not wrong to rape. And so on. Correct?

Ciao

- viole

What God commands is correct. I’ve yet to find him commanding rape, torture etc. commands to kill are there in limited circumstances.