Why do some Atheists say Christianity is harmful?

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Friendship, ever heard of normal Friendship between Men?

You rarely hear of two naked dudes sleeping together and it NOT being about gay dudes. Saul outright calls his own son a pervert. Even if David weren't gay, he was exploiting royal access by encouraging the gay love of the prince.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Ever asked yourself why conservative christians feel less and less welcome in western countries?

Ever asked yourself why it might be justified? If you stone someone, don't act surprised when people think you're just a stoner.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

i think its good he cares very much about traditional values

Genocide is a traditional value. They don't automatically become good values by being traditional. Stoning kids to death is also traditional. Bible's filled with immoral traditional values.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

way too liberal and permissive of evil

The bible thinks that eating shellfish is an abomination. I'm all about being not so permissive of evil. The catch is that I don't trust many people's labeling skills.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

And lgbtq ideology for example is very harmful to society, and as such not to be tolerated.

Let me get this straight: the left killed your grandpa in a war and your worldview lesson you take from this is that things should not be tolerated and should be actively fought against? Isn't that how your grandpa died?

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Oh, and i never had a problem with the antics of God in the Old Testament, like some people have. No quite the opposite. God there shows what he wants from Humanity, and what his Rules are, and He shows what happens to those who disobey Him.

So the fact God no longer punishes such things (apparently) means you should also cut those people some slack?

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Right, so genocide and slavery are just fine.

While complaining about the loss of his grandpa in a war. War is the ultimate "I don't tolerate **** from others", but he fails to see the irony.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Also, my atheist peers have no qualms with stealing small trinkets or things from other people if they think it is of little value. I don't have to worry about that so much around faithful Christians - because of the shared morals.

This is hogwash.

Social scientific research on the topic offers some intriguing results.

When researchers ask people to report on their own behaviors and attitudes, religious individuals claim to be more altruistic, compassionate, honest, civic, and charitable than nonreligious ones. Even among twins, more religious siblings describe themselves are being more generous.

But when we look at actual behavior, these differences are nowhere to be found.

Researchers have now looked at multiple aspects of moral conduct, from charitable giving and cheating on exams to helping strangers in need and cooperating with anonymous others.

In a classical experiment known as the “good Samaritan study,” researchers monitored who would stop to help an injured person lying in an alley. They found that religiosity played no role in helping behavior, even when participants were on their way to deliver a talk on the parable of the good Samaritan.

This finding has now been confirmed in numerous laboratory and field studies. Overall, the results are clear: No matter how we define morality, religious people do not behave more morally than atheists, although they often say (and likely believe) that they do.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

No, it’s not. It’s specifically about wolves in sheep’s clothing who claim to be following and serving Christ, but who are actually putting on a show while fleecing and harming Christians. Former Christians are not going to be trying to justify themselves to Jesus, are they?

Jesus got free room and board from wealthy patrons. He was fleecing them, right?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It's people's interpretations of the teachings of Christ and their actions based on those interpretations that are harmful.

Whats wrong with their interpretation of "
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them"?
It's not a problem with interpretation. The problem is the source content.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Whats wrong with their interpretation of "
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them"?
It's not a problem with interpretation. The problem is the source content.

Jesus wrote this in the Old Testament?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Also, my atheist peers have no qualms with stealing small trinkets or things from other people if they think it is of little value. I don't have to worry about that so much around faithful Christians - because of the shared morals.

Christians have often been the worst to me. They are saved, others aren't, they get forgiven so whatever, and add in the holier than thou attitudes and its no wonder some Christians are leaving the church and disassociating with it the point they don't call themselves Christians.
Christians also are potential threats when you're LGBT. They beat us, harass us, kill us, disown their kids and fight for legislation that denies us and relegates us to lower classes.
Christians also aren't the best when it comes to interacting with atheists.
Atheists I generally don't have to worry about. Largely and mostly, unlike swaths and swarms of Christians, they aren't out to antagonize me or make my life harder.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Jesus said this in the Old Testament?

Jesus is attached to the OT. He's either god or his son or both, but he definitely said he didn't come to change or lessen the Laws or Prophets and anyone who preaches going lax will be counted as among the least in the Kingdom. He also condemned "sexual immorality," which Paul affirms is same homophobic garbage, complete with other sexual things that properly are nothing more than mind your own damn business.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Jesus is attached to the OT. He's either god or his son or both, but he definitely said he didn't come to change or lessen the Laws or Prophets and anyone who preaches going lax will be counted as among the least in the Kingdom. He also condemned "sexual immorality," which Paul affirms is same homophobic garbage, complete with other sexual things that properly are nothing more than mind your own damn business.

I changed "said" to "wrote" in my post, but you were probably writing this at the time I did.

I won't debate you on this, because I have no horse in the race, and I'll be the first to admit that there are many problems with taking what is written in the Bible literally due to accuracy of accounts, mistranslations, and misinterpretations that continue to this day.

If you want to condemn a religion based on 2000+ year old views on homosexuality that may or may not have be advocated by Jesus, that's your prerogative.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

of course, what it did in the americas is known to every one.

Catholic clergy were some of the first to speak out against the cruel mistreatment of the native people:

Bartolomé de las Casas - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Protector of the Indians - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Sounds very christian to me. I know I'll never trust another Christian until they prove themselves worthy of my trust.

You shouldn't trust anyone until they have proven themselves trustworthy. There's no reason to treat people differently there.

 

[Trailblazer]

Lol, so because you believe that other Baha'i groups consider homosexuality to be moral (whether rightly or wrongly I don't know) you have decided that they don't exist even after you admitted in the other thread that they do. So not only are you deciding which group is true depending on which group confirms your bigotry against homosexuals, you are also prepared to contradict yourself by saying there is only one Baha'i Faith at the same time as reffering to "those other Baha'i groups" which looks to me like a lie in the first sentence mixed with truth in the second sentence.

The other Baha'i groups exist, but they are not under the Covenant of Baha'u'llah. My deciding factor is which group is under the Covenant of Baha'u'llah. Anyone can form a group and call themself a Baha'i group, but there is only one Baha'i Faith under the Covenant.

Thats only true for the present moment in time. The Haifa Universal House of Justice has said it will engage in politics when there is a Baha'i majority and establish a Baha'i state in my view;

That is all we have, the present time. Nobody knows what will happen in the future, it is all conjecture.

'The Bahá’ís will be called upon to assume the reins of government when they will come to constitute the majority of the population in a given country, and even then their participation in political affairs is bound to be limited in scope unless they obtain a similar majority in some other countries as well. (19 November 1939) Source: https://www.bahai.org/library/autho...ages/19950427_001/19950427_001.xhtml?59532be8

If the Bahá’ís are called upon to assume the reins of government when they will come to constitute the majority of the population, that is not imposing their religion on others.

It is irrelevant because your idol did not ban anal sex in my view.

It is not irrelevant that anal sex carries many health risks.

Baha'u'llah did ban anal sex.

49. QUESTION: Concerning the penalties for adultery, sodomy, and theft, and the degrees thereof. ANSWER: The determination of the degrees of these penalties rests with the House of Justice. Bahá'í Reference Library - The Kitáb-i-Aqdas, Pages 105-141

Find me where your idol Baha'u'llah says this as opposed to your bias putting words in your idol's mouth please.

Enter into wedlock, O people, that ye may bring forth one who will make mention of Me amid My servants. This is My bidding unto you; hold fast to it as an assistance to yourselves.
The Kitáb-i-Aqdas, p. 41

Last I checked, only a man and a woman can bring forth offspring.

People were not created in my view, but I can see that since you have assumed they are it would be difficult to convince you that your assumption is utterly unfounded.

You know full well what I mean. No, people were not created in a creationist sense, people evolved, but God had a hand in how humans evolved.

People ere not created for pleasure, not according to Baha'u'llah:

"Would that ye had the power to perceive the things your Lord, the All-Merciful, doth see—things that attest the excellence of your rank, that bear witness to the greatness of your worth, that proclaim the sublimity of your station! God grant that your desires and unmortified passions may not hinder you from that which hath been ordained for you." Gleanings, p. 317

"Suffer not the habitation wherein dwelleth My undying love for thee to be destroyed through the tyranny of covetous desires, and overcloud not the beauty of the heavenly Youth with the dust of self and passion. Clothe thyself with the essence of righteousness, and let thine heart be afraid of none except God." Gleanings, p. 323

Knowledge is justified true belief. Please justify that homosexuality (as opposed to promiscuos anal sex) is of net harm.

I don't have to justify that for you. It is against the laws of God and that is all that matters.
You are free to have your own opinion but you are not going to change my opinion. I go with God.

That is because the Bible was written by people who were ignorant of what moderns now know in my view.

What the moderns know has no bearing on what God revealed as immoral, throughout the ages.

Great, so let gays get married.

They can get married if it is legal where they live. Nobody is stopping them.

Are new age Baha'is another Baha'i group?

That refers to any Baha'i group that is not under the Covenant of Baha'u'llah.

You sound like you follow the Bible when it suits your bigotry and reject it when it doesn't in my view.

I follow it when it concurs with what Baha'u'llah revealed.

 

[InChrist]

Again, I'm not sympathetic to your argument that "just sharing what I believe the scriptures say ." All Christians "believe what the scriptures say" but they don't all share your believe that Christians never leave Christianity.

As I have said previously, the Bible a living word and a Christian is a work in progress (known as sanctification) and Christians can and do hold a variety of beliefs. God is not afraid or hindered by believers being at different places in their walk and understanding of the scriptures. Why should He be since He created each person unique and individual? Yet, ultimately all will grow into unity in Christ…Ephesians 4:11-16

Nevertheless, the scriptures are clear there are fake “Christians”…

“In the Church, the Judas Goat is the one who places themself above the needs of the flock. Their focus is on themselves, as they desire to be the focus of attention so that they may gain the ability to lead others, often in a legalistic, self-serving way. This person has no desire to be a servant or to be led, rather, they wish to teach others. If they are not in an official leadership position, the Judas Goat will often choose to be in contention with the true shepherd by plotting behind the scenes to achieve influence over the flock to eventually lead some astray.​

Scripture Warned of This​

Jesus, through the Apostle Peter, warned us of such goats: “There will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies” (2 Peter 2:1). The Apostle Paul warned, “See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ”(Colossians 2:8).”

​

The Deceit of the Judas Goat | Dr. David Bowen

Let’s join Dr. Dave Bowen in a deep dive into exploring the role of the Judas Goat in leading the Church to destruction!

christinprophecyblog.org

 

[InChrist]

Jesus got free room and board from wealthy patrons. He was fleecing them, right?

No more than you offering a meal or room to a homeless or traveling friend would be that person fleecing you. I see no account of Jesus accumulating wealth or possessions for Himself by taking from others.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Nevertheless, the scriptures are clear there are fake “Christians”…

You are switching the goal posts. The question is whether your New Testament supports the idea that Christians can lose their faith. The majority of Christians say yes. Since this view gels with reality, I suggest you give it serious consideration.