Why do some Atheists say Christianity is harmful?

[InChrist]

In addition to my other post, I'd like to repost what I wrote earlier in this thread in response to your post here and your previous one.

According to Romans 10:8–13, whoever declares with their mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believes in their heart that God raised him from the dead will be saved. Not only that, but they are justified by the belief in their heart and the profession of their faith in Jesus, and they will not be put to shame. In fact, verse 13 plainly states, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." Furthermore, Ephesians 2:8–9 states, "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast." However, there is an apparent loophole in this seemingly hopeful promise, such as the implication that a person could lose their salvation and be eternally damned if they don't follow God's will.

I'm speaking of Matthew 7:21, which states, "Not everyone who says to me, "Lord, Lord," will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven," and the parable of the sheep and goats (Matthew 25:31–46). In this parable, the "sheep" were rewarded with eternal life for their good works of feeding the hungry, giving water to people who are thirsty, inviting in a stranger, clothing the needy, and visiting the sick or people in prison. However, Jesus lambasted the "goats" for failing to feed the hungry, quench the thirst of the thirsty, welcome strangers, clothe the needy, or pay visits to the ill or those in prison. Jesus cursed them and sent them to eternal damnation. As implied, the "goats" lacked the good works to be rewarded with eternal life, in spite of the fact that they were Christians who accepted Jesus as their lord and savior. Herein lies another inconsistent message in the Bible, in my opinion, as Romans 10:8–13 states that a person will be saved if they declare with their mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in their heart that God raised Jesus from the dead. Ephesians 2:8–9 also states, "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves; it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast." In my opinion, if someone gives you something as a gift but arbitrarily takes the gift away because you don't follow their rules, then it isn't a gift. I don't consider something a gift if the one who gave it to me could ruthlessly take it away if I don't obey them.

Years ago I was in a cult in which everyone was expected to think and believe the same. There was no room for questioning or differences. That is what makes authentic Christianity and the Bible so unique among religions. It’s a living word/work in progress and 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…

…And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, 12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the [e]edifying of the body of Christ, 13 till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; 14 that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, 15 but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head—Christ— 16 from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective working by which every part does its share, causes growth of the body for the edifying of itself in love. Ephesians 4:11-16

 

[InChrist]

Look, there are plenty of Christians who believe in the exact same bible as you, and they manage to understand that someone can be a Christian and then leave. So, I really am not sympathetic to your argument.

You don’t need to be sympathetic to my argument, just sharing what I believe the scriptures say concerning salvation. I realize there are other Christians who see it differently. I’m only accountable to God, not to others, nor them to me.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

You don’t need to be sympathetic to my argument, just sharing what I believe the scriptures say concerning salvation. I realize there are other Christians who see it differently. I’m only accountable to God, not to others, nor them to me.

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 belief that Christians never leave Christianity.

 

[McBell]

Certainly. a person who fully adheres to the Christian religion can change their mind. But Jesus said that one must be born again or born from above to enter the kingdom of heaven (John 3:-3-7) Someone who has had a spiritual new birth in Christ and received eternal life, cannot be unborn, anymore than someone who is physically alive can be unborn. I think it’s impossible.

Revelation 22:19

 

[RestlessSoul]

And it's only your opinion that it's their opinion unless you have proof.

 

[Heyo]

I don't think we will have a problem with the OP anymore. This is what I saw when I clicked on the profile of Melchizedek99:

View attachment 85588

The harder they come, the sooner they go.

 

[Aupmanyav]

hindus were persecuted by the portuguese in goa. 57 (hindus and muslims) who had converted to christianity (under coercion) and then had left christianity were burnt alive. persecution and destruction of temples was rampant in goa. Persecution of Hindus - Wikipedia

In Tripura, in 2000 the National Liberation Front of Tripura (NLFT) attacked a Hindu temple and killed a spiritual leader there. They are known to have forcefully converted Hindus to Christianity. Persecution of Hindus - Wikipedia

christians have coerced and killed hindus and tribals in the states of odisha, chhattisgarh and jharkhand, including the case of a swamy lakshamanananda (Murder of Lakshmanananda Saraswati - Wikipedia), a christian mob lynched two hindu monks in palghar, maharashtra (2020 Palghar mob lynching - Wikipedia).
note: the mob was christian but a partisan government of the day arested hindus for the attack. the case is being investigated.

 

[Aupmanyav]

christianity is harmful because it preaches exclusivity, and is scripturally obliged to convert people. it is predatory, and in the process does many unlawful things.
of course, what it did in the americas is known to every one.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Other Christians claim that salvation is unconditional (OSAS), and they quote a few scriptures they believe support their belief.

If that's real I suppose we can start a "screwed by OSAS" support group in Heaven. And it won't just be from getting stuck there even though we left. We'll need it because we'll be stuck with a lot of jealous, angry, spiteful Christians who will go out of their way to be mean to us.

 

[danieldemol]

I have never been so glad as I am today to be a member of the Baha'i Faith, and as TransmutingSoul said, there is only one Baha'i Faith.
I would never be a member of those other Baha'i groups because I would never ascribe to what I consider immoral.

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 restriction on any public homosexual acts or public admission of homosexuality or homosexual marriage only applies to members of the Baha'i Faith.

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;


'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)​

The Bahá’ís must remain non-partisan in all political affairs. In the distant future, however, when the majority of a country have become Bahá’ís then it will lead to the establishment of a Bahá’í State.

(19 April 1941)'
​

Source: https://www.bahai.org/library/autho...ages/19950427_001/19950427_001.xhtml?59532be8

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

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

The human body was created by God for penile–vaginal sex and the possibility of creating offspring, sex between a man and woman, since the primary purpose of sex is procreation.

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

People take what God created and use it for that which it was not created for, just for the sake of pleasure.

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.

That argument will not work. Baha'u'llah did not have to write that for us to know it.

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

The Bible concurs with the Baha'i Faith teachings regarding homosexuality.

The Bible clearly and explicitly condemns homosexuality as an immoral and unnatural sin (Leviticus 18:22; 20:13; Romans 1:26–27; 1 Corinthians 6:9).​

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

The question is, does the Bible condemn all anal sex, even if it does not involve homosexuality or coercion? Outside of marriage, all forms of sex, including anal sex, are sinful and immoral.​

Great, so let gays get married.

Your new age Baha'is want to roll that back and say that Baha'u'llah never said anything about it, nor did Baha'u'llah say it is acceptable. Pathetic.

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

No, you quote it.

Reversal of the burden of proof, you said Baha'u'llah says it so its on you to find the evidence in my view.

You do not know what Baha'u'llah said unless you can read Arabic, not that it matters, because we do know what the Bible says and that law is not going to abrogated by a bunch of new age Baha'is.

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

There are Baha'is who can read Arabic so they know what Baha'u'llah wrote. They are not your new age Baha'is. I don't wonder why.

Hah can you read arabic or are you just saying Baha'u'llah wrote things without even knowing?

I do not hate anyone but I do hate what I consider to be immoral behavior. As Jesus said, love the sinner but hate the sin.

Thats the problem, so much for, "He must so cleanse his heart that no remnant of either love or hate may linger therein, lest that love blindly incline him to error, or that hate repel him away from the truth." Your God counsels you to be free of blind hatred, shame you appear not to have learned in my view.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I meant people who actively want to change the political landscape to make it more like, say russia.

That's quite ironic, considering Russian political policies have a lot more in common with authoritarian christian conservatives then secular humanism.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

2 question:
1. what do you mean by "ideology" in this context?
2. how is it "harmful" to society?


I note several people have asked you the second question and you have posted in this thread since then.
However, you did not respond to any of the posts asking that question, let alone answered that question.

Why not? Could it perhaps be that it's just bluster and you can't actually explain or show how it is harmful?

 

[Twilight Hue]

There are no atheists in foxholes. Atheism only works if youre privileged, honestly. And then its only temporarily distractions too. As soon as youre aware of your mortality, pain and suffering, atheism seems depressing, meaningless.

I can tell you after two heart attacks , open heart surgery , there are definitely atheists in foxholes.

I had no need or desire to call out to any type of god in any way simply because I'm facing death. Life happened once, and it can happen again on its own naturally like this one did , and without any need nor requirement for any type of imaginary God(s).

I find the universe itself quite sufficient and capable in its own natural ways and means, that I'm not overall worried over it , unlike others who engage in the anthropomorphism of the natural forces at play although I suppose it's quite fun to have some kind of personality to look up to in order to make somebody feel more comfortable and at ease. when facing the unstoppable forces of nature and time.

 

[ChristineM]

We'll need it because we'll be stuck with a lot of jealous, angry, spiteful Christians who will go out of their way to be mean to us.

So heaven will be just like earth...

 

[viole]

Obviously not all Atheists claim this, most atheists dont really care about ones faith. However there are some atheists who claim Christianity is harmful as a religion. They tend to be more on the antitheist side.

My question is why? And how? How is christianity in any way form or shape harmful? Some say its because of the strict rules, but how is that bad? How are rules who lead to a better society bad?

And how is sexual purity exactly a bad thing? I dont see how Christianity can be harmful at all. So why do they claim it?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

It's not Christianity that harms. It's people's interpretations of the teachings of Christ and their actions based on those interpretations that are harmful.

I would argue that if the message permits such bad interpretations, the message is at fault.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I would argue that if the message permits such bad interpretations, the message is at fault.

The original message from Jesus, the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts that were written by people that supposedly witnessed this message, or the multiple translations of them?

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Is there any group you feel you can trust entirely? Just by them being a part of it?

Group identity is shallow and ultimately meaningless.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

I think Jesus is perfect example. I can't think of anyone better.

Exactly. Jesus is a prime example. He was the teacher. He complained his students didn't understand him and he wasn't even dead yet. He was a bad teacher.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

My point is online discourse is generally mostly dominated by leftist atheist types in my experience.

I'm not an atheist.