When is it okay to call someone a bigot or accuse them of hating?

[DinoDoc]

I can't be arsed to go back through the thread, but has anybody pointed out that Christianity, at least, has multiple injunctions against judging others' morals (Publican and Pharisee, planks and specks, measure for measure, etc., etc.)?

I highly doubt you'll find much in the way of theological agreement with moral relativism, Elok.

[Jon Miller]

Ah, so you mean christianity is a philosophy, not a religion.

Actually, for the atheist Christians in Sweden, I think that Christianity is a religion and not a philosophy.

I personally would only call people Christians for whome it is both a religion and a philosophy.

JM

[Imran Siddiqui]

Odd because it does exactly that. I specifically addressed the difference between individual actions and the orthodoxy of the church as a whole. The whole reason that I put it there was because I foresaw this line of reasoning. I guess you really can't alter fate.

As I pointed out, the code doesn't equate to "right action" on behalf of its adherants. Believing in a certain moral code does not wipe out the necessity for individuals to be viewed by their own actions - whether or not they believe or follow the moral code (esp when you are discussing this with, say, a Christian Universalist).

[DaShi]

I see. This avoids you having to commit to any real stance because you can pick and choose which one you want depending on how you're challenged. Logic be damned!

[DaShi]

As I pointed out, the code doesn't equate to "right action" on behalf of its adherants. Believing in a certain moral code does not wipe out the necessity for individuals to be viewed by their own actions - whether or not they believe or follow the moral code (esp when you are discussing this with, say, a Christian Universalist).

The whole purpose of a moral code is to determine what the right actions are. It's the same problem with your first post. You are ignoring what things actually are for some hazy fantasy of what you want them to be at the moment.

[DaShi]

You two both are the very definition of luke warm christians. No real commitment to the religion you claim to follow. Willing to pick and choose what you want to believe to fit whatever suits you at the moment.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The whole purpose of a moral code is to determine what the right actions are. It's the same problem with your first post. You are ignoring what things actually are for some hazy fantasy of what you want them to be at the moment.

The problem is that, once again, you are conflating right believe with right action. Someone can believe in a different moral code (say, Hinduism) and yet act more morally according to a Christian moral code (aka, Gandhi). A belief in a different moral code doesn't make them inferior.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You two both are the very definition of luke warm christians. No real commitment to the religion you claim to follow. Willing to pick and choose what you want to believe to fit whatever suits you at the moment.

Once again I see an atheist disappointed that actual Christians don't share their misguided views of what they think Christians should act like.

[kentonio]

It doesn't make them inferior but it has to make their beliefs inferior, else why aren't you a Hindu instead of a Christian?

[Jon Miller]

Even Christians who are not universalists still think that people should follow the directions that God gives them.

So for the ancient Jews this meant circumcision or abraham going to a far off land. To Christians today this means something else.

I personally think that Saturday is still the Sabbath, and we should keep it holy. I will try to convince other Christians of this. I do not think that all Sabbath keepers are following God better than all Sunday keepers. I think that the Sunday keepers, when they keep Sunday to follow God, are following God in keeping Sunday. Even though they have the day wrong.

Read some of Paul. He goes into this in more depth.

God isn't some machine that adds things up in a ledger, and has some 1000000 page lawbook that we must follow. He is a higher being. And following God is much more complicated, and simple, than that.

JM

[DaShi]

The problem is that, once again, you are conflating right believe with right action. Someone can believe in a different moral code (say, Hinduism) and yet act more morally according to a Christian moral code (aka, Gandhi). A belief in a different moral code doesn't make them inferior.

Now we are back to individuals vs religious orthodoxy. See the post you ignored. I covered this there. Please try to remove assumptions from your reasoning. Respond to what I actually post.

[DaShi]

Once again I see an atheist disappointed that actual Christians don't share their misguided views of what they think Christians should act like.

See above.

[DaShi]

Even Christians who are not universalists still think that people should follow the directions that God gives them.

So for the ancient Jews this meant circumcision or abraham going to a far off land. To Christians today this means something else.

I personally think that Saturday is still the Sabbath, and we should keep it holy. I will try to convince other Christians of this. I do not think that all Sabbath keepers are following God better than all Sunday keepers. I think that the Sunday keepers, when they keep Sunday to follow God, are following God in keeping Sunday. Even though they have the day wrong.

Read some of Paul. He goes into this in more depth.

God isn't some machine that adds things up in a ledger, and has some 1000000 page lawbook that we must follow. He is a higher being. And following God is much more complicated, and simple, than that.

JM

Exact definition of lukewarm christian. If you don't follow your church's beliefs then find another church that shares similar beliefs or start your own. I at least had the balls to renounce my association with the Church when my beliefs were no longer consistent with theirs.

[Imran Siddiqui]

It doesn't make them inferior but it has to make their beliefs inferior, else why aren't you a Hindu instead of a Christian?

I don't think their beliefs are completely true, no. I think they should accept Jesus Christ as Lord and King of the World and in denying that I think they are wrong and misguided. Saying that, I do believe that some of their ideas and beliefs flow from God's revelation and are good and useful and morally the practioners of the faith may be greater than I or practioners of my faith (for one, I think Western faiths have become far too focused on individualism and what is God doing from me - the Enlightenment gone too far as it were).

[Jon Miller]

It doesn't make them inferior but it has to make their beliefs inferior, else why aren't you a Hindu instead of a Christian?

I do think that other religions beliefs are not as right as Christianity.

Universalists might disagree.

I recently read a book "God is not one" by Prothero. Despite the fact that he is a very liberal profesor (I think moved from Christianity to agnosticism) he provides a short discussion of why the major religions of the world are not the same religion but different aspects of it.

That is why I actually don't view myself as theologically liberal. You will find many many Christians, who believe in God and even the ressurrection, who think that all modern religions are just aspects of the same one (the blind men feeling the tail, trunk, and leg of the elephant, for example).

I think that God can reach people through all modern religions, but that the most direct and best revelation that we have access to is Christ. And the continuing revelation to His church.

JM