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

[Jon Miller]

Hmm. I am sure that there are some nonChristians who I also think don't feel superior to another person because they happen to be right on some issue and that person happens to be wrong.

I would expect there to be some humanists too, not just religious.

If it was truly only Christians who did not feel superior in such a situation, I would take it as amazing evidence for the truthfulness of Christianity.

JM

[kentonio]

Hmm. I am sure that there are some nonChristians who I also think don't feel superior to another person because they happen to be right on some issue and that person happens to be wrong.

I would expect there to be some humanists too, not just religious.

There are people who don't feel smug about things, but those people are extremely rare. As you say they are not necessarily religious, or non-religious. Maybe you and Imran are actually 2 of those people, but it seems unlikely given that people humble enough to not feel vanity are unlikely to also feel the need to justify their own humility..

If it was truly only Christians who did not feel superior in such a situation, I would take it as amazing evidence for the truthfulness of Christianity.

Me too.

[Jon Miller]

I feel really bad about Christians often.

Including myself.

JM

[Imran Siddiqui]

Ken, I'd advise you to drop the conversation at this point. It seems like you're insisting we admit to feeling something that none of us can, in all honesty, say we feel.

It's very Alby like, to be honest. Saying all Christians have to believe X or they aren't Christians / making excuses, etc. Or is this some atheistic (though not true of all atheists) trend of categorizing Christians to make them easier to dislike?

To be honest, I don't understand the idea that knowing the truth leads immediately and necessarily to feeling morally superior to those who do not have the same truth. Do some believers feel that way? Of course. But it doesn't necessarily lead to that sort of feeling.

[DaShi]

Not necessarily. Morality (right action) can be differentiated from othodoxy (right thinking). Someone can be heterodox (other thinking) in thinking, yet follow the right action, and vice versa. The most obvious is, of course, the so-called "golden rule" - treat your neighbor as yourself (or, in Christian terms, Jesus's 2nd Commandment). I can hold up Gandhi as an example of right action but not fully correct thinking, and far more moral than many Christians who may have the right thinking, but not even close in right action. It helps that Christians believe that everyone has the spark of the divine within them and thus can work for God's good without even really knowing they are doing the will of the Creator.

Why did you not quote the part of my post that addressed your point directly?

[DaShi]

I do agree that Christians can believe whatever they want. Just because I face the Qibla during Salah doesn't make me any less of a Christian.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Why did you not quote the part of my post that addressed your point directly?

Because it doesn't. It still references morality as equivalent to orthodoxy, rather than right action. And fails to acknowledge that people can act right, but not believe right, which doesn't make them less moral.

[Jon Miller]

I do agree that Christians can believe whatever they want.

I don't quite believe that.

I would not call them Christian, but ~50% of Swedish Christians don't beleive in God.

I think you can be Christian and not believe in the traditional trinity doctrine.

JM

[Elok]

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.)?

[DaShi]

Because it doesn't. It still references morality as equivalent to orthodoxy, rather than right action. And fails to acknowledge that people can act right, but not believe right, which doesn't make them less moral.

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.

[DaShi]

I don't quite believe that.

I would not call them Christian, but ~50% of Swedish Christians don't beleive in God.

I think you can be Christian and not believe in the traditional trinity doctrine.

JM

Then where is the line on who is Christian and who isn't? How far can one deviate from the beliefs of their religion and still be considered a member?

[Kidlicious]

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.)?

Yep

[Jon Miller]

Then where is the line on who is Christian and who isn't? How far can one deviate from the beliefs of their religion and still be considered a member?

In general a Christian is someone who claims to follow Christ's example. They might think that the gospels are mostly myth and not believe in God, or believe in Hinduism too.

I personally would only call people Christians who believe that Christ lived and died and was ressurrected, that He taught what was in the gospels, and that God exists.

JM

[kentonio]

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.)?

Absolutely, however finding a Christian who actually follows that is like trying to find a sober virgin in Ibiza.

[DaShi]

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