How has being a Christian made you a better person?

It prevents me from voting Democrat.

 

No it doesn't.
Plenty of Christians vote Democrat.
Maybe it's the steroids that do that.

 

How has being an atheist Jew made you a better person?



......just kidding.

- - - Updated - - -

How do you know if all you've ever been is a communist Chinese?

 

So that's the way you define "Christian"?

Is that how you judge ALL Christians or just SOME "Christians".

He left out Neo-Cons and Israelis.

 

how would a person recognize a classic example of ad hom?

 

Those aren't Christians.

"Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken." - Tyler Durden

 

What a terribly sad post.

 

That would only be a good trait, if it also prevented you from voting R. Otherwise it's a negative trait.

 

Hypocrites aren't christian either.
And now we've ruled out the majority of americans are christian. Something I could agree with.
At least not christians the way christ would want christians to be.

 

Very few will ever think they are not true scotsmen.

I guess.

 

Is not that you in your little avatar whatcha callit?

 

I need to get one thing straight before we move on here. Is this a "trash Christianity" thread proper, or just a "trash 'Christians'" thread.

I need to know because there are a few of them I would like to trash too before I start a thread on the economic and social advantages of becoming a "Jew".

 

it has released me from my hate. if Jesus could forgive those that crucified him, letting the guy that cut me off and flipped me the bird live doesn't take that much effort.

 

Close enough, but its not a photograph.

But see, the concept of "how could you know / you are wrong because you are a..........." what I was getting at.

You do understand that it doesnt make a lot of sense?

- - - Updated - - -

Buddhism teaches the same values there.

 

but that's not where i got it.

in related news, there has been rumor that Christ's missing years were spent in the east.

 

Is this in contrast to all those other people who are not perfect and who don't think they need to be forgiven for anything?

A very practical thief, liar, or murderer might laugh at the idea of "good for goodness sake". Sociopaths and con artists of all kinds make a mockery of it all the time, or at least they try.

There is a popular saying that "Anything you can get away with is legal."
Lots of people, probably most, live according to the "silver rule" which is "Do unto others as they do unto you."

They realize the practical necessity of making it clear to all others that they'd better think twice before they do something intentionally to them which might cause them some sort of pain or grief. The idea being that if they do, they may will get the same treatment in return.

This puts a damper on a lot of mischievous minds with the desire to ruin someone elses day. For as it has been pointed out earlier, there are many many people in the world who will not behave themselves in the absence of the threat of retribution if they misbehave. You don't happen to know of anyone like that do you?

Or do you think that it is "hypocritical" of the established human governments of the world to impose penalties on transgressors? Would you prefer that there be no such laws made or enforced which serve as deterrents to those who understand no other such language?

Perhaps you are the sort of person who doesn't care the least bit if someone steals from you or when they lie to you. Maybe you think that the appropriate response to anyone who punched your lights out or vandalized your property would be to say to him, "That's OK brother. Go your way in peace for I have forgiven you".

Something in the tone of your post here makes me doubt that you are. Do I not detect a tone of scorn for anyone who doesn't respect "good for goodness sake"? If so, that would imply that you feel a personal belief that such persons are worthy of condemnation, and with it some sort of punishment for the sorry state of their depraved minds, even if that desire is somewhat subdued.


I have heard the argument of "good for goodness sake" expressed many times before, but I have never heard a legitimate explanation as to what underlying universal rules should make the proposal binding on everyone equally or any compelling reason why they should even attempt to follow that rule in the absence of anyone else who is following it themselves.

You have to admit that the world is full of people who are very Machiavellian in their approach to securing a place for themselves and getting the things they want out of life. They are very pragmatic about the usefulness of any tool in obtaining these things, whether it be a gun, a club, a knife, or even a simple lie.

Believe it or not, there even exists at least one religion which I am aware of which codifies this attitude and sanctions the practice of it. I won't say which one now unless you press me because to do so would stray from the topic which I gather is an assault on Christianity and everyone who professes it by mouth regardless of how well they follow it.



Granted, there are many people who intuitively understand that their is an unwritten moral imperative to do good to others whether anything is written into man made laws to uphold it or not.

That is to say, most people instinctively recognize that certain behaviors can be classified as "good" and therefore worthy of praise and approval by all people objectively, while at the same time there are certain actions which are universally recognized as "bad" (or evil if you will) by at least as many people who admit to the "good".

They might argue that even if there are people in the world who will not behave, as THEY OUGHT TO, according to the preconceived notions of what is right and what is wrong as they are held by a majority, that nevertheless A MAJORITY of people still believe that there's a right and wrong, and therefore the minority of sociopaths and Machiavellian types opinions don't really count.

I would gather from your comments that you might even justify a Machiavellian sort of sociopathy so long as those who live according to those rules do not make any pretense of "righteousness" by claiming a place in heaven by virtue of having received forgiveness by God. For to do the latter, as I understand your way of looking at it, would make one a "self righteous hypocrite" which you would rate as the worst possible sin of all.

But if one is to agree with that proposal, then wouldn't that stance somewhat contradict the Machiavellian notion that all is fair in love and war? For is it not expedient at times for people to LIE or in some way deceive others in order to get their way about things?
And what should it matter if the practical part of this lie would be to claim that they are "Christian" in order to fool gullible souls into accepting without examination the claim and thus leave themselves wide open to further attack.

In other words, what would be worse about lying to someone by telling them (or pretending to be) that they were Christian in order to give the false impression of goodness and thus cause someone to lower their guard, and some other lie which is calculated to do the same thing without any reference to Christ at all?

Isn't one method of deception as valid as another as far as the practical utility of it goes?

So why pick on a Christian who DOES refrain from lying because of someone else who makes the claim of being Christian yet who tells lies and does other things contrary to the doctrines of Christ?


If you then insist that, well, telling lies is just a bad thing anyway regardless of the label that a person chooses to wear or what he tells others about himself even when it isn't true, then isn't lying as equally bad in one instance as it is in another?

If not, then explain why it is more grievous to lie in the name of Christ as to lie in any other context.
I am not saying it isn't. I am just asking you why you think that it should be. Is it because that you believe that the worst possible thing a person could be guilty of is hypocrisy?
If so, then why? How is it that you have developed a rating system which would make being a hypocrite worse than being a simple hypocrite?

If you can think of some rational to support this contention then how many other people would you need to agree with your system before it is assumed to be a part of the natural order of "good for goodness sake"?


We may both agree that hypocrisy is a bad thing just as lying is. Where we may differ is in the way in which we would attempt to establish a rational justification for these notions and other judgements of a moral nature which is independent of anyone's particular subjective take on the reality of it.

For in real life there may be many instances observe of real life occurrences in which the malfeasance of justice is so obvious that it would be offensive to most anyone. Simply put, sometime "good" (as we perceive it) comes to people who don't deserve it (as best as we can discern) and similarly sometimes "evil" or "bad" can happen to some people who do not deserve that either (as best as we can tell).

Something in cases such as these offends our sense of justice and we are hard pressed to rationalize the occurrence of it and still rationalize "good for goodness sake" when we can plainly see examples of evil people prospering by their "evil" and "good" people suffering on account of it.

A pragmatic sort of person my surmise that there really is no justice in the universe after all and decide that the best course of action would be to choose which ever methods he has available in order to achieve a desired outcome whether or not someone else may have decided within himself to do "good for goodness sake".

Whereas you may look upon that person as being a "bad" person for choosing that course, he may in turn look at you and call you a FOOL for not doing so.
In fact, that is precisely how the Machiavellian tribe views the Christian principle inherent in the maxim "Turn the other cheek" and "Do good to those who curse you and despitefully use you."

They cannot for the life of themselves understand how these principles can be practically applied in light of all the people who would simply seize upon the opportunity to abuse any person who claimed to adhere to that principle and who feared not accepting that abuse on the threat of being accused of hypocrisy.


I could likewise ask a person who believed in "good for goodness sake" how he would respond to the abuses of such a person.

I assume by your original statements that YOU are one of those people who believe in "good for goodness sake".

So I may ask you how YOU deal with people who would take advantage of your generous nature and hospitality.

If you are unwilling to accept such abuses from anyone who will not treat you with the respect that you demand, then how can you say that Christians are in error when they express the believe in the retribution of sins, since you yourself have allowed yourself the freedom in your philosophy to return evil for evil.

And if this is not true of you, that must mean that you are willing and able to endure all manner of abuse from anyone and still not retaliate in kind even if your philosophy would not go so far as to say "return good to them".

For you might consider one you would "return good for evil" a FOOL.

Then is the Machiavellian disciple not likewise justified in calling you a fool if you did and a hypocrite if you didn't?

Anything I could tell you about that would either be taken as boasting or a lie.

So I am content to let God and those who know me be the judge of that, which ever one may be most accurate in his appraisal.

 

Your reference to Buddhism leads me to believe that you are an oriental. That and your comments cause me to question whether you might also be a communist as well. For neither communism nor Buddhism as far as I am aware teach the existence of God.

For how could a communist, an atheist, or even a Buddhist make the judgement that being any of those could make him a better person if he knew little or nothing of Christianity to begin with?

Isn't that a little "self righteous".

I merely ask the question of how you could know much about "Christianity' if you WERE a communist/atheist.

I didn't commit myself to asserting that you were. On the contrary, I'm more inclined to think that this is just another instance of a Jewish Hasbarat misleading others as to his true identity in order to make a pitch for Buddhism. I happen to be aware of the fact that many "Jews" also call themselves Buddhists.
This puts the LIE to their claim that JUDAISM is ONLY a RELIGION.

 

Nonsense. He was in Illinois.

 

It was suppose to be how being christian made you better.
Then someone made it political by ruling out 1/2 the country. I just ruled out the other 1/2 because they'd be hypocrites. So it's not bashing christians, just those who think they are christian but are just hypocrites. It's more about bashing people who think one political party is better than the other.

 

I need to correct that statement to read "Anything I could tell you about that, you would think was either boasting or a lie.

I apologize for the error. I had to leave before I could proof read the post.
I decided to go ahead and post it anyway since I had already done so much so there are probably other typos as well.

Not that it matters given the lack of response. But I had to answer the OPs challenge.

 

We can all agree that hypocrisy is not a good character trait, even though there are many practitioners of it.

It should be pointed out for those who are unaccustomed to thinking too much about it, that hypocrisy is a quiality which is not limited to Christians, albeit there are many who fit that description.

The answer which I gave the OP was intended in part to reveal this fact.
The difficulty is in giving a complete explanation as to why this so in the terms which are easily understood and the least amount of space.

Since the reply I gave above IS littered with typos I will attempt to give a more condensed version of it so as to not tax the attention of the OP to the point where he is unable to give a counter reply.

Before I do, I will attempt to answer YOUR question from my own personal experience.

The changes I have underwent as the result of becoming a Christian have occurred slowly over a long period of time. The popular misconception given by the Carnival style "ministers" is that something like a revelation of "the Holy Spirit" overwhelms a person and presto chango he is suddenly transformed in some mystical way by supernatural forces. Hollywood has encouraged this false concept.

The reality of it is that when a person obeys the gospel a process of growth occurs which is brought on by study and a conscious effort to change in that direction. Old habits must be broken. Old ways must be discarded. And new ways and habits are acquired to supplant them which are more closely in line with the persons conception of what God's will for his life ought to be.

These concepts are derived from a study of scripture itself and what it has revealed to us about what is pleasing to God and what is not. Most people are aware of the basic principles so I need not reiterate except perhaps to remind you that they are all based on the love of the Lord (as hokey as that may sound to all the "swingers" out there) and the demonstration of the kind of love and understanding that we would wish others to show towards ourselves.


The personal benefits which I have derived from having chosen to live according to the pattern prescribed by God are numerous.

One is that I no longer suffer from the desire for things which I cannot obtain and really don't need in order to survive.

Therefore I suffer much less from envy than many people seem to.

I have given up many bad habits long ago, that had I continued in would have no doubt have led me to an early death.
I could give you real names of real people whom I knew, many of them personally who have already died as the result of those types of habits. I'm referring mainly to the use of various drugs, alcohol, and tobacco.

I could give you a rather long list of them but it shouldn't be necessary. Common sense ought to inform most people as to what types of substances they could ingest which would tend towards a healthy mind and body and which substances the body is not designed to run on.

The pursuit of fleeting pleasure and the desire to flee from the circumstances of reality lead many people to ignore the dangers which substance abuse poses.

They may look at other people who have become alcoholics or whose lives have been destroyed, yet it never dawn on them that such a fate should ever befall themselves. Somehow they believe that they are different in some way that will prevent them from suffering the same effects of those drugs.



Another way in which I have profited from Christianity is that I am no longer as easily fooled or as likely to be made a "Putz" for every predatory person who crosses my path.
I don't suffer from the chronic fear of man.


I no longer do things which could add to the weight my conscience bears already. When I do, I am quick to realize it and alter my course accordingly. I feel blessed in that events seem to happen in my life which causes me to "pay as I go" for every instance in which I am going against the will of God.

Another way to put this, is that I believe that when I begin to misbehave, fate has a way of lowering the boom on me so that I do not continue along that path.

THIS is perhaps the most SUPERNATURAL aspect of my "salvation" if you will. Notice that is does not include things like winning lotteries, finding Ms Right, or always making the most profitable decisions which lead to the acquisition of 'lucre'.
A person who decides to give himself over to God's will should not do so under the condition that God ought to deliver some material reward or anything like that as one might expect to get from calling a Genie out of a bottle or making a "pact with the devil".

Do you really think that obtaining salvation or gaining the assurance of eternal life ought to be received as one would a BRIBE?

And speaking of the carrot and the stick, if one was so convinced that God was such a tyrant in the first place, he might be averse to submitting to those terms internally such that any such submission would be in outward appearance only. I would liken this to a confession made under torture. The dungeon master might extract a confession or gain obedience, but I wouldn't call that a thing which would be obtained from a sincere and willing heart. Would you?

So it's certain that a "loving God" would not require such a thing and wouldn't be satisfied with it anyway. Obtaining such "devotion" would be easy enough. If that was all there was to it I suppose he could have as many servants as he wanted.

I doubt if he would want a bunch of "servants" who were there only to receive a bribe.

This kind of thing might please men of unsavory character but I doubt if a "just and righteous God" would be the least be happy with it.
What do you think?

So much for the carrot and stick theory.

So I can't say that becoming a Christian has made me rich (in dollars) or that it has made me any better looking, any more talented, or physically stronger.

But it has given me a goal worth striving towards, namely the life to come after this one passes.
You may call that only a hope. And I cannot deny that. But I can say that I now have enough assurance of that hope that it persuades me to stick to doing things which I believe will be pleasing to God and that he will reward me later for doing and to avoid doing anything which might jeopardize my chances of obtaining eternal peace.

I'm nowhere near the fool I once was. I am not "tossed about by every passing wind of doctrine".

Contrary to what some think, I am not as "self righteous" in these beliefs as they want to portray me.

The reason why, is that it has been revealed to me in no uncertain terms just how destitute I had become before having made the decision to undergo this transition.

As David said, "My sin is ever before me".

Therefore there is no way in which I could ever hold someone else up under the light of scrutiny and allow myself to feel puffed up about how "good I am".
This is a fact known only to me. Others can choose to believe what they want to about it. I know myself.

But I am not ashamed to admit the fact that the mistakes I made were grievous. Nor am I ashamed to admit that I was indeed in deed of forgiveness. Exactly how the once shed blood of Christ is able to do this or how the act of baptism can "wash away sins" I do not know.
I only know that I believe that it can and that I would be a greater fool than I've ever been if I refused it.

This is not to say that I grovel in the misery of my past mistakes 24 hours a day, or that the memory of them causes me to feel inferior to others who may not have done quite as much, because the truth is that all of these people are just as obliged to act according to the will of God as I am. It is their choice if they don't. But that makes them no less guilty for having neglected to.

In summery, I did not decided to follow Christ's ways for the sake of becoming rich or receiving any manner of earthly reward. A person reaps what they sew!
But I suffer far less than many people with the blight of jealous envy, and the kind of hateful spite that grows out of rivalry because I have confidence in something that is far superior to any of the things which men are prone to covet.
Call my hope false if you will. It works for me.

Becoming a Christian does not guarantee a person a life free of all pain and misfortune. Acceptance of that way of life is not a means of attaining personal "glory" or becoming a "winner" in this life as the world counts winning.

Indeed , we are told that we must each "Take up his own cross daily". The apostles were promised that they would suffer persecution, not the accolades of men.

This may be one of the major reasons why many people reject the message of Christ and the hope of his salvation, because it is not the kind of thing that they are looking for. They do not believe that God is a rewarder of those who seek him, because they only believe in the kinds of rewards that can be obtained in the flesh.
A Christian believes that there is a compelling reason to seek God. It is a home in heaven.

Call it a carrot if you please. But I believe that it is much greater than that, and especially greater than any carrot this world has to offer!

Where are you looking for YOUR carrot?

And WHOSE STICK do YOU FEAR the most, ..................man's ???

Is there anything of value in this life that you would be willing to give up in order to obtain eternal life?

If you believe that answering the call of God is only an abject attempt to receive a bribe or avoid punishment, then ask yourself why God makes no promises of things like wine, women, and song in this life by choosing him. In fact, a person must learn to put God BEFORE those things in order to be pleasing to him.
Are you willing to do that? Are you able?
Do you have the GUTS to accept that yoke and deny the world in the process?


Tell me.

What does this world have to offer in the way of a consolation prize if you turn down God's invitation?

And what hope does this world have to offer you anyway?

I at least have that if nothing else. And no one or any amount of spite can take it away. No man can stand between me and God's mercy, regardless of how little of it they have in themselves.

 

Can you paraphrase in 25 words or less?

 

The Jew part was an accident of birth. The atheist part you're putting the cart in front of the horse. Being a deep thinking person made me an atheist.

What I Want When Discussing Christianity

Them: I'm a Christian. You should be a Christian too.
Me: Have you thought about A, B, and C?
Them: Well here's what I think about that. And what's more D, E, & F.
Me: Those are interesting points. I hadn't thought about that. Let's talk about it.

What Actually Happens

Them: I'm a Christian. You should be a Christian too.
Me: Have you thought about A, B, and C?
Them: You're attacking me. I don't want to think about any of that. You're going to Hell to be tortured forever!
Me: That's all you have huh?
Them: Christians are being victimized! We should be able to tell everyone else what to think. And don't ask us questions!

See the difference?

- - - Updated - - -

So you don't think its possible for someone to forget life's little problems without Jesus huh?

 

I'll do it for you.
He wants to live forever.

 

My thread wasn't about discussing Christianity.
See the difference.
You are experiencing agenda based defensiveness.