Christians STILL burning witches

I have said it before and will say it again, a religion is defined by what its members do more than what its scriptures say.

So, regardless of what the Bible says about witches (and it's worth noting that Christians, whether they are right or wrong about this, do place more importance on the sections of the Bible that don't mention witches), Christianity is a function of what its adherents do. Such as burn witches - or such as countless acts of charity.

The same goes for Muslims, whether blowing up buildings or helping their neighbors.

The same goes for Hindus, whether they are oppressing outcastes and burning widows, or whether they are doing good things because that is the right thing to do.

I have no problem with calling these people Christian. They apparently have many beliefs in common with me. But that doesn't mean we act the same way.
 
Well firstly, you'll find stories like this in Hindu India too.

Secondly, as for Christian-Muslim comparisons, it's interesting to note that this is in Africa. Western Christians can dissociate themselves from this because of that. But I fail to see how Muslims can dissociate themselves from say what's happening in Saudi Arabia or Iran since those countries are meant to be the enlightened ones among Islamic countries anyway. However, I can see Turkish Muslims dissociating themselves from what's happening in those countries.

What it comes down to is not about whether countries are Christian or Muslim, but whether they are countries with secular cultures like US, EU and Turkey. Or not.
 
Secondly, as for Christian-Muslim comparisons, it's interesting to note that this is in Africa. Western Christians can dissociate themselves from this because of that. But I fail to see how Muslims can dissociate themselves from say what's happening in Saudi Arabia or Iran since those countries are meant to be the enlightened ones among Islamic countries anyway. However, I can see Turkish Muslims dissociating themselves from what's happening in those countries.

How about just letting individual people take responsibility for their own actions rather than burden all who live in close proximity?
 
I have said it before and will say it again, a religion is defined by what its members do more than what its scriptures say.

So, regardless of what the Bible says about witches (and it's worth noting that Christians, whether they are right or wrong about this, do place more importance on the sections of the Bible that don't mention witches), Christianity is a function of what its adherents do. Such as burn witches - or such as countless acts of charity.

The same goes for Muslims, whether blowing up buildings or helping their neighbors.

The same goes for Hindus, whether they are oppressing outcastes and burning widows, or whether they are doing good things because that is the right thing to do.

I have no problem with calling these people Christian. They apparently have many beliefs in common with me. But that doesn't mean we act the same way.

:goodjob: Totally agree with that. And I would like to add that the fact that such acts of barbarism are equally found amongst members of every faith and none, in every century, and pretty much all across the globe, is a sign that it's a trait commonly found in the human species, and not monopolized by a certain era, or group of people.
 
So all the declarations, all the apologia, all the cries of "Don't blame the Christianity of today! We've reformed!" comes to naught. The minute this meme-complex finds victims dumb enough to be receptive to its more pernicious effects, those effects are resurrected as if they had never gone.

You know very well that a small cross-section does not represent the whole populace. If you're looking to bash Christianity, this is wonderful trolling material. If you want to talk about what the hell is going on in Nigeria, then we might have a decent thread.
 
How about just letting individual people take responsibility for their own actions rather than burden all who live in close proximity?

That's the ideal!

I have said it before and will say it again, a religion is defined by what its members do more than what its scriptures say.

I disagree. Christianity is not about what its abherents practice. It's about what Christ has already done.
 
You know very well that a small cross-section does not represent the whole populace. If you're looking to bash Christianity, this is wonderful trolling material. If you want to talk about what the hell is going on in Nigeria, then we might have a decent thread.

You mean, like how the Muslims flying planes into building are a tiny cross-section?
 
Shall we get back to talking about Nigeria?
 
One Christian opens an orphanage to help children
the other trys to kill then as witches

/Sigh
 
*Yawn*, Another Christian bashing thread. I know where this is heading.

I'll side with many Christians here that just because someone says they are Christians doesn't make it so.

I just hope that it's clear and that most people have the reasoning skills that nearly all Christians are not like Fred Philps.
 
ah yes, the question of what makes a true christian? well, the fact of the matter is, anyone who believes that jesus christ as the son of god who died on a cross so that we may be forgiven of our sins and has life everlasting is a christian. nothing else matters. this is the one thing that unites all the various denominations and sects and cults of xtianity. the basic core beliefs such as the trinity, jesus being god and human, etc were laid down at the council of nicea. so are these people christians? well, if they believe in jesus, then they are.

no one is saying that the majority of christians are like this, and i personally think that christians have mellowed out over the centuries, having gotten most of their killing out of the way. islam is still young and violent. however, this just goes to show the danger of using the bible, as opposed to common sense, as your system of morals. people can cherry pick verses out of the bible all day, but anyone whose read it (and i have, multiple times fyi), knows that that it is a horrible book to get your morals from. the OT is atrocious. this also highlights the danger of christianity spreading to africa. as if a backward and superstitious continent needs even more problems.
 
Islam isn't that much younger than Christianity, but I don't think the total number of killings performed by all members of a religion combined have anything to do with how old the religion is.

See, this is what I mean by the last post. We tend to think in terms of us vs them, of clash of cultures/religions/civilisations, and imvho this is very dangerous.
 
Well firstly, you'll find stories like this in Hindu India too.

Secondly, as for Christian-Muslim comparisons, it's interesting to note that this is in Africa. Western Christians can dissociate themselves from this because of that. But I fail to see how Muslims can dissociate themselves from say what's happening in Saudi Arabia or Iran since those countries are meant to be the enlightened ones among Islamic countries anyway. However, I can see Turkish Muslims dissociating themselves from what's happening in those countries.

What it comes down to is not about whether countries are Christian or Muslim, but whether they are countries with secular cultures like US, EU and Turkey. Or not.

Really I don't think they are enlightened, my Imam definitely does not think so, and I don't know any muslims either who look up to these guys.

Man is this interesting Aneeshm takes a stab at both Christianity and Islam and yet Islam is still crap and Christianity isn't crap. I thought that people were intelligent here and frankly I don't see that very often because many of you stick to hating Islam because a minority of muslims act in a way you don't like.

The same thing goes for Christianity, these Nigerians aren't the models of pure Christianity and just because they invoke religion does not make what they say about their religion right. I challenge you all to open you're eyes and be willing to learn about both sides of the story and put away the hate for once.
 
Why is it so hard to admit that all books fall short in one way or another? To admit that there are things which are not their domain of expertise?

I don't mind saying that there are shortcomings in all books, my own included. It is but obvious that people writing so long ago did not have the benefit of our perspective and experience, and therefore will have made mistakes.

Why do people find it so hard to say, "Yes, my $HOLY_BOOK has some stupid and frankly abhorrent stuff in it, but I disagree, and no, it's not 'symbolic' or anything, it's just plain wrong", and move on?
 
Top Bottom