Quote: As a group, Christians have throughout the past two thousand years used every conceivable means to convert all peoples and nations with whom they come into contact. Commonly, starting with the apostle Paul in the New Testament, they go out looking for people to convert. Jesus commanded it in the Great Commission passage so don't pretend not to know about this.
You are confusing very different things. What people have done in the name of Christianity is not the same as Christianity. The Great Commission is not the same as the Great Crusades. So that does not work. Informing people of what Christians think is good news is a far cry from killing those who won't accept it. So, my original contention stands. There is nothing inherently Christian about insisting on belief in God if by insist you mean force and that is what you have explicitly told us.. And there is very clear Biblical language regarding what to do about those who reject the Gospel and that is to leave them alone.
Quote: The sword and mass baptism was used across Europe and Russia. Similar means of military force were used in North and South America, Africa, and other lands colonized by Europeans in the last five centuries.
This is a misunderstanding of those events. Colonization by people described as Christian was not solely or even mostly for attaining converts. It was done for the same things that motivate all of mankind. Money and power. Again, you are confusing what some Christians have done in the past with Christian doctrine. And for all of the atrocities you can think of there have been similar atrocities 1) from other religions 2) against Christians and 3) not based on any religion at all.
Quote: Another means is to offer humanitarian help in poverty or disaster-stricken lands only if people accept Christian teachings. This is called "coming with bread in one hand and the Bible in the other."
Again, you are grossly misunderstanding this process. First of all, such efforts are mostly based on Christian sympathy and responding to Biblical commands to exercise it. They are also done as a form of witness. But giving food to the hungry in the name of God hardly includes insistence. You may also have failed to notice that all but the most evangelical protestant denominations have largely abandoned witnessing in their missionary work. By and large the catholic (small C) Church (large C) has mostly gotten out of the witnessing business.
Quote: There is also the innate hatred shown to any and everyone who does not submit to Christian beliefs.
That is an unsupportable stereotype.
Quote: If you do not accept that this is Christians insisting as a group that everyone believe in their God, then you are simply being thick-skulled and I do not take responsibility for your mental state.
Gosh. What will I do now that you have relinquished responsibility for my mental state?
But the whole problem may be with the word insist. What do you mean by it? I know many Christians who think their belief is warranted and rational and wish to share it with others because they feel it will benefit them. But they do not insist that anyone believe it. They will not abandon their beliefs but that is not the same as insisting that you accept them. So I still contend that the question is moot.
If the question where rephrased to ask should Christians be prepared to defend their faith, well that's easy. Yes, of course. But if there is some imperative "should" placed on the billions of different people who call themselves Christians because someone has unfairly stereotyped them then the answer is no, of course not.
Quote: Um, you are showing a distinct lack of social insight that I think is willful ignorance to some degree. So Christian leaders have major systematic telephone trees to tell their fellow believers HOW to vote in order to get their favourite guy into office.
Um, wouldn't some people call that a grass-roots movement? And even if a Christian leader did tell someone how to vote they don't have to do it. Christians vote the same way you do. And doesn't everyone vote to get their favorite person into office? Talk about lack of social insight. Don't unions, political parties, special interest groups, MoveOn.org, Now, Acorn, the NRA and EVERYONE else do the same thing? How can it be wrong just for Christians to become engaged in democracy?
Quote: They will use under-handed means to get their means if they think they can get away with it. They are by no means above lying. This is well-documented.
First, document it then. Second, prove that its a regional thing limited to the south. Third, even if these things happen, and they surely do, it still does not mean that a) they represent all Christians or b) that the same practices go on with non-Christians as well.
Quote: And when they have voted their man or woman into office, they will do what needs to be done to get laws made to teach creationism/ID in the science classroom.
First, this is how democracy works. If their guy wins the election and passes laws according to his promises, how is this wrong or undemocratic or somehow a Christian conspiracy. Isn't that how this country is supposed to work? What you are upset about is democracy not going your way. Your beef is with democracy, not its constituents.
Second, boy those shifty Christians are a formidable bunch when it comes to creationism laws. They've really made big changes down here in Dixie haven't they? All the state schools and colleges teach creationism down here don't they?
Quote: You claim a high level of education, yet you pretend not to know about these things. Something does not ring true. That is probably because it isn't true.
Well, you address my responses and we'll see won't we?
|
