Anonymous wrote:
If the beliefs of the "others" are ok, why does Christianity have so much emphasis on proselytizing and conversion?
Go to Ireland and discuss Protestants vs. Catholics.
Go to any middle eastern country and discuss Sunni vs. Shia.
Go to India/Pakistan and look at Hindus and Muslims.
Look at the other PP who classified Mormonism as a separate religion, when the Mormons consider themselves Christians (not sure what Jehov
Look at the evangelical Christians who make it clear that you're only going to Heaven if you have a personal relationship with God and accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior.
And if you think a lot Christians aren't praying for their football team to win over the other set of Christians on the other side of the field, you haven't spent nearly enough time in the South.
But my point re Christianity is that Jesus was very clear that God is the only judge, not man.
So people who are throwing bombs at each other, over religious differences no less, aren't actually behaving in a Christian way (it happens, a lot, obviously).
Their doctrine is too different from what the protestants or catholics teach, so none of them recognize them as Christians.Anonymous wrote:And Jehovah's Witnesses consider themselves Christians, too, but the PP considers them a separate religion.
Anonymous wrote:PP here. Yes, there were a lot of stereotypes in my post, but the point remains the same - religion is essentially tribal and creates an us vs them mentality - and it was intended to do so. While in many cases the us vs. them is a reflection of politics, it also plays out in the religion.
If the beliefs of the "others" are ok, why does Christianity have so much emphasis on proselytizing and conversion?
Go to Ireland and discuss Protestants vs. Catholics.
Go to any middle eastern country and discuss Sunni vs. Shia.
Go to India/Pakistan and look at Hindus and Muslims.
Look at the other PP who classified Mormonism as a separate religion, when the Mormons consider themselves Christians (not sure what Jehov
Look at the evangelical Christians who make it clear that you're only going to Heaven if you have a personal relationship with God and accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior.
And if you think a lot Christians aren't praying for their football team to win over the other set of Christians on the other side of the field, you haven't spent nearly enough time in the South.
Anonymous wrote:Jehovas Witnesses and Mormons are not mainstream Christian demoninations but separate religionsAnonymous wrote:
I do know a lot of protestants and this supposed looking down on idolatrous catholics is a myth. Sometimes cultish behavior exists, but is rare. The us vs them is not my experience. Pagan comes from Latin, which means a country side dweller. Christianity spread into the cities first.
Anonymous wrote:Pp, I do not understand, but you sound like a hillbilly preacher
Anonymous wrote:Jehovas Witnesses and Mormons are not mainstream Christian demoninations but separate religionsAnonymous wrote:It is not natural to think others are inferior or inherently bad. Religion is not nationalism, no real tribal divinity would not create inferior being who are inherently bad
Are you kidding? The essence of religion is tribalism and the creation of "us" and "them."
2/3 of the Abrahamic religions believe that if you don't believe "our way" you're not doing it right and you're not going to Heaven/Paradise.
When you get to the various Christian traditions, Christians call non-Christians heretics, pagans or infidels (with a lot of history of trying to drive the "infidels" out of the Holy Land).
In Luke 13:24, Jesus warns everyone to “Make every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to.” Jesus even says that many will try to enter it and “will not be able to.” So, according to the Bible, many will expect to go to heaven but Jesus says, in Matthew 7:23 “I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!'” If that's not exclusionary, I don't know what is.
Within the various Christian traditions you have the Protestants looking down on the idolatrous Catholics (and vice versa) and everyone looking down on the Mormons for, allegedly, not being Christians, and don't get me started on the way people feel about Jehovah's Witnesses. Then there are the "born again" Christians who think they have a monopoly on the "true faith" and that everyone else needs to be "saved."
Then there are those who expect God to choose "their side" in sporting events, praying for God to let them win over the "other side" despite the fact that the other side is probably Christian, too.
Christian sects are based on exclusionary, tribal principles, and those get applied in life and after death.
I do know a lot of protestants and this supposed looking down on idolatrous catholics is a myth. Sometimes cultish behavior exists, but is rare. The us vs them is not my experience. Pagan comes from Latin, which means a country side dweller. Christianity spread into the cities first.
Jehovas Witnesses and Mormons are not mainstream Christian demoninations but separate religionsAnonymous wrote:It is not natural to think others are inferior or inherently bad. Religion is not nationalism, no real tribal divinity would not create inferior being who are inherently bad
Are you kidding? The essence of religion is tribalism and the creation of "us" and "them."
2/3 of the Abrahamic religions believe that if you don't believe "our way" you're not doing it right and you're not going to Heaven/Paradise.
When you get to the various Christian traditions, Christians call non-Christians heretics, pagans or infidels (with a lot of history of trying to drive the "infidels" out of the Holy Land).
In Luke 13:24, Jesus warns everyone to “Make every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to.” Jesus even says that many will try to enter it and “will not be able to.” So, according to the Bible, many will expect to go to heaven but Jesus says, in Matthew 7:23 “I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!'” If that's not exclusionary, I don't know what is.
Within the various Christian traditions you have the Protestants looking down on the idolatrous Catholics (and vice versa) and everyone looking down on the Mormons for, allegedly, not being Christians, and don't get me started on the way people feel about Jehovah's Witnesses. Then there are the "born again" Christians who think they have a monopoly on the "true faith" and that everyone else needs to be "saved."
Then there are those who expect God to choose "their side" in sporting events, praying for God to let them win over the "other side" despite the fact that the other side is probably Christian, too.
Christian sects are based on exclusionary, tribal principles, and those get applied in life and after death.
Anonymous wrote:
Many religions have an important commandment to not judge others/let he[/be] who is without sin cast the first stone. The idea is that only God can judge us. Now whether adherents stick to this is another issue!/
That's [b]him, a perfect God uses correct grammar.
Actually, "he who is without sin" is correct, because "he" is the subject of that statement. When simplified it would be "he is without sin."
Saying "him who is without sin" would be common usage, but is not traditionally correct.
No, that's not the subject of the sentence. "Let" is a command. No subject present, just assume. Him would be the object. Let us, let him. Let her, let him.
"Who is without sin" is a subordinate clause.
Should be him.
Many religions have an important commandment to not judge others/let he[/be] who is without sin cast the first stone. The idea is that only God can judge us. Now whether adherents stick to this is another issue!/
That's [b]him, a perfect God uses correct grammar.
Actually, "he who is without sin" is correct, because "he" is the subject of that statement. When simplified it would be "he is without sin."
Saying "him who is without sin" would be common usage, but is not traditionally correct.