what is your opinion on christians.

All my life I have identified as a Christian. I still sort of do, but I sort of don't now if that makes any sense. The reason I sort of am a Christian is because I still sincerely believe in Jesus and the resurrection and all that good stuff. The reason I don't is because, very recently I have found that most people that call their self Christian are really fake people, that take their religion as a form of vanity and pride, and are not better or in most cases even worse off then people that may not believe in anything or something else.

Ittook current events and things happening in the news to wake me up. When things like random innocent African americans would get shot, and the jury would find the shooter "not guilty," simply because the person they shot was a black guy. I was amazed at how many so called Christians would defend the racist juries decision.
I used to get into debates with atheists from time to time, and I must say when I did it would often cause me to think critically about my beliefs and even do research. A lot of you may think something like this would have weakened my faith, but it actually strengthened my faith.

Atheists would often tell me how bigoted, and hypocritical Christians are, but I never believed them. I thought they were just saying these things to bash something that they didn't like, or have more excuses to not believe. I had no idea how true the things they were saying really were.
I still believe in Jesus, but I have absolutely no repect for the church or the people that call their self Christian. I feel that the majority here in America that call their self Christian are frauds, that take their faith as a form of vanity and pride, that want to impose their religion on society, yet they are the main ones complaining and whining about some imaginary sharia law that muslims supposedly are trying to enforce on America. Quite hypocritical if you ask me.
And if the Christian is not a wicked man, in most cases he will be a complete numbskull. Even to the point to where he will he or she will blindly hop on the band wagon of all the bad Christians because he or she is too dumb to see how bigoted and hypocritical the bad Christians are. I'll give you an example of the stupidity of many Christians. One girl posted a praise report on facebook because she found her car keys. Mind you this is a grown woman even older than me. She said she prayed for God to help her find her car keys, and low and behold they were right in front of her and she overlooked them. Now she gave all the credit to God for helping her find her car keys. And she was serious which makes it even sadder. She really thought God found her car keys for her. No you just set them somewhere, and forgot you put them there, Then you saw them again on accident. This is what we are dealing with here.

From my experience, the bad Christians are mainly the ones that put on a super spiritual or religious front. They are the ones you see acting all religious and showing out at church.Ionically they are also the ones that get the most respect at church, basically because they act all spiritual and religious on the outside. But like they say, those who walk it don't talk it and those who talk the talk don't walk it. Well, in most cases.

I have been greatly discouraged, by my wake up call, about how the church really is. So much that I haven't even wanted to share my faith in Jesus with anyone. In my mind, I'm thinking, if Jesus can't make these people better, then what's the point. I used to be all gung ho about getting people, to "get saved" now I'm like what's the point. There probably better off in many cases not believing the bible. God forbid they get saved and they become a ultra conservative, right wing, trump supporting, patriotic, luney tune.

Do y'all have the same experiences with people who call their self christains. Or is it just me.

 

It depends on the Christian; there are two broad categories that I'll describe.
(Full disclosure: I'm not religious.)

1) Those who just try to be good people, do their best to follow the tenets of their faith, and don't try to push their views on others.

I have several friends in this category. I don't think of them any differently than I do my non-Christian friends. Our interactions are not (that I can tell) colored by their religious beliefs.

They aren't interested in judging other people or showing off just how good they are at being Christian. If asked about it, they will happily discuss their views, but they don't tend to bring it up/go into detail about it unless prompted.

I.e., it is something internal for them. Their interest seems to be in how they can use their faith to improve their own life experience and live in a way they feel is appropriate for them.

2) Those who use their faith to bully, judge, or otherwise negatively interact with others.

I do not have any friends in this category, so take my opinion with a grain of salt.

The people in this category don't seem to be focused on how they can be a better or happier person. They seem focused on how they can use the rules of their religion to make themselves feel better as they judge/attack others who aren't following these rules.

I.e., they do not seem to be focused inward, on themselves, but rather outward at the rest of the world, with the view that those who aren't following their own views are incorrect and need correcting. Some people seem to really enjoy "correcting" others.

I'm not saying everyone is firmly in one of these categories. I can easily imagine someone who tries to be a good person, views their religion as something for improving themself, but stumbles now and again in using it to judge/attack others.
But I think these are two ends of a spectrum, and I know that I prefer interacting with people who lean towards that first part (inward focus) of the spectrum.

 

I get what your saying. The second type you described actually sounds a lot like the Pharisees and Saducees in the biblical scripture. I am always suspicious of people that act all EXTRA spriritual and religious.

 

I grew up in the church. My grandfather was a preacher. I've seen it all from the good to the seriously ugly stuff. I was schooled in the scriptures and ideals, and even with the reasoning of a child I could see the serious flaws in the logic. My opinion of Christianity and religion in general is pretty negative. I feel that this article nails a few key points
http://www.seesharppress.com/20reasons.html

 

Its a long read. ill take a look at it later.

 

I agree there are some "nice" Christians out there. But everyone can look nice to certain people, that does not necessarily mean they are nice people. A genuinely nice person, would be nice to everyone. For example, if a person is nice to all the popular kids at school, but completely avoids the nerds or the unpopular kids, they are not a genuinely nice person. They are only nice when the circumstances benefit them in one way or another. A truly nice person is nice to everyone regardless if they are a billionaire with a large swimming pool in the back yard, or if they are the homeless man on the street begging for change. Which reminds me, the other day when I went to Walgreens some old white woman which was a customer, told management, "There is some man outside, asking people for change in your parking lot." The man was obviously homeless, because I saw him on the way in the store and he was dirty as a trash can with rags on. He wasn't just some ghetto kid outside panhandling so he can buy a bag of weed. This really disgusted me. But I'm 100 percent sure the old woman would be a complete sweet heart to me. Which would fool some people to think she is a "nice person." But no, this woman is not nice at all. What kind of person snitches on a homeless person for asking for change so he can get something to eat. So, yes this woman most likely acts nice around people, but if you ask me. She's really rotten on the inside.

So I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you. All I'm really saying is, don't be fooled by outward appearances, they can be deceiving.

YOU Said: "I don't think there's much merit to the religion in terms of evidence, but in itself it doesn't seem to have much effect on what I think of the religion's adherents."
Have you even researched the evidence that supports Christianity. Because it sounds like you haven't. Maybe you have. I don't know, but it sounds like you haven't. Maybe you read about what supports your view, but that's one sided biased research.

 

What evidence do you think supports Christianity?

 

I think there is a lot of historical evidence for Christianity. But I'm not going to break out my books and turn this thread to 1000 page debate. If you are interested, there are some Josh McDowell books you can pick up. And there is also a book by Lee Strobel called The Case For Christ where he interviews various legit experts on the subject. If you are truly interested, I suggest you pick up some of those books and do the research yourself. I am unprepared for a debate as I don't have a PhD in those subjects like some people do. So I can only go so far with evidence and this and that.

 

So you're accusing someone else of not looking at the evidence? Perhaps those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones...

 

I have found an oddity in my own behavior in this regard.
I tend to be nicer when there is absolutely no benefit to doing so (e.g., greeting & having conversations with janitorial staff in my office building (i.e., treating them like people not like they are invisible), acknowledging & conversing with homeless people while out walking about.

Whereas with people who seem more similar to me (colleagues, random people in grocery stores/gym/etc) I am much less likely to go out of my way to be nice to them (even though it is more likely to benefit me to be nice to these people than the first group of people).

I've tried to think about why I'm like this. Part of it, I think, is that I am saddened/angered by how little respect other people who are more similar to me (have a career, have a home, shop/visit the same places I do, etc) seem to have for people in that first category.

I have experienced some of the things people in that first category have (worked manual labor/janitorial type jobs), and have had close friends who are very impoverished compared to my current peer group, etc. maybe that helps me empathize with them...

I think I'd be much more likely to stop & help someone who was broken down in an old junky car than I would be to stop and help someone who was broken down in a nice car. (I drive a nice car...)

Another part of it is I figure people who are similar to me in those various ways get plenty of niceness/respect/acknowledgement from others already. Someone broken down in a nice car likely has a towing service they can call.
Etc. (Maybe this is just me rationalizing why its ok to be less nice to them...)

 

How so. Could you elaborate on how I'm throwing stones or being hypocritical. I've looked at various points of view (most of which I can't remember) on both sides of the argument. I've read literature, watched debates, etc. How am I being hypocritical. You asked me what evidence I think supports Christianity and I pointed you to some sources.

 

That's nice. I'm more of a treat everyone equal kinda guy. I'm as nice to the rich person as I am to the poor person etc. But that's admirable I'm glad you have those virtues.

 

You've made the claim that someone else has not pursued their research or has done so in a biased manner and yet you are unprepared to discuss the research yourself. Perhaps you've read it, but it certainly doesn't sound as if you've understood it. I suggest you research it with an unbiased lens.

 

I did the research and came to my own conclusions. I didn't accuse him of anything, I just told him I don't know what he has researched, I just told him what his comment seems like the product of to me. I do not want to get into a long time consuming debate, but I am willing to point people to the sources of literature that show evidence supporting Christianity. Maybe I'm being lazy, but I have found debates are pretty much worthless because neither side is an expert, so we are only going to be speaking from both of our non-expert points of view. Now I'm not saying don't read Bart Erman, if I'm remembering his name right. I'm just saying at least read both sides of the coin. I've looked at both people speaking about why they don't believe the Jesus stuff and why they do. But since neither of us are experts, debating would be pretty much worthless, at least from my experience when debating on this subject. The best thing for both of us to do would be to refer each other to sources of information that supports what we believe, and let us come to our own conclusions.

 

Christians! As one of my favourite bands screamed:

"Closest thing to witches I've ever seen,
Let's get out the gas and set them on fire!"

 

You seem desperate to avoid this debate while calling out others for their lack of preparation. Pointing to other sources and saying read this displays no understanding of the subject matter. Strobel's book conflates the argument for a historical Jesus with the argument for Christianity. From there he attempts to build a case for intelligent design, the impossibility of abiogenesis, and that a creator is necessary for a universe. Simply put, that don't wash. The argument that Strobel is somehow an expert and one should leave it to him is simply an appeal to authority.

It's fine if you either do not wish to put forth the evidence for Christianity or are not able to do so - indeed, I don't believe any one can in a reasonable manner. But calling out others for bias when you are simply saying "This guy's an expert, trust him" is intellectually dishonest.

 

Re-read my comment. I told him, he may have researched both sides of the argument, I don't know. But based on what I've read it "seems" as if he didn't. Now if he has done in-biased research, I stand corrected. I was just saying what it seemed like to me based on the research I have done. I never said Lee Strobel was an authority on the subject. But in his book that I mentioned he interviews people that are.

Now I don't even remember clearly enough what I read to debate about it since it was a while back, but it was convincing to me. Maybe not to you, but I thought it was.

And if we do get into a debate here is what would happen. You might mention some archeological fact, some historical fact, some scientific fact that supposedly supports your point of view. I am not an expert on any of these things, so my argument may come out flawed or I would have to dig and dig through a lot of crap that I really don't want to dig through to find a rebuttle to your argument. As you are not an expert on archeology so your whole argument might be flawed, and neither of us would even know it.. And the debate would go on forever and ever and neither of us would likely change our minds since neither of us are really authorities on the subject. It's waste of time. I'd rather you point me to sources from people that ARE authorities on the subject. Because I have better things to do than waste my time on hours and hours on some debate with some guy I don't even know on the internet that will get us nowhere anyway. I'd rather point you to my sources, from people that actually know what they are talking about, and you do the same. And I don't have a problem reading what you read. I'm open minded. I just know from experience how much of a waste of time a debate on a subject like this is.

 

If their are some people that are experts on the subject feel free to drop in and debate this guy.

 

It seems that you haven't done any research at all!

Then you are clearly ill prepared. You should do more unbiased research.

Your argument that only experts are able to discuss or debate the subject is 1) flawed because you presume I am not an expert and 2) displays your intellectual laziness. I have a graduate degree in the sciences and have worked as an evolutionary biologist for several years. I am personally acquainted with one of the 'experts' that Strobel has interviewed. I am more than comfortable discussing the faultiness of the Biblical record in terms of biology and the history of life on Earth. I'm also willing to discuss the theological implications of a god that would 1) rely on mass death to bring about humanity and 2) devise a creature that is only able to live by blinding human children.

You've said that you would not change your mind, but that you are open minded. These statements are contradictory. If you do not have the ability to discuss the subject, that's fine, but again, that's why I've said you're a hypocrite.