shock "Christians"?

alissowack

This just may be that I am piggy-backing off of Humara's (I think this is spelled right) idea about shock atheist, but it's something that I don't think the people that endorse atheism supposedly have for themselves. I believe that the religious, specifically the so-called Christians, can be just as guilty of it as well. There is a certain "shock" value associated with those who go out and make claims of being the ones that will escape eternal dooms while looking at the rest of the world as the ones whom will die a never-ending death. There is this arrogance to believe that they have exclusive rights to the truth...or that they found the truth willfully. Though I believe there is such a thing as absolute truth, there isn't much reason for me to think I would be "better" because of it. And when the argument is going no where fast, it comes down to name calling and insults (and though not as surprising as it use to be, the so-called Christians become the ones with the ? mouths).

Though this is more off track from the above, I believe the issues of religion is not so much with the so-called fairy tales of them. It's the people who think they have a right to disrespect or take advantage of people in spite of it. And with that, an eye for an eye seem just as fitting for someone endorsing atheism to do the same.

Bodhi

yeah, that too

Rock_Well

Throwin subliminals?

Huruma

Many Christians are just as arrogant and their beliefs justify discriminating against many people but because Christianity is so much a norm in Western culture, it's hard for me to imagine most Christians trying to shock people with something that threatens a comforting worldview that they take solace in. In the West, Christianity is normal, so whether you ascribe to it or not, it's not 'shocking'. Christians might disregard the feelings of others (especially those who don't genuinely believe their religious views are accurate and that they really are helping people by persuading them to Christianity but claim them for cultural or personal reasons alone) but I don't think they're intentionally trying to offend people and then turning around in surprise that that they meet the opposition they do. I probably was being one sided, you have a point when it comes to those '? hates ? ' cults.

If you want to promote religion, atheism, separation of church and state etc., diplomacy is the most effective means.

judahxulu

Huruma wrote: »

Many Christians are just as arrogant and their beliefs justify discriminating against many people but because Christianity is so much a norm in Western culture, it's hard for me to imagine most Christians trying to shock people with something that threatens a comforting worldview that they take solace in. In the West, Christianity is normal, so whether you ascribe to it or not, it's not 'shocking'. Christians might disregard the feelings of others (especially those who don't genuinely believe their religious views are accurate and that they really are helping people by persuading them to Christianity but claim them for cultural or personal reasons alone) but I don't think they're intentionally trying to offend people and then turning around in surprise that that they meet the opposition they do. You have a point when it comes to those '? hates ? ' cults.

If you want to promote religion, atheism, separation of church and state etc., diplomacy is the most effective means.

christianity is not a norm. and because of the forgery at the end of the gospel of mark that requires spreading the gospel evangelical diplomacy is an oxymoron.