/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

Industrial Society and It's Future:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/unabomber/manifesto.text.htm

I don't think so. They don't get their values from Christianity, but from the system/mainstream culture. Stuff like tolerance and equality. And these values conflict with Christianity.

>Of course, this isn't an entirely perfect theory. They will also claim that Christians are bad because Christianity opposes homosexuality. But even then, one of their biggest reasons for supporting homosexuality is that they think it is wrong to judge other people. Not judging people (without judging yourself) is a Christian value. Again this seems to be related to oversocialization, because they take the not judging way to far.

I don't think they are supporting homosexuality because of ideas they got from the bible. They get their views from elsewhere and just try to justify them with the bible, typically misunderstandings of the bible, such as with the judging example.

>>828055

Most Christians themselves are oversocialized nominal Christians.

This blog here

https://dalrock.wordpress.com/

is practically nothing more than a showcase of the mental gymnastics that modern Christians do to try and twist scripture to say exactly the opposite of what it actually says so they can be functionally secular liberals while still calling themselves Christians

Atheism is more of a rejection of Christianity chiefly based on two things: an inability to live according to the lifestyle requirements of being a Christian and following from this, a failure to understand why these requirements are necessary. It also has a lot to do with ego stroking as well, many atheists and agnostics get that hipsterish inflated sense of superiority from thinking that they're smarter than Christians on the basis of believing in things like carbon dating or "cosmic background radiation" or other such nonsense. They imagine that being an atheist is edgy and cool when in practice most of them simply conform to hedonism and popular culture, having no moral system of their own

>>828055

I havn't read ted but he seems interesting, so ill probably read him when the time is right, aparently he was heavily influenced by jacques ellul a christian theologian.

>>828058

>Stuff like tolerance and equality. And these values conflict with Christianity.

Nah, he's right, though indirectly.

Liberal tolerance and equality is a twice removed mutation of christian tolerance and equality(aka treating people fairly and without showing partiality), twisted into allowing all kinds of derangements as normal.

>>828086

>Liberal tolerance and equality is a twice removed mutation of christian tolerance and equality

Yeah, liberals have the gall to actually put into practice those values, instead of just preaching them but being hypocrites.

>>828087

Since when was tolerance a Christian value to begin with? We disapprove of quite a bit. There's nothing hypocritical about not following something you don't even care about in the first place.

Our entire religion is founded on freeing people from their sins and the demonic influences in their cultures. The only thing tolerant about it is that we're called to simply leave you alone, if you want it. As Christ said, "Do not throw your pearls before swine."

>>828092

>Since when was tolerance a Christian value to begin with?

the person I replied to talked about christian tolerance

>we're called to simply leave you alone

which did not happen historically anyway.

>>828118

>which did not happen historically anyway.

Violators of this are vastly overstated. Even as far back as Aquinas' time (1200s), he pointed out that this was a big difference between Christians and the Muslims. Some of the Catholics here can probably dig up the exact quote, but he said something along the lines of "one lone man preaching the gospel accomplished more in a country than an army of Muslims" and their forced conversions. Before that, multiple factions of the Church (including "heretics") thrived in the Byzantine world. There was definitely a lot of drama between them, but a lot of the "battlegrounds" they fought were done in Councils and apologetic debates. And it was this very Byzantine setting that gave rise to Islam itself. That should tell you how little control was actually going on. They allowed a beast to roam in their midst – one that eventually conquered and terrorized them in short time. If this was such a tyrannical religion, they did a poor job at it.

The real problems arose especially in the Renaissance/Reformation period (and Spain's presence in the New World, around the same time). A lot of this is tied just as much into State based political drama as it is religious. Much of it was countrymen killing each other. But for all of the attention dedicated to this period, it's relatively short. I just mentioned the medieval period above, which was over 1000 years. The Reformation was just over 100. While Spain's shenanigans in the New Word were slowed down by the Church. It was the Church missionaries who reported the crimes and exploitation, and it was the Church who forced Spain's hand to make laws respecting the dignity of the natives. Something you never hear in public education.

>>828055

Any cucktheist who unironically uses muh bad god and muh bad cuckstians are unironocally either low IQ or underaged and this is coming from an atheist myself.

>>828055

I like this idea a lot, I can see some truth in it as a former atheist and an avid fan of Uncle Ted