(February 27, 2011 at 9:52 pm)everythingafter Wrote: I agree there. But then, of course, they really don't believe do they? If they did really believe every word of their book, they would act much differently and more dangerously. Kind of like fanatic Muslims. I guess this would be a question for them, but if they aren't willing to follow their doctrine to the letter, why is there any sense in calling yourself a Christian. Most, pathetically, simply refer to themselves as a Christian in some nebulous sense-of-belonging kind of way. I don't have much sympathy for the idea of moderate Christianity. I think they are all wasting their time, but the moderates even more. But I think we can say even moderates still believe that there is a god up there who governs everything, intervenes in people's lives and will one day separate the wheat from the chaff. If they don't believe that, they have ceased being Christian.
No, I think if someone's faith inspires them to help others, that's great. But in almost every case I've seen as a former churchgoer, helping people build schools or churches is a secondary goal to trying to reach them for Christ. Believers aren't in Africa and China and everywhere else for purely humanitarian reasons. Spreading the message is at least one of the two main goals in almost every case of Christian missionary work, and usually, the main goal. It is, after all, the Great Commission. And also, if that's not a person's goal as a member of the Protestant or Catholic church, they are Christian in name alone.
Then they shouldn't follow it at all. But again, I suppose that would be a question for them, not you.
That is a good point. If they are not ready to follow all the tenants of their religion, they are not really Christian. The problem comes from the fact that they, like you said, want this feeling of belonging bonded with the idea of a greater power that is closer to deism than theism...And i do think those people are not dangerous.
There should be a way to distinguish between the "literal" theists who follow the Bible literally, and are people that i condemn fully, and the "cherry-picking" theists who are not really dangerous and that i don't think do not deserve to be called idiots and bigots. Something between "theist" and "deist"...
I did not consider the whole "bring them to God" part of charity, which does put their altruism in perspective. But if, as an offshoot of that, they save lives, i don't mind it that much.
