Why I'm Still a Christian

[Thumpalumpacus]

Why, then, do you proselityze? Don't you feel bad endangering the souls of others because they cannot surrender their own lifetime of programming in a different religion?

Because Jesus told us to, and so that more people are able to be included in the kingdom of God. It's a gift of love we're offering.

This doesn't reconcile well with what you said about people who hadn't heard of Christ being judged on merit, then. Because what you're doing is, by your own beliefs (vapid though I think they are), you're putting them at risk of damnation if they don't see things your way.

Now, to me, that is not a gift of love, but rather, an act of ego. Believe as I do or burn in Hell, now that I've told you is no message of love.

If a person is truly seeking God, then they will embrace the truth. Like we've already discussed in this thread, we should all be open to the truth and not be afraid to face it. All I do is speak what I believe to be the truth, and it's up to others to accept or reject it. That's what we're all doing here in this forum.

The problem with this, again, is that you're increasing the likelihood that they will burn in Hell (as you belief goes) -- because we all know how difficult it is un deprogram oneself from religious upbringing. Well, the atheists here do. You believers may not.

Given the difficulty of shaking off one's sociocultural programming, you're not doing anyone any favors proselytizing. You're putting them in more danger, not less. That is not a loving act.

The loving thing to do would be to let them have their relationship with god on their own terms, and let whatever god exists judge them on merit.

---

I'm talking about how the secular nation of the United States of America has defined marriage since it's beginning. Can this nation decide to change that definition now? I guess so, but I'm against it. Like my previous example of fraternities and sororities; you don't have to forcibly change an institution that is dear to many to afford equal rights to all citizens.

"Separate but equal" has been rightly discarded by American jurisprudence for being a tool of oppression against minorities.

Have you read no history at all?

Further, this idea that a word is more valuable than human happiness is revolting. If you're offended by our government extending equal rights to everyone, I'd suggest you start reexamining what it means to be a good citizen here.

---

(Not to mention that "the original definition of marriage" had to be 'changed' to include interracial marriage)

EDIT: Aaand of course Jenny mentioned that in her post. Her much better, more thought-out post. *Shakes fist in jealousy*

... not to mention that Christians themselves had to change the definition of marriage from a procedure to legitimize the spoils of war, or seal a contract between two fathers, to a ritual whereby a man and woman proclaim their love before God.