To Belly.

You said that I am being divisive. I think I am being disagreeable at best, not not divisive. Consider it this way. If each religion rejects the other religions as well as atheism, then religion and atheism hold the same score card on divisiveness. Atheist reject all religions, and rationalize their divisiveness by saying what they think about all religions of the world. That they are made up, or are violent, or otherwise make excuses for rejecting all other religions. On the score card of divisiveness an atheist is the minority population of the world that rejects all of the religions of the world. How can you be more divisive then that?

And that is my point here. It's not to defend religion. It's to point out the double standard. Atheism is a divisive philosophy. Look back through this thread. In how many posts have you said anything that wasn't divisive towards religion? In how many other places have you insulted a person based on their religion, calling them idiots or a similar term. I reject the double standard, the hypocrisy, and the "do as I say not as I do" approach that is always evident in atheist philosophy. Religion as a general term makes up the majority of the world population!

(Continued)

(Continued)

Am I defending religion? So far I'm the only one on the religious side that admits that there can be divisiveness in my faith. Not always is that divisiveness a bad attribute, but sometimes it gets out of hand. I've seen it and I can see the reasoning of it from within a Christian perspective to better explain behavior from Christians that I have seen. I've also said that the divisive side is very small compared to everything else that comes with Christianity.

I'm not so much defending religion as much as I'm saying that atheism is no better then what it accuses of religions. I'm holding atheists to a standard they try to hold religions to. Yet if holding a standard is divisive, then so be it. I won't balk at being considered divisive if I hold you all to the same standards you try to hold the rest of the world to.

NNS, I find it is dominant individuals that divide in Christianity and not the faith. The Christian faith teaches acceptance and gentleness in spreading the message, because we are equally failed persons, and in need of restoration.

Not_Now.Soon,

<<Am I defending religion? So far I'm the only one on the religious side that admits that there can be divisiveness in my faith. Not always is that divisiveness a bad attribute, but sometimes it gets out of hand.>>

There has been divisiveness in Christianity since the first century. In the New Testament it is called heresy, which means 'a sect or division'. It eventually meant a departure from orthodoxy. Jesus had to battle with the Judaizers who didn't like His teaching. The Book of 1 John addressed a docetic form of Gnosticism that divided that first century church. The heresy of Gnosticism invaded the church in the first 2 centuries.

Then the church had the divisiveness of Marcion of Sinope (ca. 85-160) who contended that the God who sent Jesus was not the Lord God Almighty of Judaism. Leading church fathers such as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus and Tertullian regarded him as a heretic.

Then there was the Trinitarian vs Unitarian controversy, where Unitarianism was promoted by Arius. This divisiveness was addressed at the First Council of Nicaea in 325, which concluded in favour of the Trinity.

There was the BIG division that came in the 16th century between Roman Catholicism and the Protestant Reformation, led by Martin Luther (AD 1483-1546).

Even in the 21st century we have divisions with, say, Pastor Rob Bell's belief in universalism and no hell, when compared with evangelical orthodoxy that rejects such teaching: http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2065289,00.html

The New Testament warns of heresies that will continue until Jesus' Second Coming: 'For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather round them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myth' (2 Timothy 4:3-4), http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Timothy+4%3A3-4&version=NIVUK

.

Dear OzSpen,

.

There is no consensus among scholars as to why Jesus was crucified.

You point to one of the three synoptic gospel predictions as a possible (faith based) explanation. Scholars have offered various explanations based on the particular political and religious context at the time. They all have merit from a historical point of view, but there is no way of determining with certainty, today, exactly why Jesus was crucified
.

You wrote :

« I've observed quite a bit of divisiveness and religious intolerance by you towards Christians on this forum »
I was not aware of that OzSpen. It certainly was not my intention. I respect the sincerity of personal belief, whatever the domain, and whoever may express it – however incredible or ridiculous it may appear to me.

The case where I have no respect whatsoever is when belief is presented as fact. It is totally dishonest if a clear distinction is not made between fact and faith. I respect faith as much as I respect fact, but I do not tolerate something that is a question of faith being presented as fact or being cited as evidence of fact or reality.
.

You ask :

« What is your definition of intolerance? »

My reference is the OED definition :

« Unwillingness to accept views, beliefs, or behaviour that differ from one's own »
« [Ex. 1. ‘a struggle against religious intolerance’] »
« [Ex; 2. ‘an intolerance of dissent’] »

.

the vast majority of militant god deniers in the West are Christophobic. They claim tolerance and are open to all 'diversity' except Christianity. One would only need to see the hatred our own abc has spewed out to Christianity over the last 50 years. When it comes to Buddhism, Hinduism and Islam they are happy to tolerate and even promote.