While I understand your sentiment, it still strikes me as somewhat odd. If your friends thought you needed to be saved to avoid hell, why would you resent them trying to save you? Would you have been happier if they were indifferent?

There has always been a catch-22 here, the Christian either oversteps his bounds and is too preachy, or doesn't care enough. If I had a friend who believed that harm would come to me if I didn't act a certain way, I would be more put off if he was indifferent.

Edit: Reminds me of the quote - "If I believed what you believe, I would crawl on my hands and knees to the four corners of the world across broken glass to warn people of such an eternity."

Let's assume that in your childhood, your father was transferred to a different country for work or something. The culture and spirituality of the new country was completely different and foreign to Christian dogma and values. Let's also assume that the other children (not through any maliciousness on their part) asked you to convert to the "true" religion, which is essentially the only one they've known. In all honesty, do you think you wouldn't be resentful and mildly hostile to their advances?

It depends entirely on their motives. If they were my friends I Would not be offened, how can you be? You would rather have friends that believe you are in danger but be indifferent to it?

You are right. Sort of. For instance I have always disagreed with the idea that Jews should be angry at Mormons for "baptizing" Holocaust victims.

But it is hard to be friends with anyone that stupid.

That's another issue altogether, I understand some people don't want to be friends with religious "fanatics". When you find yourself in such a friendship, though, it's illogical to resent them for caring about your welfare, even if you believe they are wrong.

For the record, I don't personally find it useful to push my views on my friends, the majority of whom are atheists, I think it's enough that they know where I stand.

There is also the fact that them caring about your welfare implies that they think there is something wrong with you for not realizing the danger you are in. Another roadblock to friendship.

That's your prerogative, but you should make a distinction between ignorance and maliciousness. If someone thinks you're in danger, and believes you are unable to perceive it, them warning you is what is expected in a friendship.

This reminds me of vegans or vegetarians trying to change your lifestyle because they believe they've discovered the best alternative. Still not a friendship-breaker to me, even if I think they're wrong, and sometimes annoying.

Your analogy is not perfect and the reason is VERY important. In order to believe that their God is both just yet is willing to send you to hell if you don't think Jesus is the son of God you must think that it is obvious that he is. You can't think it is understandable that one might have another opinion. Because a just God wouldn't punish someone if the disbelief was reasonable.

Without commenting on whether or not God can be just, you are assuming that all Christians have actually contemplated these things with the level of depth that you have. Not only that, not everyone accepts your conclusion that you have come up with in regards to God being just/unjust.

I think you're reading too much into it. Some Christians (or religious people) mean well, and even though I can understand not everyone wanting such people as close friends, it's pretty standard of them to want to share God with others, no different than sharing other values they feel are worthwhile.

Why do you care about the people who believe this? Are these idiots really worth your energy?

Meh. While it is true that malice and ignorance should be distinguished, ignorance and false beliefs can be just as big a bar to true friendship as malice.

I can't argue with that stance because it's a personal choice. I'm of the opinion that if a person is ignorant, and it's not necessarily their fault, I won't hold it against them. I have a friend who's down right hurtful in his ignorance, but I've stuck with him because I recognize he means well.

Now, whether a person is ignorant or not, it still doesn't make sense to resent them for trying to help you. I'm not saying you need to be friends with such people, only that resenting them is a strange attitude.

Every Christian that I've ever told that I'm an athiest has said, "I wish you wouldn't have said that". Most Christians would like to believe that everyone believe exactly the same way that they do. When they see that there is a moral person that does not have Christian beliefs, it confuses their notion of the athiest "boogieman" that they have been told about all of their lives in Church. At this point, I just keep my beliefs to myself because it is easier for the Christians around me. Ignorance (although slightly different than how the word is used above) is bliss.

Meh. What if a person's malice isn't his fault--would you not hold it against him then as well? In general I think people tend to focus too much on intentions and not enough on actions when making moral judgements of people.

For right or for wrong, I definitely look at intentions first and foremost.

As for a person being malicious but not to blame, I guess it depends on how you see things. I disagree with Sam Harris' view of free will, where "bad people" are partially (or fully) innocent of blame.

There has been a silly "1-minute morality test" being passed around, which I found really difficult to answer. I'm obviously not an expert.

Um, I don't believe this blather for a second.

Maybe he's only met the one Christian.

In the specific case of telling a religious Jew that he needs to believe Jesus is God to escape hell, I think there is a bit more in play that simply wanting to help them. Maybe not in the case of Mormons who act after the Jew's death. But in the case of a live Jew such advice often comes from a miscreant Christian who knows he is in trouble if God marks on a curve based on actions, which I think is more or less what Jews believe.

In this example, you're stating it outright that there is more at play than just being helpful, so there is no argument to be had, and we can agree it's wrong.

It's not always easy to discern when a person is being a caring friend, or has some other agenda, but when it is obvious, each scenario should be treated differently.

FWIW, I walk around eggshells when I speak to Jews or Muslims, just because I don't want to offend anyone, something I've been criticized for. I have a Jewish friend who I don't see much of, but when we get a drink, I'm super sensitive to not burst out in a sermon about Christ. That's not to say that I don't offer my view when it comes up, or that I hide that I'm a Christian, but I'm careful to not impose my views. I don't know if this is right or wrong, I've been told it's cowardly, but it's what I do.

Did you read the passage festeringZit? Have you read or do you read the bible?

May I ask you to give your interpretation on it?

You're asking for my interpretation of the passage where Paul talks about
women's head-covering?

I'd give you the same answer as 99% of Christians out there, it was
a cultural thing, and not meant for Christians everywhere, throughout all
of time. The same answer for why Paul in multiple places says to
"greet one another with a holy kiss." Clearly that is a cultural custom which
is not a command for all Christians in all cultures.

One thing I think is interesting is there are more than a couple religious sects out there with a "believe in our religion or go to hell" so if we assume they're all more or less equally likely then everyone has a pretty high chance of going to hell, regardless of beliefs, right?

I think its really hard to rationalize being friends with someone, honestly believing you have the key to saving them forever, and not doing everything you can to foist your belief onto them. Which means yeah, its probably impossible to be close friends with someone who believes you're going to hell.

My theory is that the Christian doctrine of hell was constructed to serve as a non violent emotional dumping ground. It provides an alternative to revenge and violent acts against enemies and outsiders. As such, it amounts to a temporary expedient to eventually be discarded when "love your enemy" is more fully realized. You might find it a despicable doctrine but I bet the Jewish boy would prefer it to the kind of treatment he might expect were he living amongst certain Muslims these days.



PairTheBoard

Matthew 22:36-40 Easy-to-Read Version (ERV)
36 He said, “Teacher, which command in the law is the most important?”
37 Jesus answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first and most important command. 39 And the second command is like the first: ‘Love your neighbor[b] the same as you love yourself.’[c] 40 All of the law and the writings of the prophets take their meaning from these two commands.”

If Christians would stick to these two basic commands, they and everybody else would be better off. Make those a priority over all the other beliefs. Teach by example rather by fear-mongering.

You can donate for this little sermon of mine with the one true supernatural currency, bitcoins.

(good to see PairtheBoard back)

everyone in my neighborhood knows that you need to be circumsized in order to avoid the pangs of -ell... poor little jewish boy.