Christians are better people?

Remove all ads!

And here's the problem with many Christians. Jesus was kind to the local whore as well. The actions of some followers, however, distort the message.

 

Christians should not consider themselves better than others. They are, after all, called to be the most humble people. I'm inclined to think that Christians must be doing something right if the general perception of them is lawful, moral, and good. They should give credit to the one who transformed their lives. There will always be the hypocrites, wolves-in-sheep's clothing, and fakers but true Christians are proven by their life testimony, what they do and say even when nobody's looking.

I try to assess people individually. I don't care who a person claims to be or calls himself; I try look past the appearances to who he really is. I'm sorry to see that some people have grown so distrustful of 'Christians' that they are all judged guilty by association. Are all Muslims terrorists? Neither are all Christians hypocrites.

Instead of making judgments based on personal experience or history, give every individual the benefit of the doubt, whatever religion or belief they subscribe to. "Trust but verify," as Ronald Reagan said.

Christ himself despised religious hypocrites with a passion. His harshest judgments were on the Pharisees and Jewish religious leaders, not on the whores and tax collectors he met. They were all sinful, but the pride of the hyprocrites precluded any chance of repentance.

 

Exactly. I actually feel stupid now that I only realised it around an hour back myself. For someone from the US christianity is just another religion. For someone here in Finland, christianity is *the* religion.

In Finland, saying christians are better than others is applicable simply because it effectively means "religion vs non-religion (if you can call that a word)". In the US, such a question would obviously pit one religion against others, which would would change the nature of the entire question.

So what is the question? Christianity vs all other religions, or any religion vs no religion at all (or a very different, harmful one)? Which country did the original example come from anyway btw?

And no offense was ever taken. I just felt like clearing up my side of the story.

Edit: Ah. Looking down I see I forgot / skipped an important part of the headline topic. Glad I'm not the only one who made that mistake.

Anyway, my view of this should be clear to you all by now.

[ September 15, 2004, 08:18: Message edited by: Foradasthar ]

 

Here's from the original post of Abomination:

Obviously, all religions are taken into account. The way I understand it, the question is rather directed towards the motivation of certain deeds than towards the deeds themselves.

Either you think that certain deeds have a certain value (positive or negative) beyond any motivation - murder or rape springs to mind as well as saving someones life. Then, clearly, the same deed has the same value of good or evil regardless of the moral code of the doer.

Or you think that the perspective of the doer has influence on the value of the deed. A murder, for example, may be mitigated by circumstances or world view. Then you'd have to proof that on average the shift of value of all deeds is overall more positive for a religious person than it is for a non-religious person. I don't think that this could be accomplished.

 

I wish people would read the first post rather than just the topic Still, bad topic name by me but it was part of a news report.

I'm not exactly asking 'are religious people better than not religious people' but I am asking if being religious is a 'good' thing because the media sure as hell makes it seem that way. That's why you can have the idea that a religious person is better than another person - all other things being equal.

Frankly I don't see religion as being a virtue or a vice. I would compare a religious person to a non-religious person to being the same as a person having brown eyes and another having blue eyes. Do you people agree or do you think having a religion makes you a better (or worse) person?

 

I just ran across this, and I think it speaks powerfully to the topic ...

 

Huh? I didn't realize we were talking sexual freedom vs. sexual restraints. Are you implying Freud's views equal every secular worlview everywhere? Nah, can't be...

To answer Abomination: while being religious or non-religious is not exactly the same as having brown eyes or blue ones, your point is still correct: if you're basically a good person your motivation for being good hardly is important. Secular humanistic views are not better or worse than religious ones.

So, no, being religious by itself is not to be considered "good". Being good, however, is.

 

From a secular perspective that article seems to advocate happiness in a lie before misery in reality. I try to find happiness in reality even if it is that much more difficult to do than to close ones eyes and live a lie.

 

Darkthrone, the passage I thought most appropriate to our discussion was around the idea that...

Also, I was hoping some might tunr in. I would have (if I owned a TV!).

 

Aside from very obviously speaking of the "christian point of view" as a right one (that is, doesn't seem too objective), that article hits the spot pretty well. The way of life of a normal person, and media this day, is very much in line with Freud's. Everything is about sex, about sexual freedom to choose your partner when and how you wish. Everything from commercials to socializing to philosophy itself it seems, as far as normal people are concerned, evolves around sex.

Only recently I met a person, just one, who partially restored my faith in that some manner of 'love' can actually exist between some very few lucky people. She was a christian, we were partners in work for a time. Her general life's philosophy was stunning to say the least, very different from the average young women I know. But then, even she didn't fully trust her husband.

I never really realised to see things this way. But it's a very good analogy to compare Freud's views with the modern western world. And the results are exactly what one with his head still working would assume. A very good example of why a christian / religious person is indeed better than a non-religious person. As I doubt a real christian would be involved in the whoring society that we live in.

 

Thanks, Mathetais. However, the quote goes on:

Freuds dilemma: You can't possibly adopt a moral code against your better understanding if you don't believe in the rightfulness of this code but rather in the positive results the code may yield for your life.

If you'd become religious solely because it would make yourself a happier person - which is possible, of course -, you'd just follow the existentialist path of seeking exclusively your own pleasure.

If the thesis "Christians are the happier people" really holds, has yet to be established. But even if said statement was true, would being happy make one "a better person"?

 

I understood that the quote went on, and really would not want people to follow Christianity for Frauds reasons (sic). That being said, you do have people like Thomas Jefferson adopting a Judeo-Christian worldview because they considered it to be the most moral and cohesive standard of morality availible.

I would strongly argue that a joyful (better word than happy, though happy works) Christian is a better Christian than a dour one. Some of the challenges point towards those who have done evil in the name of Christ. True biblical Christianity, however, would have none of that. Check out John Piper's writings at www.desiringgod.com He spells this out wonderfully. It is in our delight in God that we find our ability to follow him towards excellence and personal transformation.

To tell you the truth, I'm really defending the wrong proposition here. I do not really believe Christians *are* better people. Data shows that we are not. My real argument would be that Christians have the power to be better people, if only we would live up to what Christ attained for us. Failing that, we come off as another insipid religion with more out-of-the-closet-hypocrites than I'd want. But I didn't chose the topic ... so I'm forced to make a bit of a stand here.

 

This would be it. I think, I just fell in love. Way to go, Mathetais.

 

Heh! I guess tonight's insomnia really pays off then! Thanks for the sharpening (as iron sharpens iron and all that).

 

Sadly, when one examines religion from a purely scientific perspective it is a "schema" or contagious idea which gets to so many people because it is a mental cushion or protector from the harsh reality of being an aware mortal.. science says that when we die annhilation is there, and you will never think or love or do anything again. No " load last save" in "reality. Mental parasite? Well perhaps, but if it makes people happy well the good luck to them.
quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------
Freuds dilemma: You can't possibly adopt a moral code against your better understanding if you don't believe in the rightfulness of this code but rather in the positive results the code may yield for your life.
----------------------------------------------------------------
yep.
Sadly however, from this point of view you cant decide to become religious. Ah well, maybe Im just depressed because my gf dumped me.... lol

[ September 16, 2004, 13:42: Message edited by: Yirimyah ]

 

As things often happen, I stumbled on these while looking over some letters of one of my favorite Americans - Thomas Jefferson.

On Jesus:

The system defined:

Some have claimed that Jefferson was not a Christian. This is from a letter to Benjamin Rush in 1803:

 

Hmmm, the Freud/Lewis show seems problematic to me. First, the "pleasure principle" was for Freud part of an explanation of how people are motivated, not an proscription for how people should act. The pleasure principle was also balanced by a "death instinct," and I think we could safely say Freud didn't think we'd be happier by killing ourselves. Also the pleasure principle need not imply sexual hedonism; while Stoicism, which deeply affected Christian theology, also held that people avoid pain and pursue pleasure, the Stoics were not at all known for their hedonism. While Freud blamed many things on sexual repression, including sexual addiction, the aim of psychoanalysis was always to confront and resolve inner conflicts, and thereby live a more self-aware life.

The presentation of this by Colson is deeply one sided, presenting Freud as a strawman to be bowled over by Lewis (kindof like Hannity and Colmes on FOX). Freud was secular, but he was also deeply interested in religion and myth, and there is a certain strain of Jewish messianism that runs through his work. If he was nonetheless "jealous" of Christians, I can't say, though he certainly did have to flee Vienna for London on account of his non-Christianity.

I frankly don't know what Lewis would have to say to Freud. If it comes down to Freud's relative pessimism as to human nature vs. Lewis' relative optimism, then that seems like something of a non-debate, as they are talking about very different things, and had very different ambitions. But Freud seems to me far more useful for discussing the tragedies of the 20th century than is Lewis.

 

One should also keep in mind that most of Freud's psychological and psychiatric work is mostly discredited nowadays. The man laid the foundations and made people interested but that foundation has been torn up and relaid by those who came after.

 

Tsss. Math, You just pointed out what I wanted to say, in a few phrases and in probably a few minutes, while I was thinking to describe it a few days long and needed to study some more English.
To put it in short: Amen!

 

AH yes, but nobody mentioned whether he was a practising Christian. Anybody could say they are a Christian and never go to church, but to be a practising Christian you have to go to church and be involved in things