Is Christianity Evil?

I don't agree that is entirely true about Christianity. Yes the Christian message is that God will ultimately bring about the recreation of this world in and through what He has done in Jesus Christ. He does also say that those that follow Jesus Christ, which is not just about believing in Him but actually following Him, even imperfectly will be part of and in some way play a role in this new creation. Following Him means that one finds joy in acts of sacrificial service to others and for that matter to all of His creation.As to what happens those of other beliefs is best put by CS Lewis, (I know I've quoted this numerous times previously), when he says:

quote:

---

There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, in the end, "Thy will be done." All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell. No soul that seriously and constantly desires joy will ever miss it. Those who seek find. Those who knock it is opened.

---

In other words there will always be in the end those that miss out as they will not give up the world view that it is all about looking after number one. I'd suggest that there will be many, from atheist to Muslim, who find themselves existing in this new creation that will be very surprised that they are there because of how God acted through Jesus Christ.Here is another CS Lewis quote from his book "The Last Battle". It is a spoken by a soldier of the evil character Tash.

quote:

---

So I went over much grass and many flowers and among all kinds of wholesome and delectable tree till lo! In a narrow place between two rocks there came to meet me a great Lion. The speed of him was like an ostrich, and his size was an elephant’s; his hair was like pure gold that is liquid in the furnace. He was more terrible than the Flaming Mountain of Langour, and in beauty he surpassed all that is in the world even as the rose in bloom surpasses the dust of the desert.

​

Then I fell at his feet and thought, Surely this is the hour of death, for the Lion (who is worthy of all honour) will know that I have served Tash all my days and not him. Nevertheless, it is better to see the Lion and die than to be Tisroc of the world and live and not to have seen him.

​

But the Glorious One bent down his golden head and touched my forehead with his tongue and said, Son thou art welcome. But I said, Alas, Lord, I am no son of thine but the servant of Tash. He answered, Child, all the service thou hast done to Tash, I account as service done to me.

​

Then by reason of my great desire for wisdom and understanding, I overcame my fear and questioned the Glorious One and said, Lord, is it then true, as the Ape said, that thou and Tash are one? The Lion growled so that the earth shook (but his wrath was not against me) and said, It is false. Not because he and I are one, but because we are opposites, I take to me the services which thou hast done to him. For I and he are of such different kinds that no service which is vile can be done to me, and none which is not vile can be done to him. Therefore if any man swear by Tash and keep his oath for the oath’s sake, it is by me that he has truly sworn, though he know it not, and it is I who reward him. And if any man do a cruelty in my name, then, though he says he says the name Aslan, it is Tash whom he serves and by Tash his deed is accepted.

​

Dost thou understand , Child? I said, Lord, thou knowest how much I understand. But I said also (for the truth constrained me), Yet I have been seeking Tash all my days. Beloved, said the Glorious One, unless thy desire had been for me thou wouldst not have sought so long and so truly. For all find what they truly seek.

---

I think that is the whole point though. It isn't a case of being a non-believer. It is a case of those who turn their back on an existence in which the fundamental underpinnings of that is existence is based on unselfish love. There will always be those who are unable to turn away from selfish love.Everyone one of us is able to hear that still small voice that calls us to respond to the call that is Micah 6:8 which is my signature. If you read Matthew 25 and the sheep and the goats it isn't those that got their theology right that are right with God, but those who without thought of reward in this life or the next, visited those in prison, fed the hungry etc.As far as hell being a place of eternal torment I think that by serving oneself, without thought to the well being of others, one creates their own hell. If hell is a place that is characterized with that as a fundamental then I can see it being a place of eternal torment, but if that is what one chooses then they should be free to make that choice.I recommend Lewis' "The Great Divorce" so that you can understand that quote in the context of the entire book.In the end, it isn't about our theology, it is about our hearts, and frankly in spite of what Christian fundamentalists will tell you, that position is Biblical.

Fine, but what I had responded to in your previous post was this: You made a claim that characterized the Christian message in a way that I as a Christian believe is false. My post was a response to your representation of Christianity which is presumably your opinion as to what the Christian message is.

Sure, and the Holy Spirit is that still small voice of God reaching out to all of us, regardless of our personal theology, so that hearts can be changed.

To a large extent I agree. In the end our religious beliefs are a faith. They are what we believe about the nature of God and how that is to impact our lives. I have no doubt that I can find a point of disagreement with virtually any other Christian.That however is the point. If we had certainty then we lose our objectivity and to a large extent our free will. Again, it is about the heart and it cannot be about choosing good over evil with the idea that I well be rewarded in the end one way or another. We are called to choose the good thing simply because it is the right thing and that is where our heart is.

I don't think I'd call it an instinct. We have an instinct for survival but I don't agree that we have an instinct for unselfish love. I think that humans are basically more drawn to look after one's own interest even if it is at the expense of another.However, as I said, we do all have a sense that when we have personal gain at the expense of others we have crossed the line between what would have been the right thing to do and what we actually did.However, that isn't really the point. I'm a Christian. My Christian faith is based on the Gospel writers contention that God resurrected (not resuscitated) Jesus. If I didn't believe that I then I would agree with your position.The entire New Testament really evolves around the first Christians working out what this meant to them, and to the world, and we are still called to do that today. The basic message that they gleaned is that Jesus came to establish a kingdom of followers who are called to bring His truth, justice, love and peace to the world. However, people are still people with their desire for personal power and as a result there have been terrible things done in the name of Christianity. People are still people.I'm in a relatively small Anglican church. There is nobody there for reasons of personal gain. The amount of work that gets done by people in that church to serve the local community is amazing. On top of that 3 African missions are being supported and there are numerous other needs being met as well. That has been my experience of church life when I lived in Montreal, Toronto and now here. We are now organizing again to do what we have done before in sponsoring refugees into Canada.There are those that want to make Christianity all about being looked after in the next life. That entirely misses the point. If you want to talk about being saved then OK, but the point is to be saved for a purpose and that purpose is to infect the world with the love of God as embodied by Jesus Christ.The other thing that we get from Christianity is the belief that the good we do in this life has ultimate meaning. We all know that our world as we know it is finite but Christianity teaches that all this will be renewed as Jesus was renewed. If we believe that there is nothing but oblivion at the end of time, as opposed to the idea that we are building for something new and something better, then that can hardly help but have an impact own our world view.

I never said that and in fact I said the opposite. If I had said that it would be more than a tad insulting and it would be obviously wrong. I suggest that both of our positions can be true. It is my contention that our natural predilection is to choose the path of self interest. For example if I see someone drop a 10 dollar bill on the side walk in front of me, and no one else is around, my first thought is that I could use that 10 bucks. (Pardon the North Americanisms. ) Then I think, well ok but that isn't the right thing to do and so I pick it up and return to the person that dropped it. Just because in the end I did the right thing doesn't mean that I didn't have to overcome my initial thought that I would like it for myself.

Interesting post on several levels. We do have a natrural instinct for self preservation but beyond that we also have a natural instinct for self interest. I don't agree that caring for others at the expense of our own self interest is at all instinctive. I'd suggest that we do have, that still small voice that nudges in an altruistic direction but that also it is a learned behaviour from our parents, friends society etc.Your point about modern societies doing it through agencies such as the criminal justice system is interesting. That is contradictory to your view that doing the right thing is an instinctive response. The criminal justice system is about getting people to do the right thing out of self interest. It argues for the idea that self interest is the naturally instinctive thing. It pushes you do the right thing out of self interest so that you don't wind up being imprisoned.It goes back to it being about where our heart is. If our heart is right we return the $10 because we are prepared to put the other person's interest ahead of our own. If our heart is not right we keep the $10 for ourselves.

They are certainly related but most people would not see punching someone to prevent him from knifing you in the same category as not giving back the $10. Just because it can be observed with changes in the brain does not make it instinctive. Of course it involves brain activity. It requires thought. What doesn't require thought. Pulling back from something hot is instinctive but it still requires brain activity. Certainly there are numerous societal and parental influences. That is why, IMHO, Christians are called to be an influence in the world for love of neighbour and for all of creation. You kinda miss the point. If someone only gives back the $10 because someone is watching whereas they wouldn't if no one was is always acting on self interest. If someone is always going to give back the $10 whether anyone is watching or not is acting out of a non-selfish interest. Once again, it is all about the heart. It certainly is complicated. If a Christian does it simply because he believes Jesus is watching then he is really no different than the guy who returns it because other people are watching. Again, it is all about the heart. I suppose the closest I can get is the thought that in returning it he will brighten up the other person's day and even influence that person to behave with unselfish interest in similar circumstances.It isn't really a decision as such. It is about the love of unselfish love, in ourselves and in others, as opposed to simply looking out for number one.

Your position is also based on your atheistic beliefs. I stated earlier that as a Christian my beliefs are based on the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Without the resurrection, in spite of what jar says, then Jesus becomes something of a delusional egomaniac with some really good ideas which can also be found elsewhere. If then I am correct about the resurrection, then it makes sense that God has confirmed the life and message of Jesus.I have course made my argument for basic theism in many other threads.As for the devil I am kinda agnostic. I think that if we think of him as a metaphorical figure representing the dark or selfish side of life we are on a safe track. I have no background in this, but what you are describing is a process. We also know that peoples empathy and reactions to empathy change. They are impacted by others as Dawkins talks about with his memes and who knows how many other factors. There is however no way that one can rule out that our hearts are impacted by that still small voice. We simply know that people change.Also again, you are describing a process. It is a process that exists and whether or not it is the result of nothing but natural processes or if it is part of a designed process, (no I'm not into ID), is a matter of belief.Edited by GDR, : typo