Christians; how would you define 'mocking' of your beliefs?

1. 86

   M. T. Dremerposted 10 years ago

   Christians; how would you define 'mocking' of your beliefs?
   
   As an atheist who often participates in religious discussions, I try to be polite as much as I can. Though I get the impression that things might be coming out wrong from time to time. I often hear that some Christians (or other theists) dislike when atheists 'mock' their beliefs. And, I'm curious what sort of responses you would consider to be 'mocking'. Obviously name calling is a direct attack, so I'm more curious about subtler instances.

   replyreport
2. 0

   Stargrrlposted 10 years ago

   Basically, anyone saying that the stories of the bible are fairytales, and that Christians are narrow-minded, can't think for themselves, and brainwashed, and stupid for believing it.  Some call the bible an outdated book, and criticize it by saying it is silly and full of contradictions...some call God names, say that Jesus was a crazy man if He even existed at all.  But mostly, calling our belief stupid.  Saying we don't think is a personal attack.  I have read some hubs and comments on here that I consider blasphemy.

   replyreport
   1. 77

      cathylynn99posted 10 years agoin reply to this

      i wouldn't call god names or say jesus is crazy or that you are stupid, but the other criticisms you're allergic to are spot on. the christian god has some unpleasant characteristics. he ordered genocide and raped mary, for example.

      replyreport
   2. 75

      Niko Linniposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      cathylynn well that depends on how you define rape. For instance we don't see Mary actually saying "Well no, I don't want this to happen!" Rape has to be forced, ja? But I wouldn't say with those you're being disrespectful.

      replyreport
   3. 0

      Stargrrlposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      God asked Mary's permission before He impregnated her; She allowed it, so it cannot be rape.

      replyreport
   4. 61

      Link10103posted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Is there a reason an explanation for genocide was just skipped over...twice? And I highly doubt god would have cared if Mary had said no.

      replyreport
   5. 58

      Robert the Bruceposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      "God asked Mary's permission?" Stargirl, where do you find this information? Certainly not from the Bible.

      replyreport
   6. 0

      Stargrrlposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Indeed.  Mary said, "I am the handmaiden of the Lord.  Let it be done to me..."  She could have said no, and I think the Lord would have respected that and chosen someone else, I really do.

      replyreport
   7. 61

      Link10103posted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Rape part has been covered 3 times.
      Genocide part has been ignored 3 times.
      I guess rape is worse than the near eradication of the human race. Learn something new everyday...

      replyreport
   8. 0

      Stargrrlposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Regarding genocide, God can do what He wants with whatever He creates.  It is also said that the people he wiped out were evil, and turned away from Him.

      replyreport
   9. 58

      Robert the Bruceposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Stargirl, you ASSUME that Mary "could have said no." But don't you think an angel blinding you with heavenly light and TELLING YOU that you will be impregnated is quite traumatic? Bottom line is that "God" TOLD her what he was going to do.

      replyreport
   10. 0

       Stargrrlposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       You assume that the presence of an angel would be traumatic...have you ever seen a real angel?  How could you know?  I am sure God knew Mary would acquiesce before He asked, and that was why He chose her.

       replyreport
   11. 58

       Robert the Bruceposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       Look, I can see that you are assuming a lot. I understand that that's how Christians have to operate. When you come up to a problem, you assume that "God must have found a way to do it." Which of course is unprovable and unaccountable.

       replyreport
   12. 0

       Stargrrlposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       All I am saying is that God is all-knowing, and that He chose Mary because He knew she would say yes.  God knows everything we're going to do before we do it.

       replyreport
   13. 61

       Link10103posted 10 years agoin reply to this

       Mmm, so every man, woman, child, and unborn child was evil during the time of the flood and deserved to die. How convenient.
       
       Constantly amazes me how multiple people on this site have justified genocide comitted by god with that same exact logic.

       replyreport
   14. 0

       Stargrrlposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       God knew what was in everyone's heart, so He probably could foresee that infants were going to grow up and be evil.

       replyreport
   15. 61

       Link10103posted 10 years agoin reply to this

       So rather than change them and make them good, being an all powerful deity and all, god said screw it and killed off a bunch of babies he originally made and knew would turn out evil before he even made them.
       
       This still makes sense to you? Scary.

       replyreport
   16. 0

       Stargrrlposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       God's not going to change people; He gave them free will to do what they wanted--follow Him or not.

       replyreport
   17. 61

       Link10103posted 10 years agoin reply to this

       And choosing not to follow him somehow warrants annihilation, yet he still is all loving and caring.
       
       These are the kind of questions and answers that arise when things are logically thought through. Its no wonder questioning faith is frowned upon...

       replyreport
3. 75

   Niko Linniposted 10 years ago

   I'd pretty much agree with what Stargrrl said. It's mainly in how you say things. You try your best to be polite, so I'm pretty sure you don't say anything mocking. For me, it's really how you say it versus what you're saying. For instance, if you talked about the harm religion can do, but while doing so you refer to religion or religious practices in a demeaning or even sarcastic manner, that could be seen as mocking. I'd say it's really all about the tone. If you're not aiming to be mocking, you most likely won't be mocking.

   replyreport