What do christians think of gcb

How so? Well, we decide whether their actions and behaviours are good. We end up judging their actions on our own moral scale and decide whether they are acting in a good manner.

But, who are we to decide what is good? Since when did we become righteous judges? The Bible is filled with verses about not judging others. We should journey with them and call them out gently whenever necessary, but we should not be casting our own judgements on them. There are two sides to this. Not many people call me a GCG. There were times when I thought to myself, am I not being a good Christian?

I started to scrutinise everything I did. I was overly conscious of every single action. There was even a point where I had imposter syndrome. I think your approach to bad shows is one more Christians should emulate. Bethany, I share your disappoint because I saw the same potential in the show. I would love to see the kind of "genuine, complex" portrayals of Christians in the media you would.

To follow up, I watched episode 2 of this last night, and I do think it improved significantly on episode 1. I am not ready to recommend the show to others, but I thought ep. Thanks for chiming in Christian Arts.

Care to sum up your argument for those of us here? Bethanykj March 5, TimF March 5, Deal Hudson March 6, John Smith March 8, TimF March 8, Ksp March 8, Christian Arts March 9, Ksp March 11, Great call on Annie Potts! Bethanykj March 12, Add your comment to join the discussion! Do you really think your 5 limited senses can tell without a doubt that God doesn't exist? Since you are in fact NOT omniscient, you cannot make the assertion "God does not exist" without proof, without evidence and think that just because you said it, that its automatically truth.

If you're going to ignore logic, then I want nothing to do with this, because you're a fool who has made his own mind into his own God. All hail the omniscient Roger. What a joke. I got my definition from dictionary. Apparently Christians make up there own definitions. Secondly, the definition of a cult carries with it a certain connotation specific to our language and culture.

For americans who throw the word cult around it means something specific. Something that connotes an organization led by a charismatic or authoritarian leader or organization who hijacks a persons mind and volition to conform to the group, and as a result has certain harsh or unjust consequences to leaving. That is not christianity. No one is holding me against my will or brainwashing me. You have neglected to elaborate on this aspect of the term in your definition.

Culture doesn't see the term cult the way you have described it. That is how you examine language. It's society that is doing it for you by belonging to your cult you feel like you are part of your community. Just look how atheists are treated by Christians on this forum you weak mind couldn't handle that type of rejection.

So now you know of 2 different definitions form different sources. How are you going to choose which one you belive, how about we add a third, directly from Webster's.

But the real point is why even defend it, so what if Christianity fits a certian definition, it is what it is. I have already addressed your logical falsehood of what defines a cult, so I'm over with that. As to how Atheists are "treated" by Christians, I have not treated you wrongly, I have merely pointed out the facts and definitions and somehow you still present a false caricature of Christianity and myself, which is unfortunate because you should be able to see your own folly in that regard, but you still seem to stumble with understanding.

Instead, it has been you who have proven you can only descend to name calling in an attempt to disprove and discredit, which is sad. I hope your bigotry which I feel in the wake of your ignorance has been lost on you , dissipates and you realize that which you rail against isn't really the enemy you want it to be. You do realize this discrepancy don't you??? Its really sad that you can't see the difference here, and YES, there is a difference. That difference is how our culture perceives a cult, and thus, how it is ultimately defined as such.

There not my definitions. You previously posted "You should look up the definition of a cult before you start throwing around loaded words to justify nonsensical generalizations. I never said "Christianity is a cult" I just posted the definitions that I got from credible sources. You can say that society will interpret the word differently, and they do, but it doesn't change the definition of the word. In fact, "cult" is not always regarded as having negative connotations.

The Cult of Saint Anne is one such example from Catholicism. What I think it is doesn't matter to the argument. You where the one that issued the challenge to look up the definition. You got busted by Webster, so just admit what you are saying is that people have a certain perception of what a cult means and quit harping on the definition of a word. So many arguments get lost to semantics, such as this one. We've been arguing over a word, when what matters is really how Christians or members of any other religion behave and are percieved in society.

As for you question I will say I percieve cult probably the same as you do, people having non-mainstream, extreme belief systems.

I may have percieved individual churches as cult like, but not religion as a whole. So I'll join you and stop it with definitions for today. Lunchbreaker: No, actually I didn't get "busted" by Webster. On 3 for the definition of Cult by Webster it reads " a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious.

Christianity, practiced biblically, is not marked by a church that has an authoritative or charismatic leader who controls the mind. I would define such a church as erroneous, false and disingenuous. To define ALL of Christianity as a cult is inaccurate to the definition. Someone who defines Christianity as a cult both does not know how that word is used and in most cases is ignorant toward christianity or has a bitter bone to pick with it.

I think a lot of Christians are preceived by nonbelievers as being hypocrites. What causes this is the nonbelievers misunderstanding of Christianity. For example, the nonbelievers think Christians are supposed to be good.

Then they see a Christian do or say something very unChristian, or not good. That is the misunderstanding. Christians are just as human as nonbelievers. We all have the flesh, the natural man. When the natural man controls we sin. When the spiritual man is in control we may live up to a nonbelievers expectations temporarily.

Paul wrote a lot about the internal war between the spirit and the flesh that he experienced himself. I can post some references if your interested. No, the problem is Christians are trying to force their religion down our throats through laws and policies.

Roger: No one is trying to shove Christianity down your throat Roger. That's what you want to believe so you can play out your petty diatribe. Now if you said socialism and big government is being force fed to the american people, then that is something that can be proven with facts. The whole Christianity is evil and should be destroyed crap that you're trying to sell isn't being bought. And its being sold by you and a small minority of bitter people with no voice.

The bitter voice is Christianity not those that don't fall for the lies you have to tell yourself to believe in a myth and belong to your cult. It's is the time to get rid of your cult and as more proof comes out about the lies in the bible, the contradictions in your religion then it will be destroyed bit by bit.

It's already been proven that spirituality is just a chemical reaction in your brain, nothing more. There is no proof of an existence of a god and there never will be, it's a man made concept. Common, It's obvious you like to cherry pick, considering you ignore definitions 1 and 2, and you obviously stopped reading my post when I used the word "busted".

Your pride caused you to ingnore the fact that I ended up agreeing with you on our perception of the word "cult". I'll repost the part you skipped:. I hope your bigotry ". You do realize that due to that fact we are both in the dark making educated guesses.

Thus, we are both truly agnostic. Since my belief is not based on proof, it is called faith. Since your i'm assuming atheist belief is not based on any proof it is also called faith. Secondly, Jesus isn't a myth. He existed, he lived, he died and according to credible historians who study the bible, we have good reasons to believe he rose from death. Thirdly, you say that spirituality is just a "chemical reaction," then love is just a chemical reaction?

Go ahead and tell all that you "love" that its just a chemical reaction, i'm sure that will be appreciated. The "chemical reaction" argument is pure BS and doesn't account for the full spectrum of Human Expression. And finally, I'm fine with Christianity being eradicated, that will just mean that prophecies from 's of years ago will start coming true I think you know what happens after that, if not, see revelation. Since the bible is just a work of fiction and not a true historical doc ument, yes that has been proven too, no worries.

It means humanity can finally reach its full potential by not believing in year old myths. Since you failed to do so in your response, then I'll take that as a no, and you have confirmed my assertion by your lack of refutation.

By the way, an opinion doesn't count as proof. Saying the bible doesn't contain historical content is the height of ignorance. The bible has historical information, geneologies, events, histories of people groups. There are also things that it includes that you can choose to believe or not.

Jesus believed in scripture, and so do I because I have reason to believe he is who he said he was. Which I pointed out is more evidence for my position than you can provide for yours. I still have more evidence and reason to believe Jesus is who he said he was, then you have for believing in the non existence of God or flying pink elephants.

Once again And I know exactly what you will try to include as "parallel gods" who resurrected but that has been refuted by scholars as well. And I didn't see any of these gods you are referring to being mentioned so I'll take it as conjecture and opinion, not fact. Human behavior cannot be broken down to nuts and bolts of chemicals and reactions.

But they aren't. The Smithsonian is the one stating it is NOT a historical book. Stop being so lazy H. S and do your home work. It does prove you are one gullible person.

Scholars that only agree with your opinions, we can play the expert game if you want but I have scholars that prove your scholars wrong. What an idiot. I'm still waiting, and will continue to wait until someone who is omniscient disproves God beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Until then, you will just be a lonely, bitter man ranting and railing against something you dont believe in, or can disprove. What a sad existence. Since you can't disprove God, what if you're wrong? Its a losing situation for you. If I'm wrong and you're right, it doesn't matter But what if I'm right? What if Jesus IS exactly who he said he was What a moron. By the way I am not lonely I have a wonderful family, I am not bitter I have an amazing life. The fact you are reading that into what I am posting means that you are.

You're proving my point Roger. I have MORE evidence for my position than you have for yours. Since you cannot, you are by Blaise Pascal's assumption, an unreasonable person.