I answered a question that folks should live and let live, religiously speaking, and I got a response that said this was the most dangerous threat to christianity. Can you tell me why he might say that?
Thanks!
2006-11-23 08:22:45 · 10 answers · asked by carole 7 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Well - more in the context of conversion. The idea that others could have a different point of view and be allowed to and not be subjected to conversion.
2006-11-23 08:30:03 · update #1
Certainly, Jen, we are responsible for our own behavior, but not the behavior of others, right? I mean i live a christian life if I want and you live whatever kind of life you want - it does not change my relationship with god or the validity of my way of being - and I would never presume to intrude on your relationship with god either.
2006-11-23 08:32:32 · update #2
For some reason he feels very insecure. Christianity doesn't need everyone to believe in order to be a valuable faith in the world. Different ways suit different people. A lot depends on the faith a person grew up with. Maybe your correspondent could relax in his own belief and trust that that is enough.
2006-11-23 08:27:45 · answer #1 · answered by lake-hills-sky 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
"live and let live...was the most dangerous threat to christianity"
From his viewpoint that is understandable, if overstated.
I would have settled for "live and let live" not being compatible with Christianity.
At the heart of the Christian message is the element which states, again and again, that this is a life and death issue. That it does very much matter what people believe.
Thus, given that understanding, choosing a faith is not like choosing a set of clothes (a matter of preference, pretty much), but more like choosing a course of medicine for a deadly disease. With only one option being effective.
In the latter case, what doctor or nurse would say "live and let live", and just let the patient rummage around in the supply cupboard? At the very least they would comment and advise. They might want to make a case for compulsion, if the patient refused the prescribed treatment.
That's the position that explains the reaction. From the Christian perspective humanity, individually and collectively, is ill with a deadly disease. And there is a specific cure, and one only. Not to treat the disease, or at least speak about it, is tantamount to criminal neglect.
Which leaves the big question. To pursue the analogy, are they right about the human condition, the illness and the cure?
From the other side of the fence this is a case of quack medicine, offering a cure for a disease that does not exist. And in various times and places the treatment, evangelism and conversion, has been applied with compulsion and even violence.
Neither side is right simply because they think they are.
No matter what level of convictiion. It is possible to utterly certain and utterly mistaken.
But both sides of the divide cannot both be right.
The right to hold different opinions on the matter is established in most countries, but not all.
"Live and let live" to that extent, anyway.
Bring on the debate.
2006-11-23 17:45:22 · answer #2 · answered by Pedestal 42 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Live and let live means to let others do as they please as long as they let you do as you please. Which basically is like saying, do whatever you want as long as it's ok that I do whatever I want. Live and let live does not allow for accountability, other than letting people off the hook. Christians believe that we are responsible for our behavior and our actions and that we are to live according to God's will, not our will of the moment which is often the case with live and let live.
I can't say for sure if that's what the other person meant, but that's my best guess.
2006-11-23 16:29:41 · answer #3 · answered by wyllow 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Unfortunately, it sounds like you stepped on the toes of a zealot. Most religions, christianity included, frown on a follower not ACTIVELY trying to convert people. Failing to do so would be the "most dangerous threat" because without more followers, the faith isn't being continually strengthened.
2006-11-23 16:59:13 · answer #4 · answered by Bill K Atheist Goodfella 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
There are a few possibilities; however one (Christian) should have Christ first in their life (ahead of self especially), within that context, 'live and let live' makes sense, outside of it, it sounds like anarchy.
2006-11-23 16:54:05 · answer #5 · answered by jefferyspringer57@sbcglobal.net 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Simply, he is not a Christian. Christians should even love their enemies. If any battle should come out of that, the LORD GOD is in charge.
2006-11-23 16:30:58 · answer #6 · answered by Cab302 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I can understand where he is coming from, because that attitude of live and let live is really the idea that it is not all that important, and your eternal life really is the most important decision you will make in your life. To ignore it means an eternity in Hell, which is a terrfying thought.
2006-11-23 16:33:04 · answer #7 · answered by oldguy63 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The truth is that there is only one way to God, and that is through Jesus Christ - he said that himself.
If we are complacent - "live and let live", then we allow a danger to their eternal life. Jesus gave a great commission to tell his truth to all nations, and for the reason of their salvation, and not falling into deception.
2006-11-23 16:29:08 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I think, because it sounds like there are no guide lines to live by.
But God gave us a set of rules to follow, the Bible.
2006-11-23 16:25:43 · answer #9 · answered by tim 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Maybe because it is pointed at one living for themselves, when we who believe in Jesus Christ live for HIM. That is our desire- we do not want to do things our own way because we know our own way would lead to destruction- We want God's way for us.
2006-11-23 16:28:27 · answer #10 · answered by Mandolyn Monkey Munch 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋