So i asked the question... why is christianity under fire... if relativity is a key belief in society...?

Question

Most answer with out reading my detail, i would hope people would be more dilagent. but just ask people are quick about christians, i assume most just want to express their personal anger toward christianity. my question was gear toward RELATIVISM! and once abain my point was proved. why most can go about believing in whatever their whims tells them will be easy or complementing to their lives, christians are riden off as intolerent...
yet most define tolerance as the ACCEPTANCE of (blank), while the definition would be...
"The capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others. Leeway for variation from a standard. The permissible deviation from a specified value of a structural dimension, often expressed as a percent."
the key is the difference in respecting and the hot word ACCEPTANCE yet according to this phlosophy, are you not supposed to respect at least christians too? not even accept, meary respect yet is see Hypocrasy for this bashing

yeah sorry can't spell at 5:30... in the morning... sry everyone

Answer 1

As you pointed out, this question IS about relativism. Relativism is based on the Post-Modern Age. It assumes that EVERYTHING is correct if it works for you as part of a specific group. Based on this, marijuana should be legalized for Rastafarian. Polygamy should be legalized for Muslims, and so on. And I mean worldwide.

On the other hand, Christianity is adamant that there are absolutes. Because most (if not all) persons in society accepts, say, homosexuality, according to Christianity, THAT does NOT make it right. And I might as well add here that all the major religions do have absolutes. Of course, this is exactly why there is so much conflict between religions, and between religion and secular society.

Christianity is under fire in western society because it opposes the basic tenet of Post-Modernism.

Answer 2

There is a deep theological reason for this and it goes far beyond this venue for an answer. Christians do have a fixed point of view, and it can be seen as being intolerant. As an example, I wish to believe that if I carve a figure out of a tree, and call it my god, then I should have that right. Yes you do, but it is just a chunk of a tree, and nothing more. In this example, I become really angry with those who say that my god is just a chunk of a tree and nothing more. How dare they belittle my god! Well, the Bible does say to have no other gods other than God himself, and that graven images are not acceptable. This is seen as being intolerant,while actually, to the Christian, it is simply a statement of truth. Argue with God about it, leave Christians out of it.

Answer 3

Tell me, Which religion isn't under fire these days? Muslim are attacking Christians, Xtians are attacking Muslims, Muslims are killing each other in a sectaries war, Xtians are attacking each other too by which one is the real faith based in Jesus. All religions express the good of God, how good you have to treat you neighbor, but at the moment to do it all of them fail. Xtians have a commandment that goes: "Shall not kill." Koram 5:32 says: "...if you kill an innocent man is like if you kill all humanity..." Are you Xrians and Muslims following your own teachings? I don't think so. So my friend as you can see all religions are the same and hypocrisy is their structure, so isn't just xtians you should reprehend, but all the people who have a religion and all the atheist too, because they say there isn't a God, but they don't do anything either to make this world a better one to live in; and concerning about you don't fold blind your self to talk about only one religion, when all of them are the same and are making the same mistakes.

Answer 4

there's a deep theological clarification for this and it is going some distance previous this venue for an answer. Christians do have a fixed attitude, and it particularly is considered as being illiberal. as an social accumulating, I desire to have faith that if I carve a come to a decision of a tree, and make contact with it my god, then i'd desire to have that suitable. useful you do, even yet it particularly is largely a chew of a tree, and not something greater advantageous. in this social accumulating, I develop into fairly indignant with people who say that my god is definitely a chew of a tree and not something greater advantageous. How dare they belittle my god! appropriate, the Bible does say to have not diverse gods diverse than God himself, and that graven pictures are certainly no longer ideal. that's considered as being illiberal,on an same time as easily, to the Christian, that's purely a certainty of certainty. Argue with God approximately it, bypass away Christians out of it.

Answer 5

I think that I understand the point of your question. You’re simply asking why, in a liberal, “relativistic” society, tolerance toward fundamental Christianity (an absolute belief system) isn’t a high value. I believe the answer is contained in the premise of your question.

Christianity, among other mono-theistic belief systems (i.e. fundamental Islam and orthodox Judaism) is founded upon “absolutes” such as, “good or evil”, “right or wrong” and “saved or unsaved”. That is an affront to today’s liberal, relativistic culture. It would seem that tolerance (towards Christianity) should be a high value since relativism allows for “diversity” from the norm (as you have stated in your detail). In reality, the relativistic view is only tolerant towards other relativistic viewpoints. In other words, it is not truly “tolerant” of differing viewpoints but is in fact hostile towards any form of absolutism (and particularly Christianity) because Christianity is still the predominate religion in America today.

Why is Christianity singled out as particularly offensive to the relativists? The reason is because Christianity in particular (and I think Islam as well) hold the belief that “faith” is vitally important to the eternal well being of the soul. That’s not to say that the ‘object of one’s faith’, which is different in Islam compared to Christianity, is the main point. But, the ‘absolute’ requirement of having faith in God puts them in the same boat as far as relativists are concerned. Relativism wants to believe that there is lots of room for error in regards to its conditions for ‘salvation’. Of course, the concept of salvation to the relativist is ethereal and doesn’t need to be clearly defined. That is the place where “tolerance” is allowed in the relativist’s worldview.

Today’s rise in relativism can be seen in the resurgence of paganism, wicca, witchcraft and many “secularized” forms of relativistic religions such as, secular humanism, environmental extremism, as well as “liberalized” forms of Christianity and Islam. The thing that all these post-modern forms of “religion” have in common is that making a value judgment regarding the absolute “truth” of any given religion is not allowed. To do so, ironically, makes the one who judges “intolerant”. For example, one may hold a belief that all objects, animate and inanimate, have spirits; so, the cutting down of a tree is wrong because the tree possess a spirit. Similarly, one may hold that killing an animal for food is wrong because the animal is a re-incarnated life form. These types of views are not only “tolerated” by the relativists but even respected. On the other hand, if one believes that killing an unborn child is murder, the person holding that view is deemed to be “intolerant”, a religious fanatic, and a relative threat to a women’s right to choose (a relativistic view point). Today, the accusation goes even further to say that the one holding that view is a threat to the very heart of the relativist’s “separation of church and state” interpretation of the constitution. Perhaps, in the near future, it will become a “hate” crime to speak of a pro-life belief because it is deemed, intolerant.

So, now we have come full circle. The supposed “tolerance” of the ‘non-judgmental religions’ is, by definition, intolerant of any religious belief that claims to hold ‘absolute truth’. The disconnect, I believe, is due primarily to semantics; particularly, the way that one defines, “tolerance”. One must adapt a kind of “1984 doublespeak” code to understand that it is more dependent upon who is using the word than the “absolute” previously agreed upon meaning. If a relativist uses the word, it’s implied that the meaning of tolerance should only apply to other relativistic beliefs that are themselves, ‘deserving’ of tolerance. Tolerance towards Christianity, on the other hand, isn’t warranted because Christianity (by definition) isn’t tolerant towards relativism. It’s a kind of irresolvable “catch 22” situation.
_

Answer 6

The discussion on your supposed question has no connection with your question, my friend. You should put or plant in your mind that Christianity is not under fire as you claimed yourself.There is no c connection with being a Christian to the society b because society is not a r religious organization

Answer 7

According to what philosophy? I don't have to tolerate anyone's beliefs, and I don't. I also don't have to accept them. Why should we? All that does is create a bunch of fence-sitters who are loyal to neither faith nor reason.

Answer 8

You ramble too much, you can't spell, and your question is very, very unclear. I think you are the one who needs to be more DILIGENT.