to think it is rude to persistently refer to God/Allah/etc. as an "imaginary friend"

[AtheneNoctua]

even after asked not to by several posters who have stated they found it offensive.

Some people's beliefs are stupid, witless, toxic crap. Like 'My imaginary friend thinks that gay people should all be killed'. Or 'My imaginary friend thinks that women are inferior to men.' some faith organisations peddle this crap. Many people's beliefs about invisible no-evidence-for-their-existence supernatural beings are harmless and even benign (ie holding the belief makes the person want to be nice to others and comforts the person when things are not going so well).
The problem with people insisting that their assorted imaginary friends/beliefs that myths are true should be taken seriously is that it makes it harder to keep the world fair and safe for those who would be victimised by some of the more toxic belief systems. You have the right to believe in your imaginary friend, to sing songs to your imaginary friend, to study books about your imaginary friend and formulate theories about what your imaginary friend wants. You don't have the right to inflict your imaginary friend on other people.

Amen

Fair enough!

You do of course have the right to express your opinion democratically, and canvass for the support of others. Who are equally entitled to tell you bugger off.

well said sgb

But I would also quite like not to be told that I am stupid, or that I obviously believe X, Y or Z because some other person who calls themself a Christian believes it, or that I am responsible for every bad thing that anyone has ever done in the name of religion.

SGB, I agree with pretty much everything you said except "no-evidence-for-their-existence".

There is proof of certain things, like the Bible existing etc. It may not prove God exists, but there is 'evidence' to suggest it.

The 'evidence' suggests that some people believe this stuff. In the case of some religious texts, there is outside evidence that some of the human beings referred to did exist. There is no strong irrefutable evidence for the existence of supernatural beings.

AMumInScotland, I sympathise because your posts always seem sensible and fair to me. Your position always seems far away from those most of us are criticising.

Really though you need to take it up with the other christians who are doing and saying the things you don't want to be associated with. Either that or call it something different. I expect they would get to keep the name since they were here first.

So Onager, AMumInScotland declares herself to be a Christian, but doesn't match your idea of a Christian, so rather than concluding that your understanding of Christianity may be flawed, you conclude that she should "call it something different".

Is that a fair assessment? Are you really that much of an expert on Christianity?

Iorek, it's AMIS that has the problem and is protesting about it. I'm just pointing out a workaround.

She may of course continue to call herself a christian, but naturally people will assume she means a christian like the millions of other christians in the world today and down the ages. Believing in the bible, heaven and hell, adam and eve,sin etc.

She can explain each time that she is not into all that, but that seems hard work.

Christianity wasn't defined by me. It was defined by all the christians who have come before. Take it up with them.

Just to be clear. I already know that AMIS doesn't believe in all that stuff so it's fine by me if she calls herself christian. But when I or anyone else criticise christians who do believe it she may feel offended when it fact it doesn't apply to her at all.

You need to define your terms better.

Not me, christians. See above

Has AMIS said that she doesn't believe in 'the bible, heaven and hell, adam and eve, sin'? All I can see on this thread is her saying that she chooses to interpret the Bible in the light of modern ways of thinking.

Hi!

I really do consider myself to be a Christian -

I believe in the Trinity - God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I can recite the Nicene Creed in church without crossing my fingers behind my back, I believe the things I said at my Confirmation. I believe that God made the universe and everything in it, though by a process of setting up the basic groundrules and allowing it to evolve, not a complete work in 6 days. I believe that Jesus Christ was God Incarnate, and that by the incarnation and crucifixion and resurrection he changed for ever the relationship between God and humanity, and that because of it we have the Holy Spirit which we can invite into our lives, and through which we can have a direct relationship with God.

However, I am a liberal Christian, which means that I read the Bible without any "preconceived notion of inerrancy of scripture or the correctness of Church dogma" (thanks to Wikipedia for the words!)

So, no I'm not going to redefine myself as something else!

Heaven - not exactly - but there will be a new creation after this one, in which those in relationship with God will have the chance to take part.

Hell - no need for it - being "snuffed out" is enough

Adam & Eve - no, nice story, tells us about how people interpreted God as Creator, not historically accurate.

Sin - well, we're all imperfect, and that distances us from God, which is one definition of what Christians mean by sin.

On that basis I'd say you believe, loosely speaking, in three out of the four, AMIS - and as Meatloaf nearly said, three out of four ain't bad

AMIS, I prefer liberal Christians. People like you give christianity a good name

But this means you will just have to put up with strangers thinking you are a 'traditional' christian (for want of a better word). It's the price you pay for using the same word.

It is deliberately offensive, although most believers have strong enough faith to put it in its place.

What is ironic is that most people who deliver this stupid statement feel themselves to be particularly intellectual, and it is so ironic.

I personally believe that anyone who does not have faith in the Lord Jesus Christ has something missing from their lives.

I don't often say this on threads, however, because I know that most atheists take offense to hear that they have empty lives. It doesn't change the truth, however.

onager, I'm an atheist but I don't assume that all Christians believe the same things. In fact (given the CofE's woolly liberalist stance over much of my lifetime) I usually make the working assumption that British Christians I meet are similarly liberal.

Hell simply means a 'separation from God'. If you are an atheist, then you are surely proud of being separated from God, so I don't know why it is offensive for someone to say that you are already in hell or going to hell. Surely you should be happy about this?

Or do you not understand the theological significance?

I would never ever suggest that a person is in hell, even if I strongly suspect it. It is simply not my place to make such a judgment. There is only one person who can do that.

Also, we all live in hope.

Well, you say that's what hell means, but that's not what the Bible says, is it? As for Squeakypops - you believe that everybody on earth led an 'empty life' until 2000 years ago, and even now the vast majority of people (atheists, muslims, hindus, buddhists etc) still do? Bit arrogant, eh?

Less arrogant than those who bat on about PSMs and IFs.

If only atheists would go along with the golden rule.

Do you really believe that? That all Muslims lead empty lives? All athiests? All Hindus?