Renu says: December 25, 2013 at 6:32 am
Dear Anu, Im Hindu and my boyfriend is Christian. We’ve been together close to a year now and we’ve been implying on kids and how our lives will be in the future. Im madly in love with him and honestly cannot imagine a life without him and i am also the type of girl who believes in true love and dream of the perfect marriage.
Recently he has cheated on me with a Christian girl, and when i asked him why he did it, he said that he doubted our relationship because of our religious differences. But in due time we managed to work that out and now recently again he is saying that he doesnt believe in marriage so much anymore again because of our religious differences.
I on the other hand, fully agree with you and you’re belief in a mutual understanding sort of interfaith relationship. I find that very beautiful. But for some reason that doesnt seem to get through to my boyfriend. He has asked me before if i would convert for him, an out of love and a little bit of alcohol, at that time i said yes. But later on when i asked him the same question, just out of curiousity (of course i wouldnt make him convert) he said something that implied that he couldnt because it would be betraying his religion.
I truly love this guy, and i know he loves me too. And marriage is still a little far off for us, but going through all that has really hurt me, and sometimes i think that staying in this relationship and hoping for the best for the future is just false hope and that i might be setting myself up for eternal heartbreak.
Please tell me what to do, or how to get through to him that a mutual understanding interfaith marriage is highly possible and a better choice? -Renu
Admin says:
Renu,
You have come to a right site for this type of issue.
You said you are looking for a “true love and dream of the perfect marriage”. If so, then you have to make fully “informed” decision for life.
It is very easy to find out if you are “just false hope and that i might be setting myself up for eternal heartbreak.” Simply tell him that our children will be raised in TWO faiths and nothing less (meaning no BBS). If he is a religious fanatic, he will walk away from you.
You are educated and a smart girl, and you not going to be happy with interfaith marriage with in-equality. You are not going to be happy in life by submitting to his irrational demands for baptism for you or your children.
The Baptism/Bris/Shahadah (BBS) labeling practice is a social sin for interfaith couples. We have created this web site to eradicate irrational BBS practice for interfaith couples looking for equality. Let us explain it to you….
Your bf is taught in his church that only Baptized Christians will be “saved” on the Judgment Day while all non-Christians (including Jews, Muslims and Mahatama Gandhi) will go to hell. Contrary to that, Koran is telling Muslims that for God to have a son (Jesus) is a monstrous falsehood (meaning Christianity is invalid religion). Further, Allah told Muslims not to be friends with Jews and Christians. On the other side, Jews believe they are God’s “Chosen” people and will not rest till their interfaith children get Bar Mitzvah label to announce them Jews. There is a war for whose God is right! Is this labeling business logical for interfaith lovers? (view Guruuma).
You said, “I truly love this guy, and i know he loves me too”, but unfortunately he is brainwashed by his church that Hindus are idol worshipper and sinners. He will not rest till you get baptized. He is out for love-proselytism. Choice is yours if you wish to give up your birth religion and be an intolerant just like him.
It is not impossible to educate your boy friend to be respectful to all faiths, but it will take years to undo the damage done by his church. So, you have to decide if you have energy to re-educate him. If not, simply walk away from that relationship for something better.
Please come back with more thoughts/questions. We wish you the best. -Admin
More information: Interfaith marriage with equality, Hindu-Christian Marriage, Bible on Hindus? Christian-Hindu relationships, Marriage & Divorce laws.
Return to Home, Blogs, How to Share? Facebook, Youtube, Twitter, Book, Media.
Hi.. Pls help me. I don’t get correct directions about my future he is from other Caste but we both are happy with each other but my family is Christian they won’t accept him
Reply at https://interfaithshaadi.org/?p=14922&cpage=1#comment-424568
Hello I m a Hindu girl and I have recently met a Christian boy he said he liked me for two years and was waiting for me to like him the same n now since ,2 months we are in a relationship I love him a lot but I four about our future I know its too early to make future decision but I talked to him he says he want me n loves me the way I am n will not force me to convert….what should I do should I believe him???
Reply at https://www.interfaithshaadi.org/?p=10548
Renu, i would’ve advised you to just get over him for common good, that is, if im not in same situatuon with you. Im a christian having a Brahmin boyfriend that values family pride so much. I cant ask him if he’s willing to convert for me as I dont want him to do that. And you’re right.. it hurts.. so much…
Sofie,
So what is the status of your relationship now?
I am a hindu girl and soon to marry a Catholic guy from India.
We live in London. My family is in South Africa and his are in Goa.
We (more him than me) decided to get married in court, however I feel that this option just lacks substance.
His parents are opposed to a hindu priest and having a Puja therefore we cannot have a hindu wedding. My fiancé has not pressured me into a Church wedding or changing my religion, and on this basis he is insisting on a church wedding. Somehow i feel that something is missing. He will not even agree to blessing from both religions.
My family will not arrange a marriage for me with bits and pieces of hindu tradition in order to suite his wishes, and i am beginning to understand why this is the case.
I would like to marry him – i respect both religions – but its difficult to bring it together.
Has anybody been in this position.
I cannot visualise how we are going to do this.
Reply at https://www.interfaithshaadi.org/?p=7599
Hi all. I am very happy that I found this website to share my problem about my love.I am a hindu guy(24), working as a software engineer in one of MNC’s and loving a christian(Hebron) girl (23) for more than 4 years and she loves me so much.I cant live without her and I want to spend my rest of life with her.She believes more in christianity that only JESUS is the real God and all other Gods are fake.I give respect to all other beliefs but she wants me to take baptism and get converted to christianity for our marriage.Is it wrong to follow both religious beliefs.I will not force her to convert into hinduism and if she wants I can go to church along with her.I was worried about my parents.She wants to get married in a christian way and I agreed to that but getting converted will become a problem in our family coz my parents worked very hard to raise me up and i dont want to hurt them by converting and also I dont want to leave my love.
I need your suggestion/help/advice in order to get our marriage happen.
She wants to get married in Christian way.
Waiting for your valuable reply.
Reply at https://www.interfaithshaadi.org/?p=7568
Hello Renu,
Dont take hasty decision and get fully convinced about attitude and behaviour of your BF. Dont get trapped by flattering statements. Be careful.
In Protestant fundamentalist Christianity, “Good” and “Evil” are defined solely in terms of one’s attitude toward the Christian God. Humans are said to have been created for the purpose of glorifying God. Therefore, total subservience to the Christian God is “good,” and anything else is “evil,” no matter how beneficial to humans.
On the other hand, liberal Christians take a more humanistic view of morality. They tend to think of “good” and “evil” in terms of concrete benefit and harm, primarily to humans.
The fundamentalist Protestant idea of “Good” and “Evil” is almost completely divorced from any idea of concrete benefit or harm to humans. The most seemingly “good” (in a human-centered sense) forms of rebellion against God are considered to be no better than the most obviously evil forms. On the contrary, the most seemingly “good” (in a human-centered sense) types of “evil” (in the Christian God-centered sense) are considered to be the most insidious, the most likely to lead people astray. “For even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light” (2 Corinthians 11:14, NASV). “Narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it” (Matthew 7:14, KJV).
To Protestant fundamentalists, the essense of “Evil” is the very idea that we have any right whatsoever to think independently about morality, rather than submit totally to the Christian God. It is considered impossible to have morality without an “absolute standard.” And only God can provide that purported “absolute standard.”
I am less familiar with with Roman Catholic thought than with fundamentalist Protestant thought. Judging by what I’ve seen so far, Catholic thought is not as simplistic as fundamentalist Protestantism tends to be. Yet it appears to me that, at least in practice if not in theory, conservative Catholics too tend to think of “good” and “evil” in a God-centered sense rather than in terms of concrete benefit and harm to humans. An example is their irrationally strict attitude toward birth control.
Satan in Christianity
Next question: How is the liberal-vs.-fundamentalist divide relevant to our understanding of who and what Satan is?
The more liberal Christians tend not to believe in a Devil. If “evil” is defined in terms of harm, then a consistent commitment to Absolute Evil is logically impossible, as explained here by Elliot Rose.
Among Christians, belief in a Devil has a very high correlation with advocacy of God-centered concepts of morality and rejection of human-centered concepts of morality. Thus, the Devil — in the minds of even those Christians who most strongly believe in Him — has at most a secondary interest in “evil” in the sense of concrete, Earthly harm to humans, as distinct from “Evil” in the sense of rebellion against the Christian God.
Roman Catholic doctrine on “Evil” starts from a relatively common-sense concept of “evil,” as explained in the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Evil. However, Catholic doctrine regards Satan not as the source of all evil, but, more specifically, as the enemy of “Christ’s kingdom,” i.e. the Church. Satan is the “head of all the wicked” who are “ranged under his banner in continual warfare with the kingdom of Christ,” according to the Catholic Encyclopedia article on the Devil, which also says:
There is no reason, indeed, for thinking that all sins and all temptations must needs come directly from the Devil or one of his ministers of evil. For it is certain that if, after the first fall of Adam, or at the time of the coming of Christ, Satan and his angels had been bound so fast that they might tempt no more, the world would still have been filled with evils. For men would have had enough of temptation in the weakness and waywardness of their hearts. But in that case the evil would clearly have been far less than it is now, for the activity of Satan does much more than merely add a further source of temptation to the weakness of the world and the flesh; it means a combination and an intelligent direction of all the elements of evil. The whole Church and each one of her children are beset by dangers, the fire of persecution, the enervation of ease, the dangers of wealth and of poverty, heresies and errors of opposite characters, rationalism and superstition, fanaticism and indifference. It would be bad enough if all these forces were acting apart and without any definite purpose, but the perils of the situation are incalculably increased when all may be organized and directed by vigilant and hostile intelligences.
Note the multi-faceted nature of Satan’s influence, according to Catholic doctrine. Satan promotes variety, e.g. “heresies and errors of opposite characters,” rather than promoting any one single principle. Thus, in Catholic doctrine as well as in fundamentalist Protestant doctrine, you are a part of Satan’s kingdom — acting in accordance with Satan’s master plan — if you are any kind of heretic, i.e., if you think for yourself on matters of theology and morality, rather than submitting to Christian orthodoxy.
A similar view of Satan is held not just by Catholics and by Protestant fundamentalists, but also by moderately conservative Protestants. See, for example, The Screwtape Letters and “Screwtape Proposes a Toast” by C.S. Lewis.
Satan in most forms of theistic Satanism
Many theistic Satanists hold a view of Satan that is actually quite similar to the Christian view, except that it is more general.
We see Satan as an entity who enjoys prodding us to think for ourselves rather than submit blindly to any orthodoxy — not just Christian orthodoxy. To many theistic Satanists, Satan is a God who, among other things, champions individuality and independent thought.
This view of Satan is not very far removed from the here-and-now beliefs about Satan held by those Christians who are most likely to believe in Satan.
Of course, we disagree with hardcore Christians regarding (1) our beliefs about the relative status and power of Satan and the Christian God and (2) our value judgment concerning Satan. (Many theistic Satanists also believe in the existence of other gods as well, and some are pantheistic. See Who and What Is Satan? Various Satanist reinterpretations on the Church of Azazel site.)
As for “Evil” in a human-centered sense, Satan — as understood both by hardcore Christians and by many Satanists — does encourage us to think forbidden thoughts of all kinds, including thoroughly nasty thoughts sometimes. To be truly independent thinkers, we must indeed be willing to think forbidden thoughts of all kinds, no matter what the purported reason why they are forbidden.
But this doesn’t necessarily oblige Satanists to follow through on all those forbidden thoughts. Reflexive anti-morality isn’t independent thinking. After open-minded contemplation of some particular forbidden activity, we might conclude that it is forbidden for a good reason (good in a practical, human-centered sense) after all — whereas some other activities are forbidden for no good reason. If we conclude that there’s a good reason why a particular activity is forbidden, then at least we know why we think it is wrong (or against our own interests), rather than just blindly following the herd.
Hardcore Christians have spread lots of sensationalistic tales about “Satanic cults” who allegedly perform human sacrifices and ritual sexual abuse of children. (See my collection of links to articles Refuting the “Satanic Ritual Abuse” witchhunt of the 1980’s and early 1990’s.) But how would such behavior by Satanists serve Satan’s goals, even from a purely Christian point of view? Satan’s number one aim, according to traditional Christian belief, is to get as many people as possible to reject the Christian God. Satan’s goal, according to most of those Christians who actually believe in Satan, is not to get people to behave as nastily as possible, but rather to get as many people to leave Christianity as possible. A bunch of Satanists going around torturing and murdering people would not serve that goal. On the contrary, it would only frighten people into clinging all the more tightly to Christianity. And that, of course, is probably one of the reasons why some Christian evangelists love to spread tales of “Satanic crime.” But, to be consistent with the traditional Christian idea of Satan, the main goals of Satan’s human followers would be (1) to lure people away from Christianity; (2) to get ourselves into positions of power and influence, the better to lure even more people away from Christianity; and (3) simply to live our lives as we please, looking out for our own interests.
Satanists, being non-Christians, tend not to have such a Christian-centric view of things. Therefore, many public Satanists are more interested in challenging popular dogmas in general (or, at least, whichever popular dogmas we personally find most irksome) rather than just Christian ideas in particular. But the goal of challenging popular dogma in general is clearly a superset of the goal of challinging Christian ideas in particular, and is thus more consistent with traditional Christian ideas about Satan than is the idea that Satanists can best “serve Satan” by committing violent crime simply for the sake of being “evil.” (Some Satanists might be political revolutionaries, but that too is not “evil” for its own sake.)
Whence the Black Circle Boys’ notion of Satan?
Many Satanists feel embarrased by the existence of some people, mainly teenagers, who venerate Satan primarily as a god of “Evil” in the sense of gratuitous harm, and who use Satanism as an excuse for violent criminal activity. I will refer to such people as Black Circle Boys, after the 1997 movie of that name.
Black Circle Boys are noted for killing and torturing animals, sometimes even humans, in the name of Satan. Most Black Circle Boys outgrow it. Some of them end up embracing more mature forms of Satanism.
Note: Those theistic Satanists who practice animal sacrifice are not necessarily “black circle boys.” I would consider them to be “black circle boys” only if the animal is killed in a particularly cruel manner. See my article on Animal sacrifice.
Also, Black Circle Boys aren’t the only Satanists who acknowledge, venerate, and even celebrate Satan in His Destroyer aspect. However, most Satanists regard Satan as much more than just a destroyer.
Among Satanists, it is often said that Black Circle Boys believe in the “Christian” idea of Satan. But, as I’ve explained above, this isn’t really true.
The Black Circle Boys’ ideas about Satan are derived more from pop culture than from Christianity. In horror movies and supermarket tabloids, Satan is often portrayed as personifying “evil” in the sense of just plain nastiness. Thus, in pop culture, Satan personifies notions of “evil” held by people who typically do not actually believe in Satan.
The Satan of hardcore Christianity is much more subtle and clever, much more the sort of entity that all Satanists can admire.
More about pop cultural vs. hardcore Christian ideas of “Evil”
To be fair, I should mention that Black Circle Boys aren’t the only Satanists whose ideas of Satan and “evil” are derived more from pop culture than from Christianity.
Some of the more vocal public Satanists, especially in the U.K. and New Zealand, hold that Westerners have gotten too soft, comfy, cowardly, and generally “weak.” To such Satanists, a major goal is to “build character” through facing danger. Hence they seek out “evil” in the sense of danger.
The “weakness” of many Westerners is often blamed on Christianity, the “religion of the weak.” However, most western Satanists who say this sort of thing seem to be reacting NOT against hardcore Christianity, but against the more wishy-washy, watered-down, middle-of-the-road forms of Christianity, e.g. northern European state churches. Many of the more hardcore forms of Christianity are not at all incompatible with a warlike spirit. For that matter, even the more middle-of-the-road forms of Christianity can easily adapt themselves to a warlike spirit when needed. Only a minority of Christian sects are committed to pacifism. Jesus himself said, “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword” (Matthew 10:34).
Hardcore Christians are “weak” in the sense of slavish, but NOT particularly “weak” (compared to most other Westerners) in the sense of soft, comfy, or cowardly. As far as the latter kinds of “weakness” are concerned, the real “religion of the weak” is the jaded, ultra-commercialized pop culture of affluent Western societies, not Christianity per se, despite the mutual influence between Western pop culture and contemporary Christianity.
When I talk about Christianity being compatible with a “warlike” spirit, I mean “warlike” in the sense of “soldierly.” There is even a well-known hymn with the title “Onward, Christian Soldiers.” And, as Nietzsche and others have pointed out, soldiers are not the same thing as warriors in the more ancient and more lordly sense.
I fully understand what you mean, and forgive me for I am young, but would be better to know that he is a Protestant, though im not sure of the differences. But i do believe he is more open minded that… Or am i really fooling myself?
I have also recently found this book written by a Christian minister about how she and a Hindu monk fell in love and got married, called Saffron Cross. I’m still trying to get a hold of one of these.
Renu,
You may be young but you are smart and thinker.
We can’t understand why some Christians cannot tolerate Hindu in their life. If your bf wanted a Christian wife, why he is dating with you, to love-proselytize you?
Can you read what we said to Anu and let us know if it makes sense? https://www.interfaithshaadi.org/?p=407
Dear Renu,
You appear to be innocent and your BF number one cheater. He will continue to cheat you. Christians are notorious in cheating females and expert in trapping them. In the churches, focus is always how to convert non christians to their religion.
The Church has done some terrible things in the past. The Crusades, the Inquisition, and other events in Christianity’s history have had horrible aspects. Christians have tortured, maimed, and violently killed those with differing beliefs. Even today, televangelists and others use the name of God to reap huge profits, while priests commit horrible acts of pedophilia. Criminals use the name of God to justify their horrible crimes.
Nonbelievers often point out the carnage and death Christians have caused in the past and present. However, contrary to popular belief, these facts do not undermine Christianity. I do not wish to deny that Christians have done evil things in the past and continue to do evil things today. I do not wish for us to forget about these things, and I do not wish to rationalize them away. However, the fact of the matter is that the actions of human beings have no impact on the truth or falsity of the Christian religion. Christianity is based on historical truth, and the fact that Christians have done evil things in the past does nothing to effect whether or not the resurrection took place.
In fact, if anything the evil acts of men only confirm certain teachings in the Bible. The Bible indicates that men are evil at heart, and this seems to be the unquestionably true when one looks at what men have done in the past and present. However, the evil actions of men do not disprove historical events such as the resurrection. Therefore, it is plain to see that the atheistic argument in this case is completely irrelevant, a total non sequitir.
If you examine atheistic websites, you may observe that a large portion of the arguments against Christianity have to do with the evils committed by Christians past and present. These are not logical arguments, they are merely emotional objections to Christianity. It is often claimed that Christians hold to their belief system for purely emotional reasons. If this is so, then why are such a large amount of atheistic objections to Christianity based on nothing but emotion? This seems to be an inconsistency.
Christianity and a morbid history?
The most common attempt to justify atheism by means of evil Christian deeds is to point out the rather troubling history of the Church. The most famous examples of severe misconduct of the Church are the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the Salem Witch trials. Although I believe an argument can be made that the wrongdoings of these events were not only done by Christians, and that the amount of evil performed is sometimes exaggerated, I do not really wish to get into such a comprehensive study. Nor do I wish to rationalize such events away, nor do I wish to “justify” these events.
However, I find it important to point out that these past mishaps of the Church in particular and Christianity in general do nothing to disconfirm historical realities. Christianity is a religion based on the historical truth of the resurrection. As such, it is not disproved because Christians have committed horrible deeds in the past.
On top of this, the fact that the Church participated in such activities does not mean that such things were justified by Biblical teachings. Rather, those instances in which there was severe misconduct are easily attributed to the greed and self-interest of the men involved, as well as unjustified hatred and paranoia of those who hold different beliefs.
Psychological Effects of Christian Belief?
Additionally, the supposed psychological effects of Christian belief are often pointed out. Christianity, it is charged, causes people to be irrational, ignorant, and perhaps even stupid. It is claimed that belief in the doctrine of salvation of faith alone abolishes true moral responsibility and encourages blind faith. Supposedly, Christianity leads to decreased self-confidence due to the fact that it teaches that all people are sinners and unworthy of God.
The list could go on, but there are several problems with these claims. Firstly, I am a Christian, and I feel as though I am a reasonably secure individual with good self-confidence. (It should be mentioned that being humble can also be a virtue, and the fact that I know I have fallen short causes me to be humble, while not destroying all of my self-confidence.) Additionally, despite the fact that I believe that good works are not sufficient for salvation, I feel that I am still diligent in my effort to perform good deeds. And if the doctrines of Christianity encourage blind faith, then I am certainly off the mark, as I have spent countless hours creating this website in an effort to defend the rationality of the Christian faith. Actually, it seems like Christianity as a whole has done the opposite of support “blind faith” (from what other religious viewpoint can you find such a large amount of apologetics material?).
In fact, the claim that Christianity causes psychological problems in general is quite unfounded. I am aware of absolutely no evidence that Christians or religious believers in general are more unstable. Until this sort of claim is documented with rigorous psychological studies, it should be discarded.
Secondly, even if Christianity did cause the majority of believers harsh psychological repercussions, there is no reason to think that the Christian doctrines “should” evoke such responses. If my belief in original sin abolishes any semblance of self-confidence I have, then the problem may be with me rather than with the doctrine. If I believe in “blind faith” because of the doctrine of salvation, perhaps I have missed the mark. So, even if there was a correlation between psychological instability and Christian doctrines (which is highly doubtful), it does not imply that these doctrines, properly interpreted, should result in psychological problems.
Thirdly, and most importantly, such psychological problems do not disprove history. Even if the doctrine of original sin abolishes my self-confidence, furthermore, even if it should destroy it, we still have not gotten anywhere with regard to historical truth. Christianity, being based on historical facts, could still be true. The supposed psychological repercussions of Christian belief therefore have no bearing on whether or not Christianity is factually correct.
Christianity brings out the worst in people?
Another common claim is that Christian faith brings out the worst in some individuals. Christians are arrogant, intolerable, and ignorant, purportedly. “Fundamentalists” pound the Bible and make offensive signs that read “TURN OR BURN!” Christianity also encourages us to separate from nonbelievers, which furthers intolerance and leads to intense ethnocentrism.
Again, I don’t believe Christianity has caused me to display any of the aforementioned qualities any more than I would have were I not Christian. I try not to be arrogant. Even though I am confident that my beliefs are true, I will always admit it when I make a mistake. I tolerate others just fine, and I am not involved in racism of any kind. Those who know me can probably attest that I get along with just about everybody. And although there is much I must learn, I don’t think one could label me as ignorant. I certainly do not enjoy taunting others with the phrase “you’re going to burn in hell” except as an occasional joke when the situation permits. And I know many Christians who are much more level-headed than me. So it is certainly not true that Christianity always brings out bad qualities in people. All of my bad qualities are in spite of, not because of, my Christian beliefs.
Once again, the claim that the majority (or even a significant minority) of Christians are worse people because of their belief is highly doubtful. To my knowledge, there is no evidence for such a conjecture, and thus it should be dismissed.
However, even if the majority of Christians were intolerable, arrogant, and ignorant, there is no reason to suppose that Christianity should evoke this sort of behavior. Besides, this just once again emphasizes that no human is perfect, including those who are Christians. This fundamental concept is not only unobjectionable to me, it is also positively affirmed in the Bible.
Most importantly, the bad behavioral patterns of some Christians does not affect historical truth in any way, shape, or form. What we have here is another emotional objection to Christianity, and such arguments simply won’t cut it.
Hitler was a Christian!
Of all the issues that are discussed in this article, perhaps the most hotly debated topic is the issue of Hitler’s religious persuasion. The debate over whether or not Hitler was a Christian is found all over chatrooms, message boards, and Internet articles. Atheists generally claim that Hitler was a Christian, and Christians generally claim that Hitler was an atheist. Interestingly, the truth may be that he was neither. 1 Either way, the religious persuasion of Adolf Hitler is a difficult, perhaps impossible, thing to determine.
I used to be involved heavily in the debate over whether or not Hitler was a Christian. I felt that he was an atheist, and I thought that non-theists were merely trying to shame Christianity by placing such a notorious figure in its ranks. However, I now realize that it does not really matter.
There is no doubt that Hitler was an evil man. The mere mentioning of the name Adolf Hitler often brings horrible thoughts, and for some, horrible memories. However, Hitler’s actions are not supported anywhere in the Bible or the teachings of Jesus Christ. So, even if he was a Christian, there is no reason to suppose that his actions were justified. Also, once again, it must be reiterated that Hitler’s actions do nothing to affect whether or not the resurrection took place.
What about the good stuff Christians do?
Those who hold to the position of atheism are quick to point out slip-ups in Christianity’s history and the supposed psychological and character-affecting doctrines of the Bible. However, if we must suppose that bad deeds are evidence against Christianity, then are good deeds evidence for Christianity?
There are many positive things the church has done in the past and many Christians who perform great deeds. One example of a great Christian deed is found in the case of Dirk Willems, who paid the ultimate price for following his Biblically-based moral code. 2 He was executed by the Church for teaching heretical doctrines, but he gave up freedom in order to save the life of a man that wished to take him captive. Doubtless the skeptic would focus on the evil acts of the Church in this scenario, but instead we should focus on the great deed of Dirk Willems.
Furthermore, despite the fact that it is claimed that Christians have vigorously fought scientific progress, a great number of the founding fathers of scientific disciplines were in fact Christians. 3 Professor David N. Livingstone argued that “The idea that science and Christianity have constantly been loggerheads is a gross distortion of the historical record… Indeed, Robert Boyle, the great English student of chemistry, believed that scientists more than anyone else glorified God in the pursuit of their tasks because it was given to them the interrogate God’s creation.” 4
Churches and Christian Organizations have started charities, homeless shelters, and fundraisers to help the poor and unfortunate. I know that some Christian organizations near where I live have positive outreaches in the community. Many of the Christians I know are very good human beings and they all have many positive effects upon society.
So, is all of this evidence in favor of Christianity? If the evil deeds of Christians are evidence against Christianity, then surely the good deeds of Christians are evidence in favor of that worldview! Most likely, few atheists would accept this argument, and for good reasons. It’s because the simple fact that Christians have done good deeds in the past does nothing to affect historical truth. If the atheist wishes to deny that good deeds performed by Christians are evidence that Christianity is true, then they must admit that the moral choices of men have no bearing upon whether or not an historical event actually happened. Therefore, all the atheistic objections we have discussed in this article are exposed for what they are, which is a complete and total irrelevancy.
An atheist may counter that the elucidation of the evils of Christianity was not meant to disprove the worldview. But this is a sham. If the atheist admits that these arguments are irrelevant (which they inevitably must), then only one reason remains for articles on the evils of Christianity to be posted on sites which purportedly refute the Christian religion. This reason is an underhanded tactic known as poisoning the well. The tactic here is to introduce doubt into the minds of readers without using actual arguments. Emotional appeals are used to persuade individuals to a certain point of view without a single rational argument being used.
So be aware of this christian guy.
I am a hindu girl and soon to marry a Catholic guy from India.
We live in London. My family is in South Africa and his are in Goa.
We (more him than me) decided to get married in court, however I feel that this option just lacks substance.
His parents are opposed to a hindu priest and having a Puja therefore we cannot have a hindu wedding. My fiancé has not pressured me into a Church wedding or changing my religion, and on this basis he is insisting on a church wedding. Somehow i feel that something is missing. He will not even agree to blessing from both religions.
My family will not arrange a marriage for me with bits and pieces of hindu tradition in order to suite his wishes, and i am beginning to understand why this is the case.
I would like to marry him – i respect both religions – but its difficult to bring it together.
Has anybody been in this position.
I cannot visualise how we are going to do this.
Reply at https://www.interfaithshaadi.org/?p=7599
Rohaman, I respect your advice to Renu, but please be more rational than personal/emotional. You said:
“Dear Renu,
You appear to be innocent and your BF number one cheater. He will continue to cheat you. Christians are notorious in cheating females and expert in trapping them. In the churches, focus is always how to convert non christians to their religion.”
I am sorry, but we can’t just simply generalise ppl who are followers of a certain religion as “notorious cheaters”. I am a Christian woman. I had a Hindu boyfriend who had cheated on me more than 5 times. Being a weak woman who didn’t know her worth, I stayed. So, should I label all Hindu men/women as notorious cheaters aiming at cheating CHristian women/men?
Please, cheating doesn’t root from one’s religion. Anyone who is spiritually weak, has no direction in life or is uncertain about their partners, would normally choose to be unfaithful to their partner.
Melisa,
Can you share more information on your relationship to a Hindu? What was agreement or understanding for marriage and religion of children? Was religion a major factor in separation?