On this website the attacks against God and Christianity have been vicious and frequent, as anyone knows whose membership goes beyond one week. Christians have been accused of having no morals, because we attempt to justify the flood or the smiting of the firstborn in Egypt. A certain blooger feels that because of this view all christians have abdicated their right and ability to make moral judgements. They would also argue that Christianity is a bad thing, and if it did not exist the world would be a more moral place.
This is a lie. To start I would like to lay out a question often put forth by Dennis Praegar, a prominent writer and talk show host. You are walking at night in a bad neighborhood. A group of young men are aproaching you. Do you feel more or less safe, if you know that these men have just left bible school?
Even if nothing that happened in the bible is true, and even if God is the greatest evildoer ever that does not change the fact that Christianity as a Societal force is good.
Christians obey this basic tenet, "Love thy neighbor as thyself." The essence of the Christian life is not philosophising about various passages, but loving one's neighbor.
A Christian does not claim authority over life and death, for that is left to God. So while God may smite the firstborn, a Christian would be wrong to kill. If everyone held Christian morals, the world would be a much better place.
The greatest force for good in the world today is Christianity. Look at Mother Theresa and her sisters. Although many of the world's utilitarianists and globalists look with horror upon the Aids epidemic in Africa, it is Christians that have missions.
Although many of the world's utilitarianists and globalists look with horror upon the Aids epidemic in Africa, it is Christians that have missions.
There is also the peace corps, and Doctors without borders, and the Red Cross (which had an amazing response during the Tsunami a few years ago), and other secular organizations that do good. Christians don't have a monopoly on helping others. And, of course, these people help without expecting anything (such as a conversion) in return. The same can't be said for many missions trips.
~C
Visit my blog: www.progressiveu.org/blog/mvenus929
Read the news: www.progressiveu.org/news
I can't speak for many religions, but Christecular ones.
I don't claim that Christian individuals are immoral. There are moral Christians as well as those who are immoral. Once again, the same is true for members of other religions as well as atheists.
In the end, Christians are just like any other group of people. There are good people and bad people. It's as simple as that. If you can point out a lot of cases of Christians doing good, well there are a lot of Christians.
One more thing about Judaism, on a similar note, it is not considered to be as much of a good deed to attach your name to charity you do.
"Christians obey this basic tenet, "Love thy neighbor as thyself."
Christians are meant to obey that basic tenet, but most don't. The fact that most can't even manage to obey the basics of their own religion makes the whole thing a bit of a farce.
"a Christian would be wrong to kill. If everyone held Christian morals, the world would be a much better place."
It's funny then that Christians seem to be so hot for war then isn't it? The sad fact is that if Christians held Christian morals, the world would be a much better place, they really need to stick to those morals, as they were designed to keep the greedy and blood thirsty in check. Unfortunately they didn't do a very good job.
"The greatest force for good in the world today is Christianity. Look at Mother Theresa and her sisters."
Bullshit, and selecting one example of good works by a Christian hardly validates Christianity and it's advocates as the greatest force for good in the world today. What about the millions of other Christians who are sucking the world dry of oil, declaring wars, committing genocide etc? Mother Theresa helped a few people, it hardly balances out all the fucked up shit Christians have done.
"Although many of the world's utilitarianists and globalists look with horror upon the Aids epidemic in Africa, it is Christians that have missions."
I can't believe you mentioned the missions. Exploitation of the week and poor, that is what they represent. Help for compliance. Missions exist to stamp out other belief systems, the PR veneer of good works may fool some people, but I don't buy that bullshit. You can find countless examples of aid organisations which don't try to convert people in exchange for their help.
_____________________________________________________________
I am the people my mother warned me about.
I think you should try to open up a little...and that's for all of you that are replying like this. This post wasn't about bashing other religions, it wasn't about saying that christianity is the only way and it wasn't an attack on any of you. The message was that Christinity has a good set of moral code that generally makes christians work to be better people. And ok sure, it wasn't delivered in the best manner with the whole "the world would be a better place" thing, but it still didn't attack anyone else. This was a POSITIVE look on something that most of you give negative attention. And honestly, I don't think the world would be a better place if everyone was a "Christian" at least not in your sense of the term. People who say they follow a religion don't always adhere to that religion. That's the problem with the whole "religion" thing. Christianity as a religion may do some good it may not but Chrisitanity as a FAITH is much different. The term Christian comes from CHRIST. In fact, one definition of Christian is "exhibiting a spirit proper to a follower of Jesus Christ; Christlike" Take that definition and apply it to Christians, and you'll have to find a different term for the ones that "wage wars and commit genocide"...not something I would call Christlike. And yes, God does have a higher authority when it comes to who lives and who dies and all that, but I'm not going to go into that. I believe that God and Jesus are two separate entities that act as one (again, the whole holy trinity thing is a little complicated...but they each have their own characteristics and yet form one body. In my book, that's kind of the way a husband and a wife are their own people and yet in a working relationship they are looked at together as one).
Sorry for that tirade, but Christ had a very different agenda. The role of Christ was to set an example for believers to follow and to take the burden of sin away from those who were willing to follow. That gives us two charges. One we have to choose whether or not to believe and follow Jesus Christ, a life commitment. Two, if we choose to follow Christ we have to take his life as a model. Christ didn't wage wars and he never committed genocide. Christ spent time with the people nobody else would even look at (Lepers, Tax Collectors, the Blind, the Poor..to name a few). This means we aren't looking at Moses or David or Peter or Paul or any of the other apostles and people in the Bible for our example, we're looking at Christ. Those other stories are in the Bible to teach us something. Sometimes it's something we need to learn we should be doing yes, but sometimes its something we need to learn we shouldn't be doing (David committed adultury and slept with Bathsheba...obviously not something that is right, but it's in the Bible so we can learn from the mistakes and consequences of others actions).
And as far as the missions thing and "I can't believe you mentioned the missions" I would ask you to think about your own words for a minute. Missions is NOT an exploitation and missionaries do not EXPECT conversions. Missionaries go overseas to HELP people. Yes, missionaries HOPE and PRAY that the people will accept Christ. But they do not EXPECT it. Missions is not, if you don't except Christ we won't feed you. Missions is we will feed you and we hope that you will listen to us enough to consider our beliefs for yourself. All people have a right to choose. That means they can choose to disagree with Christianity...you can choose to disagree with Christianity. It has nothing to do with whether or not you can hang out with someone. Christianity teaches the moral that we should never turn our backs on anyone. Consider this, parents tell their kids not to go anywhere with strangers because they want their kids to be safe and alive, yet when a stranger approaches a kid when the parent isn't looking, that kid has a choice. Parents hope, that by telling them about the dangers they will choose not to go with anyone but the kid still has a choice. It's the same way with Christians. If you believe that there is something really great out there wouldn't you want to get other people involved? If someone was giving out a million dollars to anyone who asked for it you would't keep that to yourself, it wouldn't do any good. you'd tell people. Christianity is the same way. We don't tell people to selfishly convert them, we tell people because what we believe is exciting to us and we want other people to have the chance to know about it. People have a natural tendancy to share what they discover and think is cool. It's around everywhere and everyone does it, not just with religion. We argue about what car is the fastest or which shoes look the best or look at this dress I found, or this is my favorite movie. You name it. If we think it's good we want to share. It's not an exploitation to say hey this is my favorite movie I think you should check it out (and people even go so far with that sometimes to say that it changed their life). You still have the choice to like or dislike the movie for yourself but you won't attack the person who told you they liked it.
What I'm saying is don't attack Christians for showing the good in what they believe. It's a waste of time. Instead, share some of your own stories of how your beliefs have helped you or people you saw that did something nice. This is a progressive site, and working together is far more progressive than endless, closed minded arguing.
And now these three remain: Faith, Hope and Love. But the greatest of these is love.
1 Corinthians 13:13
> I think you should try to open up a little...and that's
> for all of you that are replying like this. This post
> wasn't about bashing other religions, it wasn't
> about saying that christianity is the only way
> and it wasn't an attack on any of you.
While your comment seems genuinely well meant, might I suggest that you point of might not be fully informed in light of the historical positions that some of the bloggers here have long defended and held. I also think that you're completely off-base to suggest that this "wasn't an attack on any of you." When Ransom passive-aggresively makes reference to "a certain blogger," he is making a thinly veiled personal attack.
> The message was that Christinity has a good set
> of moral code that generally makes christians work
> to be better people.
While I don't agree that this was the principal purpose of this blog, that message is apparent. But honestly, there are a great many of us here for whom that assertion simply doesn't ring true.
> And ok sure, it wasn't delivered in the best manner
> with the whole "the world would be a better place"
> thing, but it still didn't attack anyone else.
I think perhaps the reason you don't see comments like the one you quote as an attack is because you are a christian (I am assuming here, so please correct me if you are not a christian). I am sure it doesn't seem threatening to hear that the world would be a better place when someone else's life and beliefs are the ones being disregarded and tossed aside. But when you find yourself in the crosshairs of a comment like this, it doesn't seem quite so innocuous.
> This was a POSITIVE look on something that most
> of you give negative attention. And honestly, I
> don't think the world would be a better place if
> everyone was a "Christian" at least not in your
> sense of the term.
When I use the term "christian" I generally mean anyone who self-identifies themselves and who can reasonably be contrued through stated belief or association as an adherent.
> People who say they follow a religion don't always
> adhere to that religion.
Indeed. Most christians are actually a great deal less violent and intolerant than their closely scrutinzed theologies actually suggest.
> That's the problem with the whole "religion" thing.
> Christianity as a religion may do some good it may
> not but Chrisitanity as a FAITH is much different.
I think that is a subtlety that only holds any real relevance to yourself and other christians. To those of us on the outside of your churches, we can only judge you by the face that you (as a movement) show us. When a major christian denomination is shown to be corrupt, or preaches intolerance, or is complicit to genocide, or denigrates women, or advocates anti-scientific positions in our classrooms, those very real positions and actions rather override the relevance of your "faith." To use a reference you might appreciate, it is by your fruits that you shall be known.
> The term Christian comes from CHRIST. In fact,
> one definition of Christian is "exhibiting a spirit
> proper to a follower of Jesus Christ; Christlike"
> Take that definition and apply it to Christians,
> and you'll have to find a different term for the
> ones that "wage wars and commit genocide"
> ...not something I would call Christlike.
I disagree. For one, the stories of "Jesus" in the bible aren't just limited to the goodie-goodie themes that some modern christians would like to selectively read.
And the Jews’ passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem, And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting: And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers’ money, and overthrew the tables; And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father’s house an house of merchandise. And his disciples remembered that it was written, The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up. (John 2:13-17)
Now, that's not quite a genocide I admit, but it is a very plain example of Jesus using violence as a tool to accomplish his religiously motivated goals. And, this isn't an isolated scripture...
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. (Matthew 10:34)
Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. (Luke 22:36)
Even it you recast these statements as being merely metaphorical, the use of military symbology is quite common in the bible, and that symbology can be quite distrubing to someone who (like myself) finds himself included on the list of people that the bible says quite plainly should be killed without compunction or mercy.
> And yes, God does have a higher authority when it
> comes to who lives and who dies and all that, but
> I'm not going to go into that.
Of course you're not. To do so would require you to actually defend some of the horrible things that the "god" of the christian scriptures is praised for supposedly having done. For those of us who don't share your belief in the supernatural, a story about "god" striking someone down is more reasonably interpreted as some follower of the religion committing murder, and then just blaming in on their invisible sky-friend to keep out of trouble. I am sure that sounds a bit harsh, but the point is that the arguments that you use to defend this kind of stuff to other christians really isn't very convincing to people who aren't.
> I believe that God and Jesus are two separate
> entities that act as one (again, the whole holy
> trinity thing is a little complicated...but they
> each have their own characteristics and yet
> form one body. In my book, that's kind of the
> way a husband and a wife are their own people
> and yet in a working relationship they are
> looked at together as one).
I don't think it really matters. The great thing about having imaginary friends is that they can "look" and "act" however you wish them to. It doesn't have to make sense.
> Sorry for that tirade, but Christ had a very
> different agenda. The role of Christ was to
> set an example for believers to follow and to
> take the burden of sin away from those who
> were willing to follow. That gives us two
> charges. One we have to choose whether
> or not to believe and follow Jesus Christ, a
> life commitment. Two, if we choose to follow
> Christ we have to take his life as a model.
If we ignore the occasional violent outburst (such as the one with the money lenders), that might not be such a bad thing. But, I don't see that happening with any regularity, and if your religion doesn't actually provide its followers with the tools to actually act the way that you say that they should, then what good is it, really?
> Christ didn't wage wars and he never
> committed genocide. Christ spent time with
> the people nobody else would even look at
> (Lepers, Tax Collectors, the Blind, the Poor..to
> name a few). This means we aren't looking at
> Moses or David or Peter or Paul or any of the
> other apostles and people in the Bible for our
> example, we're looking at Christ. Those other
> stories are in the Bible to teach us something.
> Sometimes it's something we need to learn we
> should be doing yes, but sometimes its
> something we need to learn we shouldn't be
> doing (David committed adultury and slept
> with Bathsheba...obviously not something
> that is right, but it's in the Bible so we can learn
> from the mistakes and consequences of others
> actions).
I hear this argument fairly regularly, but I think it overlooks the fact that "being christ-like" isn't the only (or even the primary) pillar of christian theology. The first and formost goal of christian worship is to satisfy the capricious character that the bible calls "god." And, that "god" is described in the bible as being directly responsible for a great many truly horrible things. I'm not even talking about the floods or famines or even the plagues, but rather a number direct commandments coming (per the text) directly from the mouth of "god" to his followers to commit genocide, to rip open pregnant women and to dash babies on the rocks, to tear down cities and to sacrifice children when laying the foundation of a wall. Is it not true that this "god" is a part of your religion, and in fact an object of worship? If the answer is yes, then all of this "christ-like" business seems a bit hollow, especially when we can look to history and find no shortage of examples where the actions of the great body of christendom were anything but what you describe.
> And as far as the missions thing and "I can't
> believe you mentioned the missions" I would
> ask you to think about your own words for a
> minute. Missions is NOT an exploitation and
> missionaries do not EXPECT conversions.
> Missionaries go overseas to HELP people. Yes,
> missionaries HOPE and PRAY that the people
> will accept Christ. But they do not EXPECT it.
This opinion is either extremely disingenous, or extraordinarily naive. Lets take a look at a missionary group with whom I have some personal experience. The Christian and Missionary Alliance (http://www.cmalliance.org/) is one of the larger organizations dedicated to christian missionary work. Here is what they say about their own goals...
Our Vision:
The Christian and Missionary Alliance will be a movement of Great Commission Christians who are glorifying God by building Christ's Church worldwide.
To achieve this vision, a strategy has been developed that consists of six components. The resources of the C&MA are focused on these strategic initiatives:
1. Develop Healthy Local Churches
2. Identify Workers for the Harvest
3. Train Called Workers
4. Multiply Churches in the United States
5. Multiply Churches Worldwide
6. Establish a Strong Support Base
http://www.cmalliance.org/whoweare/whoweare-future.jsp
Notice that none of their actually stated goals have anything at all to do with feeding the hungry, clothing the pure, or healing the sick. Their entire "missing" is dedicated to the building of churchs and the harvesting of new worshippers. Now, this groups does help to fight hunger, and poverty and sickness, but they don't do it for the reasons you suggest. They use these programs as tools for the purpose of evangelizing non-believers. .
> Missions is not, if you don't except Christ we won't
> feed you.
Perhaps, but it is not uncommon at all for missions to require that before you are given the food you need, you have to listen to "the pitch" and sit through a sermon. Jesus is sometimes called the "fisher of men," and many missions use food as bait in order to get the fishes to swim into their nets.
> Missions is we will feed you and we hope that you
> will listen to us enough to consider our beliefs for
> yourself. All people have a right to choose. That
> means they can choose to disagree with Christianity...
> you can choose to disagree with Christianity.
One of the reasons that missions are so effective in gaining converts is that when people are in need, they have a natural tendency to be grateful to the people who help them, and that makes it easier to convert them than simply arguing for the religion on its own merits.
> It has nothing to do with whether or not you can
> hang out with someone. Christianity teaches the
> moral that we should never turn our backs on anyone.
And yet, that is exactly the experience through which many of us have lived. Its not really surpirsing, though, since the bible does actually say that you should turn your backs on a great many people. The practice is called shunning in many modern fundamentalist sects...
But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat. For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person. (1 Corinthians 5:11-13)
Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. (Matthew 18:15-17)
Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us. (2 Thessalonians 3:6)
And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. (2 Thessalonians 3:14)
Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. (Romans 16:17)
If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds. (2 John 1: 10-11)
I think that a lot of modern christians would prefer to ignore certain parts of the bible for the purpose of making their religion be seen as less vulgar that an accurate picture of its history and theology would actually paint for us.
> Consider this, parents tell their kids not to go
> anywhere with strangers because they want their
> kids to be safe and alive, yet when a stranger
> approaches a kid when the parent isn't looking,
> that kid has a choice. Parents hope, that by telling
> them about the dangers they will choose not to
> go with anyone but the kid still has a choice.
Some parents also lie to their children in order to evoke certain behaviors. How many parents have told their kids to be good or the boogey-man will get them? Personally, I don't think lying to your kids is good parenting, and I think that there is more evidence that suggests that the docrines of christianity are closer to the story of the boogey-man than they are to the scenario you suggest.
> It's the same way with Christians. If you believe
> that there is something really great out there
> wouldn't you want to get other people involved?
Indeed. But I would also be able to take "no thank you" for an answer. One thing that I think you will have to admit about christian evangelism is that it is bloody well persistent, and I know that I have personally been placed in the situation many times of having to be rather nasty to christians who weren't willing to accept my initially polite rejection of their witnessing. And, I doubt very seriously that my experience in that reqard is even remotely unique.
> If someone was giving out a million dollars to
> anyone who asked for it you would't keep that
> to yourself, it wouldn't do any good. you'd tell
> people.
Indeed. But if when we all showed up to pick up our check we were told that the money was being kept on "account" for us someplace else, I would begin to get suspicious. If when I asked for the address of this place I was told that no one really knows exactly where it is but its a really nice place and the money is there we promise, I would get doubly suspicious. I am honestly amazed at times that more internet-savvy christians don't see the similarities between their religion and the infamous Nigerian banking scam.
> Christianity is the same way. We don't tell people
> to selfishly convert them, we tell people because
> what we believe is exciting to us and we want
> other people to have the chance to know about it.
I think there is a deeper and more sinister psychological event here. People also tend to equate agreement with truth, and the more people that agree with you, the more convincing your "truth" is. I think that a lot of religous folks use the vast numbers of their fellow adherents as a justification for putting aside the rational processes of their minds and excusing themselves from the standards of thought and action which which would normally govern their lives. One of the basic fears of religious people is that what they believe is false. It is a terrifying prospect to realize that you have expended a great deal of your life to a pursuit that could in fact be a big load of hooey, and that makes for a great motivation for trying to convince others that your way is the "right" way.
> People have a natural tendancy to share what they
> discover and think is cool. It's around everywhere
> and everyone does it, not just with religion. We
> argue about what car is the fastest or which shoes
> look the best or look at this dress I found, or this
> is my favorite movie. You name it. If we think it's
> good we want to share. It's not an exploitation to
> say hey this is my favorite movie I think you should
> check it out (and people even go so far with that
> sometimes to say that it changed their life). You still
> have the choice to like or dislike the movie for
> yourself but you won't attack the person who told
> you they liked it.
This is an interesting point, but I would have to say that I've never read about a society that burned people alive if they didn't all like the same movie, or a country that went to war with its neighbor because it thought its favorite car was faster than theirs. The thing that separates religion from the comparisons you make is fervency
> What I'm saying is don't attack Christians for
> showing the good in what they believe. It's a
> waste of time.
A farmer will sometimes use a hand full of tasty corn to lure the turkey over to him so that he can whack the bird with the axe that he's holding behind his back. I don't have any objection to you telling us about the "good" associated with your relgion, but I don't think its fair or reaonable of you to expect us to simply ingore those things that aren't so great and that history teaches us tend to go hand in hand with your tasty corn.
> Instead, share some of your own stories of how
> your beliefs have helped you or people you saw
> that did something nice. This is a progressive site,
> and working together is far more progressive than
> endless, closed minded arguing.
Personally, I don't think it is very "progressive" to believe in ghosts and boogems, nor is it "progressive" to allow bad ideas, poorly constructed and based on inaccurate information go unchallenged. I am sorry if that offends you, but there it is.
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
Ok, so there were a few things in there that I either didn't explain well enough how I believe or didn't think out a few of the metaphors enough. I can admit that and sorry about the personal attack thing, I missed the part mentioning "a specific blogger". Personally, I enjoy listening to what you guys think and your arguments against Christianity. It helps me to question things and when I can question what I believe, that helps me know what exactly it is that I believe and why. Questioning is good so thank you. What I'm just really tired of IS the personal attacks on this site (not saying that you were attacking anyone, but I was commenting on the post/responses in general). I think we should be talking about things that are going on that aren't all negative, and I do agree that we should question religions and debate them. It's healthy up until people start getting violent. There's no reason we can't question with questions instead of attacks...I think you can agree on that. And honestly, you have a very interesting perspective on a lot of things and it seems like your beliefs and opinions come from a lot of life experiences that I don't really understand. That's the kinds of things I like to learn about and question. It's my opinion that the best way to learn and understand why people believe things is to understand people. That's the interesting thing about the Bible in my opinion is that it doesn't change, but everyone seems to have a different interpretation. I've had heated debates even with Christians about the meaning of just a couple verses, no wonder so many people argue right? But what I think is that it's more progressive to learn than to argue. Just so that you know I enjoy your debates and I like that you're thorough.
Anyway, just one point that I can remember from your reply that I'd like to bring up. I don't agree with your farmer idea. Personally, yes, food is a good tool to talk to people about Christ but only because its a good tool to talk to people period. If I want to catch up with someone I go out to lunch with them. It gives people something to enjoy along with the conversation and keeps them from getting restless. But using it as a lure before attacking them I don't agree with. I don't mind that you point out some of the things that Christians have done except that the fact is everyone makes mistakes at some point or goes against something they say. If you don't consider the fact that there are a whole lot of athiests or just non-christians in general who have done a lot of terrible things as well, then the argument isn't balanced. But anyway, until next time.
And now these three remain: Faith, Hope and Love. But the greatest of these is love.
1 Corinthians 13:13
> Questioning is good so thank you.
That's a good attitude and thank you (and forgive me if I edit out your other compliments in my response...they are most appreciated, but irrelevant to the point of our discussion).
> What I'm just really tired of IS the personal
> attacks on this site (not saying that you
> were attacking anyone, but I was commenting
> on the post/responses in general).
Well, I don't deny that I sometimes get kind of personal in my criticisms, but then I don't necessarily agree that personal criticism are invalid, especially when the credibility of a particular speaker is in question.
> It's healthy up until people start getting violent.
I agree, but I do have to note that on this site (at least for as long as I have been here), it always seems to be someone of strong religious beliefs that escalates the conversation to threating people's lives. I'm never seen an atheist on this site suggest that his opponents on the other side of the computer screen should be killed, but I can think of at least several instances in recent months where outspoken christians have been moderated due to their use of threatening statements. (To be fair, however, I am not including Ransom on that particular list.)
> There's no reason we can't question with
> questions instead of attacks...I think
> you can agree on that.
I do agree. But I think that sometimes people tend to misconstrue any argument that effecitvely rebutts a religious position into an attack.
> That's the interesting thing about the Bible
> in my opinion is that it doesn't change...
Actually, the bible changes quite a bit. Every translation of the bible is different from every other, and some versions differ rather significantly from each other. But even if we were to forgive the translational variety, the intentional, policy-driven editing by the early church, the extrapolations of centuries of manual copiers and even the dramatically alterered rewritten texts being used by some modern denominations, one need simply note that there is a vast difference in even which books are considered to be cannonical by various sects. For example, the typical protestant bible contains 66 books, but the catholic bible uses 73, and the ethiopic church uses at least 81 books. To say that the "bible doesn't change" just isn't a correct statement.
> I think is that it's more progressive
> to learn than to argue.
I don't necessarily disagree, but I do think that the classical art of agumentative debate is a powerful tool for the discernment of truth.
> Anyway, just one point that I can
> remember from your reply that I'd like
> to bring up. I don't agree with your
> farmer idea. Personally, yes, food is
> a good tool to talk to people about
> Christ but only because its a good
> tool to talk to people period. If I want
> to catch up with someone I go out to
> lunch with them. It gives people
> something to enjoy along with the
> conversation and keeps them from
> getting restless. But using it as a lure
> before attacking them I don't agree with.
The point is well taken, but consider that the people who come to a mission for food probably aren't interested in polite dinner conversation. More than likely, they're deperately hungry (or even starving). If I've eaten one hamburer, but I would rather have two, there's not much change that you've going to be able to get me to do something that I wouldn't normally do just to get you to give me another hamburger. But if I haven't eaten for several days, and haven't eaten regularly for over a year, I would probably do just about anything to get you to give me a crust and some soup. And don't get me wrong. If you're feeding someone who is truly hungry, more power to you. Just don't kid yourself into thinking the people paying for these missions are are doing so just out of the goodness in their hearts.
> I don't mind that you point out some of
> the things that Christians have done
> except that the fact is everyone makes
> mistakes at some point or goes against
> something they say.
True enough. But, the question is whether or not the mistake is an occasional "oops," or is it something that happens with habitual regularity. That's why I pointed to the particular missionary group that I did. This group isn't in the midst of an "oops." The Christian and Missionary Alliance has been around since 1887, and today over 2000 churches in the U.S. with more than 400,000 members (and that doesn't include their international memership, which is equally extensive). They have a well-established, long-running missions that quite literally span the globe, but their actual goal is anything but selfless good will.
> If you don't consider the fact that there are
> a whole lot of athiests or just non-christians
> in general who have done a lot of terrible
> things as well, then the argument isn't
> balanced.
A fair scored point. But again, there are some differences to consider. The first is a bit philosophical, and that is that if an atheist does something terrible, they aren't (by defintion) doing it because of a dogmatic religious philosophy that excuses them from responsibility because they are following some "divine instruction."
If an atheist decides to kill a gay person (for example), he can't turn to his religious text and say, "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." (Leviticus 20:13)
I hate to go "straight" for the throat (pardon the pun), but it is difficult to believe in the "love" of any person who has a book in their had that specifically commands them to kill me.
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
"Missions is NOT an exploitation and missionaries do not EXPECT conversions."
I'd do a little research on that one if I were you.
"All people have a right to choose."
Yeah, I agree. But when you condition children from infancy in a completely contrived environment to believe something without a shred of proof, utilizing fear of the unprovable as a programming mechanism, people are hardly given a fair shot at making their own choice. Somebody conditioned from birth is no more making their own choice than a mark in the depths of a confidence trick. Don't cofuse the illusion of free will with the genuine article.
"We don't tell people to selfishly convert them, we tell people because what we believe is exciting to us and we want other people to have the chance to know about it."
People caught up in scams like Pyramid schemes run about joyously trying to get people to join up too. I'm not for a minute assuming that many Christians selfishly want to convert people. But I will assert the fact that their minds are compromised by conditioning and mind control. This is evidenced by the fact that they can easily dismiss the existence of so many other superstitions as ridiculous, but not their own for a second.
"It's not an exploitation to say hey this is my favorite movie I think you should check it out"
That's not quite the same as giving somebody the gift of soul crushing fear, unnecessary shame, and Christian rock.
"You still have the choice to like or dislike the movie for yourself but you won't attack the person who told you they liked it."
I will if the movie leaves me scared of farting sideways incase I land a dirty mark on my soul sheet, no wait i won't because I'll be afraid God might smite me or the Devil will take me as his love thing, or...wait a minute who the fuck do I turn to when i'm sandwiched between an angry God who likes to drown people like me in big floods and a Devil who just wants to burn me in a lake of fire? why would God let him do that anyway? Yeah, Christianity is a real gift alright. I spent the early part of my childhood terrified out of my wits by Catholicism, until my older brother gave me a crash course in other religions. I breathed a sigh of relief and shook off the yoke of Christianity for good.
True Christians, while not being a bad lot, don't know how to have fun. They think they do, but their frame of reference is so small they don't know any better. As for the rest, well, they're a bit of a joke really. If they can call themselves Christians, then I can too. Fuck it, while I'm at it, I'm also an a vegan, a conservative, a witch, a Buddhist, I mean if we're just gonna walk around giving ourselves fancy titles without actually living up to them, we may as well go all out.
_____________________________________________________________
I am the people my mother warned me about.
"christianity is the only way and it wasn't an attack on any of you. "
Please. "Mine is the only way," is an attack on all other ways, like it or not. If everyone had the same way things would be better, no matter what that way was, but calling all other ways wrong is an attack on those ways. How else can it be interpreted?
Res ipsa loquitur.
memento mori, mahalo.
"Patriotism is often an arbitrary veneration of real-estate above principles."
"The greatest force for good in the world today is Christianity."
No, the greatest force for good in the world today is good people regardless their religious choices. Looking at the bloody history of most (if not all) religions one could argue that the greatest force of our own destruction is religion itself--however, it is more likely bad people hiding behind their religion instead of owning up to their actions.
I understand where you're coming from--I don't hate Christianity or Christians (and do think the teachings of Christ are good things), but I do hate people who claim to be a follower of any religion yet don't actually follow the tenets of said religion. There are many people who do this, and it's important to note that religions themselves are not the ones to blame--it is the people behind them. So many atrocities get done "in God's name" it must make Him/Her/It sick.
Regardless one's religion, one should take personal responsibility for one's actions--none of this childish "I did it for God!" stuff.
______________________________
Vi veri veniversum vivus vici.
People are good, not religions.
Res ipsa loquitur.
memento mori, mahalo.
"Patriotism is often an arbitrary veneration of real-estate above principles."
> On this website the attacks against God and Christianity
> have been vicious and frequent, as anyone knows whose
> membership goes beyond one week.
And, if one has read carefully during that week, one would also see that those "attacks" are generally issued in response to something unintelligent or intolerant (and in a significant number of cases suggestively violent) that was said by someone who has identified themselves as a christian. Not all christians on this site suffer the same kind of condemnations to which you and your fundamentalist fellows find yourself subject. In fact, there are a number of christians on this site who get along quite well, and who demonstrate that perhaps the source of the conflicts you endure are self-inflicted.
> Christians have been accused of having no morals, because
> we attempt to justify the flood or the smiting of the firstborn
> in Egypt.
It is more precise to say that some of us have pointed out that if you believe that killing someone's children in order to gain their parent's compliance is a "moral" act, then your "morals" aren't particularly condusive to a peaceful, inclusive society. The same can be said regarding the myth of the flood. If you think that it is "moral" to kill virtually every living man, woman and child on the planet just so that you can rebuild a society that conforms with your personal point of view, then once again your "morals" aren't of the sort that one would hope to find in a "good" neighbor.
> A certain blooger feels that because of this view all
> christians have abdicated their right and ability to
> make moral judgements.
Assuming that this is directed at me--passive-aggressiveness seems to be a christian "moral," too--I believe that my actual statement was this...
"Whenever a christian gets on their high horse with me (and really, the christian soldier's standard issue horse is REALLY high), I tend to ask them their opinon of the story of the Exodus. And if they are unwilling to condemn the actions described in this story, I really can't bring myself to give their moral remonstrances much credit."
http://www.progressiveu.org/091008-why-i-cant-be-a-christain
> They would also argue that Christianity is a bad thing,
> and if it did not exist the world would be a more moral
> place.
I don't recall making that precise argument, so perhaps you are talking about someone else. I do recall pointing out that christian "morality" doesn't seem to have been an obstacle to a great many acts of violence, or to the endemic culture of corruption found in the historical heirarchies of the christian church.
> This is a lie.
Careful, there... By definition, a "lie" is "an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker to be untrue with intent to deceive." (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/lie) Just because someone's opinion doesn't jive with your own doesn't make it a lie.
> To start I would like to lay out a question often put
> forth by Dennis Praegar, a prominent writer and talk
> show host.
I assume you mean Dennis Prager, and I can't help but note that you have a tendency to look to some pretty extreme people for support. Is this is the same Dennis Prager who supported the "Defense of Marriage Act" in congress (even though he has been divorced, twice and then publically praised Chindy Sheehan's husband for divorcing her)? Is this the same Dennis Prager who condemned Keith Ellison (the first mulim elected to Congress) for swearing his oath of office on a koran?
> You are walking at night in a bad neighborhood. A
> group of young men are aproaching you. Do you feel
> more or less safe, if you know that these men have just
> left bible school?
I am sure that if you are also a christian, this might make you feel more safe (though considering the vastly disproportionate numbers of christians found incarcertated in our prison system, I might question the basis of that judgement), but as we have previously discussed, the way that christians treat each other is often quite different from the way that they treat everyone else. As a gay man who has witnessed more than one incident of violence committed on myself and my close friends by religiously motivated fanatics (a former lover of mine was hospitalized after being beaten nearly to death with baseball bats weilded by three members of his school's Fellowship of Christian Atheletes), I certianly would not fell safer knowning that I was being approached by men who had just left bible school.
> Even if nothing that happened in the bible is true,
> and even if God is the greatest evildoer ever that
> does not change the fact that Christianity as a
> Societal force is good.
Three words spring immediately to mind...The Dark Ages. While it is undoubtedly true that the body of christendom has been responsible for some very nice things, it is also true that your religion has an equally common history of action that can only be described as violent, oppressive and ignorant.
> Christians obey this basic tenet, "Love thy neighbor
> as thyself." The essence of the Christian life is not
> philosophising about various passages, but loving
> one's neighbor.
And yet that is a tenet that some of us rarely see expressed in our daily interractions with christians such as yourself. Your own blogs consistently promote a number of positions that one could hardly consider "neighborly." Anti-gay, anti-immigrant, anti-choice, anti-democrat/socialist/marxist, anti-anyone-who-isn't-a-christian...frankly, if "love thy neighbor as thyself" is something that you value, then when was the last time you genuinely expressed the emotion of love to someone on this website who wasn't conveniently agreeing with something you just said?
> A Christian does not claim authority over life and
> death, for that is left to God.
And yet, it doesn't take a religious scholar to find literally dozens of passages in the bible which command you to kill.
> So while God may smite the firstborn, a Christian
> would be wrong to kill.
And yet we have christians on this very website who are quite vocal in their desire to return to a time when they could kill their religious enemies. And, I really find your evasion in this matter to be utterly indicative to the very lack of actual morals that you deny. That it is wrong to kill someone's children to gain their compliance is not any more "moral" simply because you think your invisible sky-friend did it for you. That you find such an act worthy of praise demonstrates a "morality" that is at best schitzophrenic, and at worst coveniently elevated in order to avoid being judged by the hypocritical character of the values your espouse.
> If everyone held Christian morals, the
> world would be a much better place.
Christianity is already the most commonly practiced religion on the planet, and things don't seem to be any better for it. In fact, when we look through history to those periods and cultures that were predominantly christian, they really don't show any great propensity towards engendering peace or prosperity (unless your a member of the priesthood, of course), or social advancement.
> The greatest force for good in the world today is
> Christianity. Look at Mother Theresa and her
> sisters. Although many of the world's utilitarianists
> and globalists look with horror upon the Aids
> epidemic in Africa, it is Christians that have missions.
It is remarkably disingenous to suggest that christians are the only ones fighting HIV/AIDS (or hunger, or any other of the world's many problems), though it is indicative of the self-obsessed tunnel vision that many christians seem to enjoy. And, it is even more disingenous in regards to HIV/AIDS, since one of the reasons that HIV/AIDS has gown to the epidemic proportions that it has (especially in the third world) is because of the anti-intellectual head-in-the-sand policies of the church which would rather see a person become infected with HIV than teach them to wear a condom if they decide to have sex.
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
Hear hear!
______________________________
Vi veri veniversum vivus vici.
I personally feel if everyone did follow Christian morals to the line, it would be a much better world.
It's simply not that way though, people have free will to do as they wish, no one is perfect, so this world is always going to have "sin" and corruption until the end.
Any one can choose to call them selves a Christian or atheist and bring a false image or corrupt image to that belief.
All we can simply do is live to our own conviction and hope the world will in time be a better place.
It's almost ridiculous to ask, but I would hope people would make there choices not by the actions of others knowing that no one is perfect, including every person from every religion or scientific belief, but by the scripture, but the word that inspires these people to live better lives.
Judge not others, lest you be judged.
(1) Neither I nor anyone else I that "ALL christians have abdicated their RIGHT and ability to make moral judgements". What I said was that THOSE CHRISTIANS WHO DEFEND GENOCIDE (such as happened with God's 10 plagues and the Noachian flood) have FOREVER SACRIFICE ALL CREDIBILITY to make moral judgements. You, by the way, are one of them.
The difference between the two is obvious. One cannot help but make moral judgements. So everybody is going to do it. But if you try and say that God is justified should he decide to kill every living thing or even first-borns, then your ability to make moral judgements is obviously impaired. And you have made exactly that argument. So when you post shit like this in which you try to claim the moral high-ground for Christianity, then we are well within our rights to note that fact and dismiss your arguments out of hand with no other consideration.
In other words, what it means is that you haven't demonstrated that you would recognize moral actions if your life depended upon it. So you telling us something is moral holds about the same credibility as Jeffrey Dahmer telling us proper etiquette when entertaining dinner guests.
(2) Most Christians are good people. But that is only because most people are good people. I do not see anything unusually moral about Christians in general. And there is a subset of Christians that are truly reprehensible.
There is one school of thought that says the "subset" mentioned above are not really "true" Christians. I find no validity in that. In most cases, these are the people that follow what they believe to be the teachings of the bible more closely than people who are more reasonable.
There is another school of thought that says we shouldn't cast a pall on all of Christianity by the actions of a subset. I do find some validity in that.
There is a third school of thought that says the majority of Christians (the good ones) provide a cover so that the truly reprehensible ones can function more effectively. I also find some validity in that as well. I have seen numerous peoples congratulate these reprehensible Christians on the strength of their faith even when they disagree on their outlook.
The fact that "faith" is viewed as such a good thing is bad. It was "faith" that led 19 people to willing give their lives in 9/11. It is "faith" that today allows people to strap on a vest filled with explosives and nails and blow themselves up in a crowded marketplace. It is "faith" that allows people to plant bombs outside of abortion clinics and shoot doctors and nurses who work there. Having "faith" does not make one inherently good.
(3) Society, more so than Christianity, is a force for good. All societies promote a general welfare. But not all are equally good at it. I know I would hate living in a strict Islamic society with its oppression of women. I would be at severe risk of my life holding the religious views that I do if I lived in such a society.
The question we should be asking and striving to solve is, "What is the best society for people to live in?". My answer to that is one that fosters progress while at the same time promoting the maximal amount of liberty possible. I do not think Christian ideals will get us such a society. I do not think any society that promotes a tendency towards unthinking dogma will get us that. I think only a society based on secular skepticism will do it.
(4) As for Prager's challenge, concerning the approach of young men in the night and whether I would feel better knowing they were coming from bible study ... the answer depends on whether they know I am an atheist or not.
Cheers,
Darwin's Beagle
===
Evolution says that we share a common ancestor with a jackass. It does not give us license to act like one.
I'll try to be quick but the only thing I really want to go into here is your attack on "faith" My problem with that is that "faith" is dependent. Faith is "a belief in anything without proof" or "the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc" (a few from dictionary.com). That means faith deals directly with what that faith is in. Those people who attacked our country on 9/11 did not have faith in Christ. They had faith in a much, much different cause. You can't compare that faith with faith in Christ.
Secondly, faith must be accompanied by action in order to be of any importance...
14What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? 15Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. 16If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? 17In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
James 2:14-17
And now these three remain: Faith, Hope and Love. But the greatest of these is love.
1 Corinthians 13:13
Muslim extremists are religious fanatics, and in that they aren't much differnt than the religious fanatics found within the christian ranks. They're just better funded.
When I look at the hateful islamist lunatics that flew those planes into the Towers, I don't see men that are all that different than the christian fanatic who bombed a gay bar in Atlanta.
Islamist terrorism is currently the most active form of violent religious fanatacism that we see in the news, but it is completely false to suggest that the phenomenon is in any way unique to the the muslim world. There are a great many active violent christian extremist groups in the world today, though they are usually at work in parts of the globe that are unlikely to make our evening news.
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
That's true but they are still fanatics which means they don't really have a great understanding of what their religion is teaching because they don't have any way to question and understand it in the real world. And they may have similarities but they are still very different religions.
And now these three remain: Faith, Hope and Love. But the greatest of these is love.
1 Corinthians 13:13
When viewed in terms of a point by point theological comparison, islam and christianity are almost identical, which isn't surprising, really, when you consider the fact that both are philosophical evolutions of the same Abrahamic roots. Were you aware, for example, that islam considers Jesus to be one of its most respected prophets?
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
I did know that Islam considered Jesus a highly respected prophet. I took a class on the similarities between Christianity, Islam and Judaism. I won't deny that they don't have similarities, but what I was referring to is the fact that the people commiting those acts are fanatics, meaning they have no reasoning when it comes to understanding what they are believing. Although I do have to say there is a bit of a difference (despite how similar the two religions are) in the fact that Islam considers Christ a prophet and Christianity considers him the Son of God.
And now these three remain: Faith, Hope and Love. But the greatest of these is love.
1 Corinthians 13:13
> I was referring to is the fact that the
> people commiting those acts are fanatics,
> meaning they have no reasoning when it
> comes to understanding what they are
> believing.
When you start talking about fanatics versus everyone else, I agree that fanatics have a lack of good reason, but it is patently false to suggest that islam is the only religion out there that produces fanatics. The islamists are currently the most active group of religious fanatics turned terrorist on the world's stage, but there are ample examples of christian-based fanatical groups of similarly violent character in the modern era to demonstrate that these people are far from unique. The Army of God, the National Liberation Front of Tripura, the Lord's Resistance Army and the Freedomites are just a few of the fanatical chritian groups that have resorted to terrorist acts in order to advance their respective causes.
My point is that if you are thinking that fanatical terrorists are just something that "the other guy's" religion can produce, you're kidding yourself.
> Although I do have to say there is a bit
> of a difference (despite how similar the
> two religions are) in the fact that Islam
> considers Christ a prophet and Christianity
> considers him the Son of God.
Frankly, that's only a significant difference from the point of view of an adherent of the religion. Sociologically speaking, christianity and islam have an almost identical list of social mores, norms and taboos. The few differences that there are regarding rather minory points of esoteric theology. In terms of the practical history of using violence as an acceptable means of acquiring converts and supressing opposing religions, however, the two religions are virtually indistinguishable.
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
(1) Actually Muslims view Jesus as a prophet. So logic would say they have the same faith in his message as you do in the messages of Isaiah, Jerimiah, Ezekiel, and the rest.
But the point was that anytime you declare an idea sacred and not subject to questioning then you take the chance that the idea can be applied in ways that are not good. That even goes for Jesus' message.
Way back when I was in high school there was a cult called the Children of God. The leader of the cult used Jesus message as delivered in Matthew 10:34-37 --
===
Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn
" 'a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law -
a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.'
"Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; ...
====
to induce kids of my age to dissassociate themselves from their families. Several thousand did. That is an example of the problem of faith.
Too often faith says "screw reason". I believe it should be the other way around, live by reason and screw faith.
Cheers,
Darwin's Beagle
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
Blind faith is a false teaching a lot of people preach. But they're wrong to do that. Nowhere in the Bible does anyone suggest blind faith is what is expected. The Bible tells us to watch out for false prophets, false teachers, and wolves in sheep's clothing. It also says to prove all things.
Just be willing to ask God to show you if He exists or not by realizing it is a possibility and He will more than just meet you half way; He will run to you. He loves us and wants us to find Him. What you must understand is that He was with us before sin and walked with us in the garden in the cool of the evening. After we were contaminated in sin we became separated from Him. His presence would have destroyed us bc of His nature; sort of like the sun would destroy us if it were too close. He is greater than the sun and He is holy. No sin can stand in His presence. If God would not have distanced Himself from us after our contamination by sin, we would no longer exist. That is why we need to be "disinfected" and made right before we can be reconciled to God.
I realized years ago that I may be wrong about God; I have been wrong before about things. And if I was wrong, eternity would be an awfully long time to have to pay for it. And I didn't want to see my kids also go down that road bc of my example if I was wrong. So I was bitter and scared knowing I could be wrong.
Evolution does play a part in our world; viruses mutate and animals adapt to their environments; cells divide and multiply(cancer cells for ex.) But the intelligence behind evolution is an entity who has always existed and has made Himself available to us if we are willing to reach out to Him.
All those questions you have about suffering and pain and everything is something you will come to understand once you have encountered Him. He makes Himself known and will explain those things to you Himself.
I am not talking about blind faith or having a idea or theory; I am talking about having an experience and an encounter with God Himself. You can meet Him. Just ask.
Like others have said, God is not an impersonal theory or hypothesis. He is real and you can experience and get to know Him yourself. This is how people come to know He exists; He reveals or "manifests" Himself to us when we reach out to Him. This is different than blind faith. This is when we can be so certain and say with confidence that "we know that we know our redeemer lives"(Nichole C. Mullens)
I can tell you that He has been the best thing I have EVER experienced in my whole life. I don't regret my choice to be what I am. And after I believed, I also received the gift of the Holy Spirit. I used to read the Bible and didn't really understand it but now I do; its not just words on paper anymore.
Some things have to be experienced bc theres just no way to describe it for yourself. Becoming a father is one of those things, and flying in a helicopter is sort of like that, falling in love, tasting a mango for the first time, and so on. When you meet God it is an encounter like that that's impossible to relate the experience adequately to someone else.
The Bible says that it is foolishness to those who don't believe(to those who are perishing); but it is the power of God to those who do believe.
That's why I'm not ashamed about any of this. I can be so bold bc I have experienced and encountered Him and continue to fellowship with Him every single day. Its GREAT. Its better than food or sex or the movies or any other pleasure I've ever had. It is better than any buzz I ever got from drinking, better than any buzz I got from speed, marijuanna, coke, or other drug. And I don't have to put a good chunk of money down on a counter somewhere to get it either. And I've never regretted it, never slumped over a toilet vomiting my guts out afterwards, never woke up with a pounding headache, never woke up and couldn't get out of bed bc I felt like a bulldozer ran over me, and never spent any time in jail on account of it. In fact, I am no longer an alcoholic and dont use drugs unless the doctor prescribes them, dont hang out at parties looking for a thrill, dont waste time going to the adult book store hoping to add some spice to my life, dont have one night stands anymore, dont cheat on my spouse anymore, dont steal anymore, dont stab people in the back or gossip about them. The list goes on. I used to be ashamed of a lot of stuff I did trying to get a thrill or find some kind of fix. There was a hole in me that nothing could fill until I met Jesus. I've never been the same since.
"Put your faith completely in Jesus Christ, not in any man or any movement."
~ Robert L. Sumner
> I am not talking about blind faith or having
> a idea or theory;
Unless you can provide objective proof which demonstrates the validity of your beliefs, then blind faith is exactly what you are talking about.
percivale
P.S. Back for round 2, I see?
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
This is interesting. If you really want to know who a real and true christian is, they are usually the ones who really look to Christ. You guys talk about christianity but you guys never talk about Jesus. I know that sounds preachy but christians can talk about god to people, but they can't convert anyone, only God can. People have their own choices to make. Christianity now adays has become more of an institution than for the love of Christ. And there are people who abuse their authority to get what they want. If more Christians acted more like Jesus than a moral authority, the world would be a much better place. It's easier to just point at people and how immoral they are, but it's much harder to love, to forgive, and to hope for humanity. That's what Christ did. I wish more people did that. People already know how pointless and messed up life is, they see that everyday. But hope, now that's something most people rarely hear. But maybe it's easier to bash and criticize than to have and to give, redemption and hope. Some Christians would rather condemn than give hope because there's too much to lose for them. So don't assume Christians do this and that etc... because there are Christians who really are true Christians. You don't really notice them because they're actually really helping to change the world such as poverty, AIDS, genocide, famine, drought, especially in places where people do not feel that the world cares for them or when other countries don't have the time or money to help them.
J831==
This is interesting. If you really want to know who a real and true christian is, they are usually the ones who really look to Christ
DB=
Just to let you know how truly unhelpful this is, what person who thinks of himself as a Christian would deny that he does that?
In effect, all you have said is that a "true Christian" is one who really look[s] to Christ ... as I think he should.
Cheers,
Darwin's Beagle
===
Evolution says that we share a common ancestor with a jackass. It does not give us license to act like one.
I disagree with the original argument that "Christianity is a good thing", It is true that religions of all kinds, very notably Christianity in several historical events have been a very bad thing, as cited in some of the responses above. However, should the argument be shifted to focus more on it's namesake, who by the way, never suggested the creation of a formal new religion. Jesus was born, lived and died as a Jew. The word Christian appears no where in the Bible. The person of Jesus would be worthy of this original argument, but I don't believe any of the major organized world religions widely recognized today merit much defense. It is true that Jesus of Nazareth does continue to inspire much valuable human aid efforts and similarly valuable literary material and other things that contribute to any "basic goodness" that could be argued for in humanity.
"Christians obey this basic tenet, "Love thy neighbor as thyself." The essence of the Christian life is not philosophising about various passages, but loving one's neighbor."... Although this is a well known passage, widely quoted in western Christian culture today, the way it is phrased in the original article as quoted above assumes that "christians" actually follow through with this action. It seems to me that they think they belive in it, Christians can be very antagonizing and judgemental as a group. This is where it is important to make the fundamental distinction between Christianity being a good thing in the context of Western Christian culture as the ideal appeal or solely the person of Jesus Christ, who holds an entirely different social role, even as simply a historical figure or a philosopher, regardless of what an individual believes about Him spiritually.
Western Christian culture often adheres more to a social structure of norms and fear of being associated with "hot button sins" like homosexuality, drinking, adultery, drugs, etc. and totally ignore other things like gossip, slander, being judgemental in a condemning way (which is different from judgement to encourage out of love), being stingy with what they have as opposed to the generosity and love Jesus himself characterized. The focus should be shifted from "Christianity" which deserves most of the criticisms aimed at it here, to Jesus himself---who is shockingly different from almost every person to walk this planet who has called themselves "Christian".
...In other news, the placement of this quote was inappropriate, yet humorous as explained below...
"Evolution says that we share a common ancestor with a jackass. It does not give us license to act like one."...I find it ironic and perhaps unwittingly self-deprecating of the author to post this quote at the end of a reply with such a jackass like tone. But it's your choice to make yourself what you accuse someone else of being by that very accusatory action, I suppose.
I find it ironic and perhaps unwittingly self-deprecating of the author to post this quote at the end of a reply with such a jackass like tone. But it's your choice to make yourself what you accuse someone else of being by that very accusatory action, I suppose.
The comment in question is part of the member's signature. It is not unique to this post. In fact, I'm fairly certain that line is in MOST of the member's post. Thus, it isn't aimed at any particular person, just a belief that the person holds.
~C
Visit my blog: www.progressiveu.org/blog/mvenus929
Read the news: www.progressiveu.org/news
the fact that they put it on every time doesn't change how they acted or the irony of that statement at the end of that post. I hold my opinion.
Christianity is another religion. There are lots of whackos in this religion so how is it supposed to be so good????
Christians are not making life better for anyone I know personally. I see them only a block away from my house going to church and do you know how they act when they see me walking past? They give me dirty looks whether I am smoking a cigar or not, whether I am dressed nice or sloppy, and they never say hi to me or wave or even glance at me without a frown. Once they almost ran me over in there van while I was walking the dog. I see them all the time and they act like I am scum; it is called the Church of the Nazarene. They owned some houses on my block and rented them to families. When the families weren't able to pay the rent when it was due the church kicked them out and I mean with little kids too not just adults.
Christianity has done very little to help anyone. They ask for your money and give nothing back. Other orgnazations have done a lot more to help people. They dont ask for all your money either and they dont make you go to church to eat a meal when your hungry or go to service to get clothing when you dont have any.
For every Mother Teresa there is at least ten or twenty fanatics going around bombing clinics or holding up signs saying god hates faags or preaxhing hate for those who are different.
Sad that Christianity is a religion that has split families apart over homosexuality or interracial marriage and other issues. The Christian condemns. The Christian hates. What is good about that????
All religions breed hate and intolerance.
"In seeking wisdom thou art wise; in imagining that thou hast attained it - thou art a fool."
Lord Chesterfield
"The doors of wisdom are never shut."
Benjamin Franklin
The fact that there are tons of whackos in Christianity (agreed) doesn't mean that good can't come out of it. Saying that "All religions breed hate and intolerance" is obviously an untrue overly-generalized absolute statement. It's fair to personally not like Christians or to express your personal bad experiences with them---but they are opinions and as fiercely as you hold them, that isn't a reason to unjustly lump all Christians together and hate on them. That is foolish.
I definitely agree with you that people suck, and Christians aren't hard to pin down on this one...I don't doubt that some of the people you know tried to condemn you, and I'm not defending that. What I am defending is Jesus of Nazareth, who he was and what he taught. That alone is the only arguable reason to discuss this. In regards to anything else on this subject---you win.
On a side note for everyone, I understand that this is a blog where you post opinions, designed to have broad, progressive discourse, but the more we just keep yelling at each other and talking to each other like dirt, the less productive this is going to be for anyone. Can we please step up to a little more objectivity and integrity please? There's a reason why there's a "preview comment" button.
First of all, what is a "generality?"
gen·er·al·i·ty (jen'?-ral'i-te)
n. pl. gen·er·al·i·ties
1. The state or quality of being general.
2. An observation or principle having general application; a generalization.
3. An imprecise or vague statement or idea.
4. The greater portion or number; the majority.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/generality
There will almost always some portion of a generalized group that acts in exception to any general statement of judgement against that group. But, in order to declare an generality to be invalid, it would be necessary to demonstrate that the comment is not in fact generally applicable to the majority of people under consideration. And when it comes to christians, there are quite a few perfectly valid general statements that to me at least brings into question whether the "good" supposedly engendered by christian faith actually outweighs the "bad" that seems to sprout so regularly from the seeds of its beliefs.
Many modern christians try to distance themselves from some of the less attractive aspects of their religion's theological policies, but when someone actively supports an organization with their time and money, I don't think it is unreasonable to hold them somewhat responsible for what it is that organization stands for. For example, very few christians in America today would admit that they see women as being inherently inferior to men, and yet virtually every christian denomination in the world today holds to an official policy that forbids women from holding their highest positions of leadership and power.
And when you say, "What I am defending is Jesus of Nazareth, who he was and what he taught. That alone is the only arguable reason to discuss this.", I think you are being a little disengenous. The simple fact is that there is a lot more to christian theolgy that just the red-lettered verses. I doubt that anyone on this list who claims to be a christian could honestly say, for example, that they were not taught to obey the "10 Commandments," which not surprisingly begin with a statement of religious intolerance (i.e., "you shall have no other gods before me").
I do understand that not all christians are jerks on a personal level, but when acting in aggregate as a religious body, I am not willing to be so generous. Religions tend to breed intolerance and yes even violence, because they are (almost by definition) based on a belief in an arbitrarily absolute ideology, and to allow any opposing ideology to thrive inherently undermines the "truth" of which religions almost without exception claim to have a "special" understanding.
When I see an otherwise nice christian couple attending a "feed the hungry" seminar at a church that cost more than $10,000,000 to build, I have to sit back and wonder if "feeding the hungry" is really a priority for this couple. If I see an otherwise nice and respectful christian bloke attending an anti-gay rights rally, I have to question whether his respect and good will is genuine. When I see an otherwise "progressive" congregation in schism because of the mere suggestion that a woman might be ordained as a mininster, I really have to question whether that congregation trulty respects the progressive ideal of equality for all. The definition of a hypocrite is to say one thing and then do another, and I for one don't find institutionalized hypocrisy to be a particularly "good" thing.
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
I can only answer as an American Indian person would, but I have to say that Christianity has killed our spirits. I am a traditional Indian, but most of the Christian Indian people I see are walking contradictions.
Christianity has stolen our identity and interrupted the continuity of our own religion and spiritual practices.
I live in a small community in northern Minnesota and I have been visited by Christians on their ministries and I invite them in. We always discuss Christ and theology. I really believe that Jesus Christ was born in the Middle East and on their island. We did not need Christ here. We have our own values and religion.
So Christianity has only brought pain for American Indian people.
sorry, it very hard for me to like Christian when the court rules in the favor of the rapture rights that they can deny people of faith jobs because they don't practice their form of religion,
when the rapture rights organization gets more money than the progressive Christian organization through the faith base initiative started by bush, when Christian use their religion to get votes and for political gain,
when rapture right Christian and America bishop/catholic are silent about the invasion of Iraq even through the roman catholic church in Italy, pope john Paul II wrote a letter to Christian George bush not to invaded Iraq,
when Christian all over the world united against the invasion of Iraq, and the rapture right Christian were silent, in fact they even went rally behind the president, when the rapture rights wants to outlaw abortion but they want to decrease funding for single mother and deny single mother who have children out of wedlock any form of money,
because they would rather spend those money buying the million dollars mansion for the ceo and shareholder of Halliburton,
who making a killing in Iraq, nope, it isn't bashing Christian, just bashing rapture right ideas of Christianity.
it is hard for me to respect christian when some leader of the christian religion use the money to buy a 20 million jet for themselves instead of helping the poor,
it is hard for me to respect christian when they argue for the right to life of a fetsus but once it is born, they couldn't give two cent about that life, and would destroy that life for corporate gain.
What are your guys' opinions on Mormonism? Everyone who thinks that Mormons (Latter-Day Saints) are not Christian is mistaken. And they do not worship Joseph Smith, but I am curious as to what people think about them.
vee
Christianity pushed people into slavery!
Christianity labeled the Jews the same way they were labeled during WWII in order to humiliate them and make them easy victims to target!
Christianity is nothing more than a well organized sect that focuses on political power, money and mind control over children in order to keep the structure of mental abuse stable and profitable.
Christianity is the main reason why today the world is dealing with massive social problems only because the concept and structure of Christianity does not work properly!
Christianity causes a wide range of mental disorders of which split personality and sexual disorders are the most important in affecting us all and our societies!
Christianity is the main reason why aids is spreading fast in area’s they have been affected with Christian bestsellers!
Christianity does not care about 3rd world countries because it brings no profit what so ever!
The One you care to keep in your mind, has nothing to do with all of this!
To wake up and realize all of this can be more than useful to contribute in something more real and responsible!
It is essential to put hope for a ticket to heaven aside and look the other way in order to let go of the fear and free yourself out of that “box”.
This box entangles your freedom into a modern form of slavery!
To stop affecting children with the so called beauty of Christianity should become a world wide priority.
You, the one who preaches of giving to take
You, the one who preaches peace to get troops for war
You, the magic believing unreceptive that feels superior
You, that will never be able to realize what I'm telling you
You, the one preaching of unity, and causing our division
Have fun persecuting and preaching with hypocrisy, sorry for offending you, hope you're ready to debate
---
Everything, you have done, and will do, is chemically predisposed by matter, even the fact you are reading this message. You make no choices, only perceive a given reality.
I don't think he's here anymore....
"Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."
Homer Simpson