"Nonsense" about Christianity

[Prebe]

Great post Rob!

*bows*

[rdhopeca]

It comes from being told that God is Good, when historically God has been used to justify the torture and slaughter of innocents time and time again. It comes from being told that God is Just, when God has been used to deny women equal rights in the world.

However, none of how God has been used proves anything about God being good or evil. And of course you're being selective in your examples, since God has also been used to justify good actions.

The question was "BTW, that anger towards Christian elitism/exclusivism, or whatever, where does it come from?", not "Give me examples of both the Good and the Bad that God has been used to justify".

If the question had been that, I would have answered it differently. So, no, I not being "selective" at all. I'm just answering the question.

[thewormoftheworld'send]

It comes from being told that God is Good, when historically God has been used to justify the torture and slaughter of innocents time and time again. It comes from being told that God is Just, when God has been used to deny women equal rights in the world.

However, none of how God has been used proves anything about God being good or evil. And of course you're being selective in your examples, since God has also been used to justify good actions.

The question was "BTW, that anger towards Christian elitism/exclusivism, or whatever, where does it come from?", not "Give me examples of both the Good and the Bad that God has been used to justify".

If the question had been that, I would have answered it differently. So, no, I not being "selective" at all. I'm just answering the question.

I'm just pointing out that obviously your anger does not come from looking at both sides of the story. And in fact, the vast majority of the time when people invoke the name "God" it is for benevolent purposes.

[Cail]

Not only that, but are you really going to hold God accountable for people using his name to justify their evildoing?

[aliantha]

<not getting into the current turn in this discussion -- yet >

Rus: I owe you an apology. I’ve been jumping a few steps in my argument, and misunderstanding yours a little. I’m going to take one more crack at this because I still think I have a valid point.

I think, now, what you are saying is that Christians in America feel that they are being marginalized unfairly, because they believe they know what’s true and it’s being discounted. I concede that they could well be feeling that way. I’m not here to invalidate anybody’s feelings.

My point is that you’re only looking at it from the Christian viewpoint. Muslims, too, believe they know what’s true. So do Jews. So do Baha’is, and Pagans, and atheists. (Notice I’ve left out agnostics, since they can’t decide what’s true, by definition. ) Heck, members of different Christian denominations can’t agree on what’s true, as we’ve seen here in this thread. And we have no independent way to confirm who’s right. Therefore, the government has two alternatives: (1) pick a side and favor one religion over another; (2) allow everybody to practice any religion they want. Choice (1) essentially leads to the establishment of a state religion, which is against the Constitution. So the government’s only real choice is (2).

I acknowledge that it’s uncomfortable for Christians to see the American culture become more pluralistic. But try to imagine yourself as a non-Christian – say, a Muslim – in America. The Constitution guarantees you freedom of religion, yet your neighbors may discriminate against you. Imagine yourself a Jewish kid in public school the ‘50s who might have had to either pray to Jesus Christ or be sent to the principal’s office.

That’s why I said religious truth is irrelevant to the discussion. Everybody believes they know the truth. The government is prevented from picking sides. Fairness dictates that everyone’s faith is granted the same accommodation. It sucks for the Christian majority, I grant you. But it has sucked for the followers of other religions for the past 230-plus years.

Cybrweez: I’ve been putting off responding to your question to me, about how I would have reacted as a Roman to the advent of Christianity. My initial reaction was to say something like, “Considering that my ancestors were Celts and Slavs, they probably would have had enough of the Romans by then too.” But that seemed too flippant, so I waited, and thought about it, and here’s what I can tell you.

At that time, Roman culture was on its last legs. The establishment was given to excess, to put it mildly, and there was a huge gap between rich and poor. Given my liberal leanings, and given the things Jesus said about the moneychangers and God’s love and all the rest, I might well have been drawn to Jesus and his followers myself.

But I say that with a caveat. I tend to distrust gurus in general. And despite my political leanings, I have never done anything as rash as, for example, giving up my comfortable middle-class life to join a commune. So I expect that I would have been conflicted over the rise of Christianity: disgusted with the regime, feeling some resonance with Jesus’ message, yet not likely to be among those who gave up everything to follow him.

[rusmeister]

I'd like to respond; there are some good points I think are worth responding to, but Holy Week is beginning, so I'm signing off, at least till next week. Pascha (Orthodox don't call it Easter, except for the convenience of non-Orthodox English-speaking folks - all the noise about Easter/Eostre is irrelevant outside of the English-speaking world, anyway, making it useless as an argument against the holiday itself) is a week later for us than for westerners, who use the Catholic calendar and planning system, whether they know it or not.

Christ is risen! (Whether you believe it or not)

[rdhopeca]

Not only that, but are you really going to hold God accountable for people using his name to justify their evildoing?

So long as he is held accountable for people using his name to justify anything good, then yes, I see no problem with that. Especially when people such as Chesterton consider the slaughter of the Crusades "justifiable in the defense of reason".

That said, "anger" is a poor term. It's more justification for my decisions to believe what I believe.

[rdhopeca]

However, none of how God has been used proves anything about God being good or evil. And of course you're being selective in your examples, since God has also been used to justify good actions.

The question was "BTW, that anger towards Christian elitism/exclusivism, or whatever, where does it come from?", not "Give me examples of both the Good and the Bad that God has been used to justify".

If the question had been that, I would have answered it differently. So, no, I not being "selective" at all. I'm just answering the question.

I'm just pointing out that obviously your anger does not come from looking at both sides of the story. And in fact, the vast majority of the time when people invoke the name "God" it is for benevolent purposes.

"Anger" is a poor term. This is more along the lines of "why". I am not arguing this one way or the other, I am merely answering the question as it was stated.

As far as "both sides of the story", I was raised in a Protestant household, and I married a Catholic girl and go to church every Sunday. My exposure to "both sides of the story" is as high as virtually anyone else. My children will be raised Catholic. My father was Catholic until he was excommunicated for marrying my mother in a Protestant church. I'm fairly well versed in what Christianity is. But I choose to have my own beliefs.

[Loredoctor]

(On Chesterton) You're very welcome!
I discovered him only a few years ago, and the discovery is as profound as if you discovered Shakespeare today and nobody had ever heard of him. Not only witty (many writers are witty), but humorous (ditto) and humble (uh, not ditto). How many people can you find who combine all three? He was famous in his own time, his death was a cause for national mourning, and I think it is mainly his exclusion from public education (primarily due to his defence of faith - something that is unacceptable in modern schools, and even risky in higher education) that has led to such widespread ignorance about him. Plus, he requires a little brain power to read and follow, kind of like SRD, only even more so (I won't take that comparison very far), so the average reader - a dying breed in our age of entertainment and short attention spans, combined with a growing lack of knowledge of history and prior cultures - increasingly finds him difficult. Heck, the first few books I read, I read at a snail's pace - until I "got his drift". I was forced to think after darn near every sentence.

My apologies for my late reply, Rusmeister! I was spending the weekend in the country without 'net access. The more I read about Chesterton, the more I like. The guy is incredibly clever. I happen to be a huge fan of anything written in the 19th century - if anything for the style of writing. Reading his quotes and some of his short works made me really appreciate his ideas. I will have to buy one of his books soon.

[Cybrweez]

Yes, unlike most other debates. In most other debates mutual consensus can often be reached when all available facts have been reviewed, because you have a set of generally accepted tools (logic and scientific method) to adhere to.

Right. I'd believe you if I didn't spend time in the Tank here, where I use logic to read and understand that there is no consensus. But, in the Tank, its b/c they are 'fierce bitches'.

[Prebe]

Right. I'd believe you if I didn't spend time in the Tank here, where I use logic to read and understand that there is no consensus. But, in the Tank, its b/c they are 'fierce bitches'.

I din't say the issues were always resolved or a consensus was always reached (or did I?). I meant that it SHOULD be possible to reach an objective consensus in principle. That is by definition impossible in a game (like religion) where the only rules are that everybody has their own set of rules.

[SoulBiter]

Speaking of persecution:

www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith ... 093378.ece

A charity worker has been suspended after telling a colleague about his Christian beliefs against homosexuality, even though he says he is not homophobic and was merely responding to questions from a colleague about his beliefs.

David Booker, 44, who works at a Christian hostel in Southampton, a charity, was asked about his faith by a colleague, Fiona Vardy during a late shift last month.

He told her he was opposed to same-sex marriages and to homosexual clergy but denied being homophobic and said that he had homosexual friends.

The next evening, Mr Booker was suspended from his £19,000-a-year post as a hostel support worker with Society of St James, where he has been employed for the last four years. The hostel told him the action was taken for “events that happened last night”.

A few days later he was told he had “seriously breached” the charity’s code of conduct “by promoting your religious views which contained discriminatory comments regarding a person’s sexual orientation”. The action had been taken “to safeguard both residents and staff”, he was advised.

So now you cant even answer questions truthfully about your religious views and still keep your job at a Christian charity? Hows that for irony.

[Prebe]

The only thing I'm intolerant about is intolerance.

[Auleliel]

There's a difference between intolerance and refusing to condone inappropriate behavior.

[Cybrweez]

Furls, I was not making any comment on compassion vs love. I was talking about holiness/righteousness. I mentioned earlier that, especially in America, God's Holiness is slighted quite a bit. One might refer to it as 'seeker-friendly'.

So any passage referring to God's wrath, and Jesus talking about not knowing some and knowing others, you think are not original? Why?

For myself, I don't get angry at these things being said about her.

Fist, what things did I say about Furls? Or was it someone else?

[thewormoftheworld'send]

Speaking of persecution:

www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith ... 093378.ece

A charity worker has been suspended after telling a colleague about his Christian beliefs against homosexuality, even though he says he is not homophobic and was merely responding to questions from a colleague about his beliefs.

David Booker, 44, who works at a Christian hostel in Southampton, a charity, was asked about his faith by a colleague, Fiona Vardy during a late shift last month.

He told her he was opposed to same-sex marriages and to homosexual clergy but denied being homophobic and said that he had homosexual friends.

The next evening, Mr Booker was suspended from his £19,000-a-year post as a hostel support worker with Society of St James, where he has been employed for the last four years. The hostel told him the action was taken for “events that happened last night”.

A few days later he was told he had “seriously breached” the charity’s code of conduct “by promoting your religious views which contained discriminatory comments regarding a person’s sexual orientation”. The action had been taken “to safeguard both residents and staff”, he was advised.

So now you cant even answer questions truthfully about your religious views and still keep your job at a Christian charity? Hows that for irony.

I'm sure if he had been Islamic and expressed the same views nothing would have happened.

[Vraith]

Not only that, but are you really going to hold God accountable for people using his name to justify their evildoing?

This is late cuz I've been away a bit, but...you bet I am. I'm going to hold God accountable for everything, if in fact it turns out there is one. [and I do mean everything]. For a huge post worth of reasons, only about 10% of which are actually about God or religion.

[Cail]

Yeah see, but you can't. Freewill and all. There's The Message, and The Message is good. Sometimes people misunderstand The Message. Sometimes people twist The Message to their own whims. Sometimes people ignore The Message. You can't hold The Author accountable for that.

The Message is simple, they even made a really good movie out of it (Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure). "Be excellent to each other". That's it. If you're not excellent to everyone, you're not heeding The Message.

[Vraith]

Yeah see, but you can't. Freewill and all. There's The Message, and The Message is good. Sometimes people misunderstand The Message. Sometimes people twist The Message to their own whims. Sometimes people ignore The Message. You can't hold The Author accountable for that.

The Message is simple, they even made a really good movie out of it (Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure). "Be excellent to each other". That's it. If you're not excellent to everyone, you're not heeding The Message.

In theory, I would agree...except for the freewill thing. I have yet to see any convincing argument for omni-(everything) god and free will in the same universe. [an old argument].
But I say [among other things, and related to above at certain points] God could have made us aware of his existence in the same way we are aware of our noses...it's just there..this doesn't impede our choices...whereas asking us to believe the words of people we don't know and don't believe, and have performed blatantly evil deeds, or burn forever is little different from sentencing a baby to death because it's mother died in childbirth.
A choice is not a choice without knowledge and options...it's just a wish or a gamble.
{and though that's an extreme and harsh example, perhaps not completely parallel, I'm not intending to slander peoples faith. Sometimes I wish I had it. But I can't abide the idea that if there IS a God, his/her truth is this absolute, inflexible, and judgemental while ALSO being simply a matter of preference/birth/culture/time/personal experience.}

[Dromond]

Yeah see, but you can't. Freewill and all. There's The Message, and The Message is good. Sometimes people misunderstand The Message. Sometimes people twist The Message to their own whims. Sometimes people ignore The Message. You can't hold The Author accountable for that.

The Message is simple, they even made a really good movie out of it (Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure). "Be excellent to each other". That's it. If you're not excellent to everyone, you're not heeding The Message.

I try to be excellent to each other, It's almost my code. I don't believe a god tells me to be so. You say 'the message' often,seven times in fact, as if it is writ. I would like to see this 'message' I personally believe there is no holy message. (Holy being my addition)