Kevin's Watch

It is just a perception of it. It's a perception I share or have shared in the past too. And if we're perceiving it, surely you have to ask yourself where this perception comes from? I personally know people who believe I'll go to hell. Maybe they don't wish it for me, but they expect it. It doesn't bother me of course, but it's still true. And I have no doubt that there are christians who await with glee the fiery end of all homosexuals, or terrorists, or whatever. Just like there are probably atheists who can't wait for some christians to find out they were wrong. (Not that they would if they were, but you know what I mean.)

Now I'm the first person to admit that there are many christians who don't feel that way. Maybe even [imost[/i] of them. But they're not the ones out on the street waving the "gays burn" placards either, are they? And guess which ones we see?

Christianity may be about love...but not all christians demonstrate that very well.

--A

AV I agree. But on the other foot of that. Perhaps the same can be said for why some Christians feel persecuted. Some Im sure feel as if atheists are trying to destroy Christianity. Its a perception. Perhaps not all of them (Atheists) are like that, perhaps not even most of them...but those wont be the ones you will hear from.
The ones a Christian might see or hear from are the ones that write books "The Atheist Manifesto" and "The God Delusion". The ones that a Christian might hear from are those that are looking for an opportunity to tear into a Christians beliefs. You usually wont hear a peep from the Atheists that dont care what someone elses beliefs are.

So you are probably right.. The perceptions are made based on the more extremes because those are the ones that are going to try to beat you over the head (figuretively speaking) and drive their beliefs into you or drive your beliefs out. Both Christian and Atheist and probably others as well.

I dare anyone to come up with an atheist plan as sinister and high reaching as The Wedge.

Haha, they're wasting their time. Conversion of the mainstream indeed. They might not have noticed, but the mainstream (n the US) is Christian.

And therein, to get back to SB's post, lies my confusion with the issue. I certainly concede that there are the fringe "end all religion" groups, but in a country that's around 80% christian, are they really so worrying?

--A

One perception that I have is that, as I get older, my statements require more and more context to avoid being misunderstood.

I'd mostly stand with what Soulbiter said. Where I would differ is mainly in that I do believe there is a supernatural conspiracy to wipe out Christianity - but I do not believe that atheists are 'plotting' or in a conspiracy, for the most part.

CS Lewis said it well when he said that:

Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important.

I would add that if false, it ought to be exposed for the fraud that it is, and that's the basis for fighting over it. (There I go needing lots more context to explain that...) In extreme short, if I believe a proposition is true, I should act on it anywhere that I am required to act.

Prebe wrote:I dare anyone to come up with an atheist plan as sinister and high reaching as The Wedge.

That strategy (if true) is not something Orthodoxy would support on a number of fronts. I would say that it is an artificial western response to western errors, but is itself in error in many of its aims (although I admire the spirit). (My quick 5-minute cheap analysis).

In Christianity, peace is a by-product, not the central aim. Truth is the goal of Christianity, even if a lot of them get their 'calculations' wrong.

But they think it's your calculations that are wrong.

And if you're in favour of examining it to be sure it's true, you surely don't worry about the "threat" from atheism, do you?

As for your suggestion that peace is not the aim, I believe you're right. And it's appearance as a by-product will only be when everybody else is dead. Doesn't the bible say that next time he will come with a sword?

--A

I've been apart of 14 evolution v. creationism debates in the past two years in churches, universities, and town halls. I can't even repeat the things that have been said to me, the questions posed, and even outright threats. I'd say these folks are fringe. The problem is I've personally seen thousands of them. Extrapolate my experiences are we get into millions over the whole of the country.

Its scary that many people actually refuse to accept fact. As for destroying Christianity, it can't be done for that reason alone. Regardless I don't know of anyone trying to do it.

One problem that will always remain in discussing, defending or attacking "Christianity" is what exactly is being attacked, defended or discussed. I ultimately mean Orthodox Christianity, and only include denominational Christians to the extent to which they line up with Orthodoxy. Where they depart I may well agree with the non-Christians against what is under discussion. But for the sake of what we have in common, I will tend to stand with other Christians.

Avatar wrote: 1) But they think it's your calculations that are wrong.

2) And if you're in favour of examining it to be sure it's true, you surely don't worry about the "threat" from atheism, do you?

3) As for your suggestion that peace is not the aim, I believe you're right. And it's appearance as a by-product will only be when everybody else is dead. Doesn't the bible say that next time he will come with a sword?

--A

On #1, of course - the question is one of who is right. And here you have to establish first principles that we DO agree on before you can move on to what we do not agree on.

On #2 - you need to distinguish between an honest examination of faith vs the lack thereof, which truth can only welcome) and attacks on one or the other that evade that honest examination but ONLY insist on one's own view and ideas. (One may have honestly examined and rejected opposing views, but this is not always clear, and very frequently what one side rejects is not what the other side claims.)

On #3, as far as universal peace on earth, of course you are right. In addition, the "sword" really means opposition on all levels, right down to the family level.

However, wherever Christianity is established and genuinely practiced it really does bring peace. Here again you need to distinguish between genuine practice of faith and things done in the name of faith without genuine practice.

I'd say these folks are fringe. The problem is I've personally seen thousands of them. Extrapolate my experiences are we get into millions over the whole of the country.

To KS: First of all, I'd refer to my point at the beginning of this post. Christianity is not one monolithic entity, even if the Christian Church is.
Our personal experience, however broad it may seem to us, is really just a drop in the bucket against an entire world over 2,000 years. IOW, if we go only by our own personal experience we risk being merely "a child of our time", limited, even truncated in vision as to what exactly this thing called Christianity is, where did these thousands that you did see come from, is this really what Christ and the Apostles intended, etc etc. In short, that you may have broad experience with fanatical and unreasonable Christians is no proof that there is not a reasonable and practical Christian faith that really is what Christ worked for, if you will.

Secondly, the specific question of special creation vs evolution is simply not an issue that can shake Christianity - it is not a question that ultimately puts Christianity under question. We would say that it is not "salvific". A great many intelligent Christians, scientists as well as lay people accept evolution as a reasonable theory and quite possibly the truth - my own priest, among others. So any use of the issue to attack Christianity as a whole is a waste of time.

Good answers to my points there Rus.

As to your worry of a limited church, don't you think that we risk the exact opposite if we simply adhere to an outdated structure? Not only do we lose sight of the present important issues, but the church loses its relevance to the public?

(Should we split this thread? We're getting pretty far from WF's original point...)

--A

Avatar wrote:Good answers to my points there Rus.

As to your worry of a limited church, don't you think that we risk the exact opposite if we simply adhere to an outdated structure? Not only do we lose sight of the present important issues, but the church loses its relevance to the public?

(Should we split this thread? We're getting pretty far from WF's original point...)

--A

Actually, this is why I seem to harp on Chesterton a lot - because this is precisely what he goes to the heart of: modern thought and how much it is at odds with traditional rational thought (as if the world was full of idiots until the modern era).
(Hope none of this seems like a personal attack of any sort - just want to offer thought here, stuff I learned from the big guy (GKC).)
First of all, what is "outdated"? What does it mean and how is it applicable to these questions of faith? (this involves discussing what terms like "modern" actually mean)
Secondly, are not the issues which religion attempts to deal with present and important issues?
Third, what does, "relevance to the public" mean? If it means anything other than "what is important to us", than it does not mean anything at all. (the fallacy of speaking of humanity in the abstract as something disconnected from the individual)

I think you might guess already that the answers that I have call the first principles (the ones we take for granted and don't generally examine) that you are coming from into question. What I got in my personally crafted 'course' on Chesterton (as well as Lewis) taught me to examine those things - modern assumptions, and expose the fallacies that lie behind them.

Hopefully this will bring about interesting thoughts...