I'm having trouble keeping my promise to respect the religious left.

[Ladyhawk]

I know we need the religious left. I've tried hard to get along with non-fundy Christians, but I'm having a serious issue right now. UndergroundPanther posted something which reminded me just how sick a book the bible is.

I want to get along with Christians, but I find the bible to be an appallingly violent, genocidal book. There are only a few decent passages in the gospels and that's about it. Most of the OT is irredeemable. The homophobic, misogynistic epistles of Paul make most of the NT irredeemable, as well. I can't understand how someone could call the bible a "good book." I've read the darn thing many times and can't find much to call good.

I just don't "get" religion. It seems so contrived. Most religions are based on horrid ancient texts like the bible. Thomas Jefferson thought the bible was so awful, he made his own version, cutting out all the nasty parts. Jefferson's Bible is pretty lightweight, I understand.

Look, I want to get along, but I don't understand how a good religion could come from something so detestably awful as the bible. All the Abrahamic religions rely on some form of the Old Testament and consider it to be "holy." No wonder the Jews hate the Muslims, the Muslims hate the Jews, the Christians hate the Muslims, the Muslims hate the Christians, etc. The basis for their religion is a very violent, very genocidal book. If taken literally (which is inevitable when a religion is based upon a book), that book becomes extremely dangerous. Each Abrahamic religion believes it is the one chosen by god. In the OT, god's chosen people are justified in killing other people in order to take their land. Hmmmm, does that sound familiar? It's what's happening in Iraq. It's what's happening in Israel. Both fundamentalist Palestinians (Muslims) and fundamentalist Israelis (Jews) believe god gave them the "Holy Land." How many people have died to possess this so-called "Holy Land"? The bible is to blame.

I'm sorry. I'm trying. I really have been trying, but I just don't get it.

I understand the need for a Christian Left movement in the United States, but I don't understand how a decent person can believe the bible is a holy book. I just don't get it. I've tried to get it.

There are some good things in the bible, but most of it is violent, genocidal, immoral, or a crock of shit. I wonder how anyone could, first of all, believe the paranormal miracle stuff. A couple of weeks ago, a Christian posted that calling his religion "a bunch of fairy tales" was offensive to him. I don't want to offend, but really, how can you believe that a talking snake was responsible for the "fallen" state of man? How can you believe in heaven and/or hell? How can you believe that Jesus was the son of god when there isn't even any solid evidence that he existed? How can you believe in the virgin birth? How can you believe that a crucified man rose from the dead and ascended into the heavens?

All of these things are written in an old, unreliable, contradictory and very violent book. All of these things are impossible. That's why they're called "miracles," I suppose, but the thing about miracles is, they are by definition impossible and can therefore never happen. Have you seen a talking snake recently? How about a man who was born through parthogenesis and rose from the dead? I don't buy the idea that miracles only happened in ancient times. That's a cop-out. I suppose that Zeus and Athena only showed themselves to the ancient Greeks and that's why we never see them around these days. "It only happened in ancient times" is a huge cop-out. To me, these outlandish scenarios do indeed sound like fairy tales. I can't understand how a rational person could believe in them. I can only deduce that such people must have been brainwashed or believe in these things because they fear to face life and death as they really are.

Secondly, I wonder how anyone could ignore all the horrible, violent, genocidal, misogynistic, homophobic passages in the bible and base a religion on a narrow set of teachings by a person named Jesus who probably never even existed (Pagan Origins of the Christ Myth).
[br />"Jesus" contradicts himself often and some of his teachings aren't very nice, like the one where, in a parable, Jesus suggests that a slave should be beaten with many stripes:

Luk 12:47: And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.

First of all, slavery is wrong. Jesus had many chances to condemn it and didn't. Secondly, it is wrong to beat someone for not doing your will. Any decent person knows this. Why didn't Jesus? The obvious answer is that the gospels were a product of their times and that "Jesus," if he existed, was also a product of his times and not the supernatural son of god. If he was the son of god, he should have known that slavery is wrong and that beating another person is wrong.

Another important point: even Jesus's "good" stuff, like the "Golden Rule," are borrowed from earlier philosophers.

So, how can you build a good religion on a book that is mostly violent and genocidal, where the key figure contradicts himself, probably never existed and even preached pro-slavery sermons?

I don't get it.

I promised to help the Christian Left, but I don't understand how you can adhere to a religion that doesn't have a leg to stand on. That's the way I feel. After years of research, I can honestly say I have no respect for the bible or the religions that were founded upon it. In light of the obvious facts I've pointed out, tell me why I should respect your religion? Why should I respect the bible?

I can do neither, yet I have to get along with Christians who believe in social justice. I have to if we're going to get anything done. Tell me: how can I get along with Christians if I detest the bible? I think I'm right to detest such a horrible book. I really don't see how anyone who has read it can defend it.

[bryant69]

1. Well maybe you should stop working with the religious left

I speak that as a person who goes to church every week and believes in the Bible. I'm not going to spend any time defending the bible, since I don't think that would accomplish much.

If you feel that strongly though; why twist yourself in a knot? Just go after religion period.

Life is short. You don't have time to care about everything. Everyone of us (who's honest) will admit that there are issues that they recognize are important but they can't get worked up over. You have to prioritize what you care about. If you are that opposed to the Bible / Christianity, focus on that. I don't know if you will get all that far (you probably won't), but at least you'll be doing something you believe in instead of pretending.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[pissed_American]

104. It`s all based on fear...

Do "This" or something horrible will happen to you.

Don`t do "That" or something horrible will happen to you.


P.U. !!!

Religion KILLS ! History can tell you that.

[RobinA]

2. I Don't Get Religion

either. I just shut-up about it when I'm around religious people whom I otherwise like. You can't change them any more than they can change you. I consider it something like a crutch they need to get thorugh life. I have my ways of dealing, they have theirs.

[Castilleja]

99. I think some people need boundaries and limits

that are not of their own making. I agree with you, I don't understand religion and I don't see it as a necessary thing, myself. Maybe people prefer to believe in a higher authority figure who is in control of all things as opposed to accepting control for themselves.

[cap]

3. a lot of us take the Bible as allegorical and not as an absolute

guidebook to the universe. We extract the principles of faith, hope and charity. We don't believe the book literally but use it as guidance. We acknowledge the book reflects societies of long ago and that's why we ignore the misogynist passages because we believe that human beings evolve into a better state over the course of the ages. I am confident that the folks in 2100 will look at some of our current practices as bizarre and misguided but I have faith that we will evolve into a better society.

At the end of the day, it doesnt matter to me whether Jesus existed or not. What matters to me are his lessons on charity, compassion, goodness and peace on Earth, Goodwill to All Men.

[Ladyhawk]

68. Now this I can understand and even respect.

Using the good parts of the bible as a general "guide," sounds fine. I guess I don't understand why the bible is supposed to be so special. At the end of the day, I can understand that charity, compassion, goodness, peace on Earth and good will toward men are very important, yet I don't use the bible even as a general guide.

But thank you for your insight. I do want to understand as best I can.

[Mich Otter]

82. "the bible as a general "guide," sounds fine"

The Bible has so much B.S. in it, humanity would be better off starting over with the creation of a sensible guide on how to treat ourselves, one-another and the universe as a whole.
A well thought out guide could serve as a constitutional basis for countries which change governments, and for international organizations.
Plans for so-existing peacefully, establishing laws, working with the environment are all so desperately needed in much of the world. The places that come closest to functioning this way are the countries that have set up Socialist governments.

[cap]

128. you dont need to use the Bible

it's just that for some of us, certain passage state the basic principles more eloquently than the words we could come us with on out own.

[I Have A Dream]

87. I agree...

I very much respect what the person Jesus represented and how he lived his life. (I do believe that Jesus existed.) I believe that his message was one of love. In my opinion, his complete message can be summarized in the following statement: do unto others as you'd have them do unto you. Nothing more is needed, in my opinion.

I am NOT religious; rather, I am very spiritual. I shun everything that is religious, and I feel sickened when I'm around really religious people who quote the Bible to defend things that allow them to stay small and mean.

Actually, I think that Jesus would be absolutely appalled at what is being/has been done in his name.

When I was in college, I was in Campus Crusade for Christ during my freshman year. I have first-hand experience with the thought control in which groups like this engage. (Important: I'm not saying that it is a cult or anything like that. Rather, each person in the group monitors the other people in the group to make certain that they don't "stray from the path". They really feel that it is an act of love to do this.) My life changed when I decided that this was NOT how I wanted my life to be. I've often thought about how different my life would be if I had taken the other path when I hit this fork in the road. Would I have been so brainwashed that I'd be a conservative? I shuddder at the thought!

Sounds to me as though you also are taking a spiritual rather than a religious path.

[pissed_American]

105. "We don't believe the book literally "

Then what`s the F`n point ?

So you can pick and choose ??? COOL !!!

[Bake]

111. Some people lack the sophistication to recognize the difference

between myth, allegory, and "literality." Apparently.

Just because something is myth doens't mean it is false.

This thread smells like flame bait to me. If you don't want to work with liberal Christians, fine. Go form an Atheist Superior Party and see how many elections you win.

OP's post smacks of superiority, as do several of the later posts. I thought we were on the same side.

Bake

[pissed_American]

159. "Just because something is myth doens't mean it is false" Oh, I disagree

By dictionary definition : A fictitious story, person, or thing: “German artillery superiority on the Western Front was a myth”

Another: A fiction or half-truth, especially one that forms part of an ideology


I rest my case !


If there is a problem, take it up with Webster.

[Patchuli]

122. That was a good post.

Thank you.

[MARALE]

4. I understand where you are coming from

I read the part in the bible where 2 strangers are guests at this families house. Who should come knocking at the door but a mob of evil, homosexual men that wanted to have their way with the 2 men. The man of the house offers his wife to the evil men and sent them on their way. The wife crawls back and collaspes on the front stoop. When the husband gets up and tells her to make his breakfast and low and behold, she is dead. He then cuts up her body and send the parts to some people as a warning.

I remember being horrified and thinking that if this God thinks it is okay to do this, I don't want him as my God. I don't beleive in the Bible, but I do beleive there is an entity out there that is watching us. I don't even think there is a heaven.

[Jo March]

16. God didn't say that it is okay to cut up your wife after she's been raped

Where are you getting that God was justifying and/or blessing that behavior? What chapter and verse does God say, "And lo, after you have offered up your wife for rape to homosexual men (?), cut her up if she crawls back and it will be good in my sight"????

Yes, there are awful things in the Bible. There are horrible things in it.

There are also the words of Christ who tells us to love our neighbor, care for the sick, the poor, widows and orphans and who tells us that the commandment to love our neighbors is the greatest commandment of all!

[RethugAssKicker]

36. all religions

Teach about love and kindness... not just the New Testament. There is nothing at all special about the bible when it comes to love, charity and caring for your fellow man.

Most American when they hear the word "religion" only think of Western religons , such as christianity, Islam, and Judaism...


Theres a whole world out there, with wonderful spiritual ideas and thoughts that were written about long before those 3 religions!

The bible has no monopoly on kindness... but it probably does on evil behaviors!..

People believe in the Bible basically becuase they were indoctrinated into it..thus causing fear not to believe in it....

IMO, there is no way a truly intelligent person, who has studied in-depth the worlds religons.. would ever pick any of the 3 western religons to believe in.....NO WAY!!!

[cally]

81. The Bible has a monopoly on evil behaviors????

I guess you haven't read much history or studied religion. Humans have practiced evil throughout time and have religions justify it.

[woodsprite]

38. I'm religious, I believe in a higher being and I call him God,

I'm Presbyterian. I believe that the main tennets (sp?) of the Bible are accurate. BUT, if you asked me to bet my life that everything in that Bible were true, I wouldn't do it. And I don't have to inorder to have a relationship with God.

How many years has it been? 2000 some odd? You mean to tell me every time a new "version" comes out that the people copying it down do it verbatim. I don't think so -- I believe it is a very edited, adulterated version that many people since the original crafters have put their mark on. Yeah, the stories are nice, and can be used as guidelines. Regardless whether you believe or not, if you follow what are the 10 commandments, you should be able to live a very fulfilling, rewarding, good life.

[VTMechEngr]

73. Excellent example of NOT GETTING THE POINT.

The Bible first highlights the history of the Jews, the good and the bad. It doesn't mean God excepted it, it was a history of humankind. In that case however, the city was destroyed for its wickedness.

Perhaps you have heard of the 2 cities? God did not approve. The point is to learn a moral lesson from that story, and I think literalism makes people miss it.

[LisaM]

5. Well, it depends on if you think the Bible is to be taken literally

as history, as parable, or as a compilation of historically significant writings turned into an ouevre for sects with a shared beginning. Most people I know who are lefty AND religious hardly see the bible in the same way as the religious right, who seem to use it as a tool to defend narrow-mindedness, sadism, theocracy, and abuse. Me, I just think of it as interesting source material to western religion.

[GreenArrow]

11. "interesting source material to western religion"

Even more than that, it's the foundation of much of western culture. Whether they believe in it or not, every educated person should have some familiarity with it, IMO.

[Tux]

22. Sure

Bible and education don't mix. Sorry but it doesn't promote thought, learning, or anything involving education. Eating an apple from a tree of knowledge to get kicked out of paradise shows that.

[LisaM]

25. It depends on what you're educating people about

I agree, it's tricky. Ever read "The Book of J"?

[GreenArrow]

30. sure they do.

Christianity has been the dominant cultural factor in the Western world for nearly 2,000 years. History, art, philosophy, architecture, even science have all been in some way tied up with it. It's not necessary to believe it, but understanding its influence and origins are indespensible. In fact, the more one learns about it, the less likely one is to believe it, at least from a fundamentalist perspective. In the same way, I'd suggest that if one wanted to understand the Arab world, or India, for example, that they familiarize themselves with at least the basics of the main religions.

[Tux]

37. However

Baptists are now removing their kids from schools. Sounds like they promote education to me. I call the Bible what it is; a book. It is up to review and analysis like any other. People may not like that but too bad. I believe in Deity, Universe of Deity's word and life as a great gift. Yet I get bitched at by my family for not being Baptist, Protestant fundie, or some other thing. No one book has all the truth whether it is science, spiritulaity (not religion), philosophy, etc. Yet saying educated people whould read the Bible is non-sense. Sure it corrupted Western cultures for centuries as they killed each other over a book but don't demand people to read such a book of hate and death just on an opinion. I think educated people should never read the Bible. Falwell and then attended college and see what happened? I noticed that the lower the education level, the more people attend church. Seems like a nice way to sucker money from people and to gain power. Sorry but it is true. Just watch a televangelists.

[Jo March]

44. Televangelists are hardly the epitome of Christianity

Since he chased the moneychangers from the temple.

He also said, "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven."

And he said that the love of money is the root of all evil.

Jesus didn't "sucker" money from anyone.

[Tux]

49. If televangelicals

Aren't lords and masters of Christianity, why do they have more air time, more publications, and more worshippers than any other minister? Seems like they are Christianity since they have more say based on their popularity.

[Jo March]

54. I can call myself the Queen of Sheba. Does that make me a queen?

I feel sorry for you if you can't see through those hypocrites and see that they don't represent the teachings of Christ. They are moneychangers, plain and simple.

Just because they get more "air time, more publications, and more worshippers" doesn't make them Christians no more than more air time, publications, etc. make * the President.

Sorry, but you are buying into what they are selling - that they are the "true" Christians and they represent Christ.

Christ instructed us to pray in our closets where only God could hear and not stand and pray on the street corners "like the hypocrites."

Jesus would call these guys what they are: hypocrites and money changers.

[Tux]

60. Er

Well, if liberal Christians would counter them, it'd be different but those terrorists are ruining this nation. They want people to die from diseases that stem cells could cure. Parkinson's killed my mom and I'd love to see a cure so people like me won't have to worry about their parent's suffering during finals week or have them die a month before graduation. If Jesus taught that life is great and should be enjoyed, I don't hear it. I hear death. Time to change it and revise the Bible while you area at it so this shit won't happen again.

[Jo March]

66. The Bible doesn't need changing

Those who are preaching death are not Christians, please believe me. I am sorry that you have heard this disgusting filth preached at you as if it is the word of God but it is NOT.

If Christians - the ones who just call themselves that anyway - would read the teachings of Christ every once in a while, they'd find out that they are not Christians.

You can keep thinking that Chrisitianity is horrible and evil but it's not. Are some of it's followers horrible? Yes, they are.

I stand up and speak out. I've lost many a friend because they want to continue to say that it's okay to go to war because "God tells us to fight wars" but Jesus tells us not to fight wars.

I am sorry about your mother. Christians, true Christians, do not want to stop research on stem cells.

As far as the teachings of Jesus, if you ever want to hear the true teachings, PM me. I'll be glad to summarize them up for you. You'll be suprised at what you read.

[pissed_American]

107. I just heard on Dateline tonight about

All the Christians who go scammed out of their money ( at least a couple million) from a low cost car sale scam that was told to be from God`s blessings - Lexus 4,000 F150 $1000. One couple got scammed out of $200,000. Bought about 64 cars and some Diesel carriers.( what the hell would they need so many cars for, unless for turning a profit -- on some infidels, maybe??)

Greed bit`em in the ass!

Two female pastors were even helping facilitate the plan.


Just like so many things spouted in Religion....If it sounds too good to be true, well... you know the rest.

[GreenArrow]

74. televangelists are the antithesis of Christianity

Hypocrites and pharisees.

[GreenArrow]

65. you're missing the point

see post 52, where it is explained more clearly than I am able to do.

[immoderate]

133. Sorry to tip your boat.

But "history, art, philosophy, architecture, even science" have been opposed by Christianity for most of 2000 years. Even the "Christian" art of the Renaissance was application of Pre-Christian disciplines to Christian themes. It wouldn't have been allowed otherwise. There are virtually no intellectual disciplines that have been inspired by Christianity. Can you spell Dark Ages?

--IMM

[GreenArrow]

140. the boat floats fine

I think you missed the point as well, and I'm really too tired now to try to clarify it. Robin summarized it quite well in post 52.

FWIW though, the Church has been a prime mover in making history for much of the last 2000 years. The Church, while suppressing or frowning on some forms of self expression, has in general, always supported the arts. To say that the Church has "opposed" architecture is ludicrous; Europe is full of evidence otherwise, the Cathedral of Chartes and Notre Dame being two noteworthy examples.

As for philosophy and science, the Church has its influence there as well, for good or ill.

[immoderate]

147. I notice that you didn't say that ...

Saying the church has opposed art, philosophy, literature, and science is ludicrous, as they have certainly opposed all those things. They have tortured and killed people for work in these disciplines.

Those churches you mention are beautiful, I particularly like Sacre Coeur. Who did the church promote architecture for? Did they design and promote housing for the poor. How did the average person benefit from this work? Does that make up for centuries of suppression of scientific and medical knowledge?

--IMM

[GreenArrow]

156. of course I didn't say that

I wouldn't argue that the Church has been a potent source of oppression/suppression/repression during its existence. I also wouldn't argue that the Church has not supported those things during its tenure. If it has tortured and killed people for working in those disciplines, it was generally not for working in the disciplines per se; it was for approaching them in a manner outside of approved doctrine.

For years, most people who were educated became so through a relationship to the church. The only people who were able to read or write, for example, learned to do so under the aegis of the Church. The cathedrals built under the Church's direction are beautiful, no matter what the impetus for building them. The church promoted them, and for good or ill, they are beautiful and magnificent. The same could be said of the pyramids, or the numerous giant Buddhas throughout Asia.

The point of my original post was that the Church has been the or a major influence in the development of those things. It's not whether the Church has been "good" or "bad" but that the Church has played a leading role in the development of our culture, with mixed results. Look at any basic Western History text, and the Church comes up over and over. You would find it eqaully impossible to study Arab cultures after Mohammed and not note that Islam is a major controlling feature.

[immoderate]

158. And the ideas of heresy and blasphemy came from...

The reign of the church marked a diminution of literacy and creativity. You consider it an achievement that they allowed it at all. Literacy and creativity thrived least where the church had dominion. Look at China, Rome, Greece, Persia. Literacy, creativity, scientific discovery -- without the church. Myopia.

"Torturing and killing people" for "working outside of approved doctrine" is not "oppression/suppression/repression" in your opinion. The church repressed knowledge for a thousand years and all we got was a couple of cathedrals, many of which in themselves were drains on the resources of the communities that built them.

Nice cathedrals. What good are they? What about public housing?

--IMM

[GreenArrow]

161. cross purposes

The point is not why the Church did things, or for whom they did them, or for what purposes; the point is simply that the Church has held sway for hundreds of years, and Western Culture cannot be viewed outside this light.

Would there have been greater creativity if the Church had not held primacy over the greater part of the Western world? We don't know, and though we can speculate otherwise, the fact is that the Church influenced all the things I mentioned, and more. You don't have to like it, but it's a fact. I'm totally in agreement with you that the Church has been responsible for terrible things. Should we then be like the Taliban and the Bamiyan Buddhas, and tear down the Cathedrals, or burn illuminated manuscripts and artworks, burn the works of Bach, plaster over frescoes, or melt statues down into sewer pipes? Maybe the Egyptians should destroy their pyramids? Or the Greeks the Acropolis?

Did not Persia, Rome, Greece, China and so on have their own religious beliefs and practices? Can you imagine any serious study of ancient Egypt, for example, without including its religion? How many of the great works of antiquity, say Homer, to choose only one, have no religious elements? The gods are omnipresent! Religion is one of the defining features of any culture, and we in the west have been stuck, for good or ill, with the Christian Church. Its presence is woven into nearly every fiber of our history.

[immoderate]

163. Proper perspective.

Yes existence is complex. But I wouldn't exactly give credit to religion for any great human endeavors, or achievements like those of Bach and Michaelangelo. It's like giving germs the credit for advances in medicine.

You could say that religion is an effect of the human species' capacity to systematize beliefs. And it plays a similar role in our society that gravity has to dance or that inertia has to transportation. Sometimes, it keeps things from getting out of control. It is a usually a limitation that must be overcome, and at times provides opportunity for heroism. At worst it makes progress impossible and promotes the depths of misery.

You're right in that it has always been there in some form, but its success is in overcoming its rivals. Which is more of the same. Again, for every beautiful cathedral, which serves no useful purpose, there are several attempts at projects that compounded human misery, stifled real development, and bankrupted communities. Ironically, this is what the tale of the Tower of Babel is about.

--IMM

[RobinA]

52. I Think The Point Is

that every educated person should have familiarity with the Bible because it has been a very influential text in our world. Whatever you think of it, and I think it's some interesting writings by some ancient guys, its influence is pervasive and cannot be ignored by an educated person. Just as an educated person should have knowledge of Das Kapitol, even if they aren't a communist.

[GreenArrow]

64. that's it,

exactly.

[Telly Savalas]

134. For fuck's sake. Studying comparative religion would stifle thought?

These religion flamebait threads just keep getting worse and worse.

[Finder]

121. I agree...

Even though I am an Atheist, I still enjoy reading and discussing scripture. I think there is much to be learned by how the religions came to be and why they thought the way they did. Aesop's Fables are also a good source of the morality and thought of humans back then.

I don't see the bible as evil or good, just a body of literature.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

6. Well, your heart's in the right place anyway,

you're trying to understand and everything,
and that's what counts, you're trying to keep
your promise and doing the best you can do and
all.

[Bake]

113. I don't see much effort to understand on the OP's part

Just more us v. them mentality. And a good dose of moral/intellectual superiority to boot.

Bake

[JuniorPlankton]

7. Whew, I feel much better

So it's not just who is appalled by this shit. There are (theoretical) principles of Christianity, but they are in a direct contradiction with what the Bible says.

I had a roommate in college who was insanely religious (at least by my standards). So I together with a friend tried to show some glaring problems with the bible. One of my favorite was (and still is :)) a calculation showing that given the size of Noah's ark (floating completely sealed for an extended period of time) it was impossible to even fit the animals there. Not mentioned their food, feces, or air to breathe. Well, I didn't succeed. The counterargument was that god made it so that all these problems got resolved.

I don't really have a lot of problems with sincere faith (it's extremely rare anyway). It's the organized religion (and organized crime, though I don't see much difference between the two) that drives me nuts.

:grr:

[elehhhhna]

21. Can't reason him out of position he wasn't reasoned into.

[JuniorPlankton]

34. I know, I know

I was much younger then :)

[Pockets]

8. I think the passage is fine

In this particular case, looking at Luk 45, it appears the servant being referred to was to be beaten in retaliation for "beat(ing) the menservants and maidens, and to eat and drink, and to be drunken."

I'm sure there are many who would misinterpret this passage and act on its out-of-context meaning.

[GreenArrow]

9. those who think the Bible is God's only book are mistaken

The world is God's book, and God creates it anew everyday. Most of the Bible is actually "man's" book.

[pissed_American]

108. It`s ALL mans book !!!

The Bible was written BY man FOR man !

End of story.

[GreenArrow]

141. largely, the Bible was written by men for men

but I believe there are a few places in which they were informed by something beyond themselves.

[pissed_American]

142. Ya ??? Just like the Wino who talks to his invisible friend ??!!

It`s also called schizophrenia....

[GreenArrow]

146. don't knock it til ya try it

.

[pissed_American]

160. Which one ?... Schizophrenia or being a Wino ?

[GreenArrow]

162. niether

.

[Beetwasher]

10. Most of Religion Is A Crock Of Shit

Sorry if you religious folk find that offensive, I don't care, it's my opinion and I'm not going to walk on eggshells because you're offended. But then again, I'm an irascible asshole anyway.

[Dorian Gray]

56. I don't know why, Beetwasher,

but your post made me HEEEEEEEEEE in my head. (And I am religious!) I'm not offended if you think it's a crock of shit. It's just when people try to prove that it's idiotic, focus on it too much, raise hell that all people who are religious are idiots that I start chafing a little bit. But, in the end, I have MANY friends who are not religious. Not a bit. I have many other friends who are a different faith than I am. I lived in Asia, and I have many friends who are Buddhist and many more who are a sort of weird mix of some diluted form of Christianity and ancestral worship.

As long as you are a good person, treat me well, and treat others well, I have no beef with you. I will not try to convert anyone to Catholicism, and I will not rant and rave about your religion or lack of religion. (The one exception, sadly, is Scientology. I tend to rant about that one.) Other than that, I respect EVERYBODY's right to believe as they see fit.

[Beetwasher]

63. And That's The Way It Should Be!

Cool w/ me!

[Arugula Latte]

85. I think we should start a "Crock of Shit" Religion

We'd find a big crock pot and fill it up with feces. We could join hands and chant around it and worship it. Then we could get tax exemption!

Who else is in?

[phylny]

149. Can't be offended if the person making the statement

doesn't mean anything to you. If my friend said it, I'd be offended. You? Nah.

[Journeyman]

12. Here's something that may help . . .

it did for me back in '73 when I first read it.

The World's Most Dangerous Book
By Alan W. Watts

For many centuries the Roman Catholic Church was opposed to translating the Holy Scriptures into the "vulgar tongue." To this day, you can still get rid of a Bible salesman by saying, "But we are Catholics and, of course, don't read the Bible." The Catholic hierarchy included subtle theologians and scholars who knew very well that such a difficult and diverse collection of ancient writings, taken as the literal Word of God, would be wildly and dangerously interpreted if put into the hands of ignorant and uneducated peasants. Likewise, when a missionary boasted to George Bernard Shaw of the numerous converts he had made, Shaw asked, " Can these people use rifles?" "Oh, indeed, yes," said the missionary. "Some of them are very good shots." Whereupon Shaw scolded him for putting us all in peril in the day when those converts waged holy war against us for not following the Bible in the literal sense they gave to it. For the Bible says, "What a good thing it is when the Lord putteth into the hands of the righteous invincible might." But today, especially in the United States, there is a taboo against admitting that there are enormous numbers of stupid and ignorant people, in the bookish and literal sense of these words. They may be highly intelligent in the arts of farming, manufacture, engineering and finance, and even in physics, chemistry or medicine. But this intelligence does not automatically flow over to the fields of history, archaeology, linguistics, theology, philosophy and mythology which are what one needs to know in order to make any sense out such archaic literature as the books of the Bible.

This may sound snobbish, for there is an assumption that, in the Bible, God gave His message in plain words for plain people. Once, when I had given a radio broadcast in Canada, the announcer took me aside and said, "Don't you think that if there is a truly loving God, He would given us a plain and specific guide as to how to live our lives?"

"On the contrary," I replied, "a truly loving God would not stultify our minds. He would encourage us to think for ourselves." I tried, then, to show him that his belief in the divine authority of the Bible rested on nothing more than his own personal opinion, to which, of course, he was entitled. This is basic. The authority of the Bible, the church, the state, or of any spiritual or political leader, is derived from the individual followers and believers, since it is the believers' judgment that such leaders and institutions speak with a greater wisdom than there own. This is, obviously, a paradox, for only the wise can recognize wisdom. Thus, Catholics criticize Protestants for following their own opinions in understanding the Bible, as distinct from the interpretations of the Church, which originally issued and authorized the Bible. But Catholics seldom realize that the authority of the Church rests, likewise, on the opinion of its individual members that the Papacy and the councils of the Church are authoritative. The same is true of the state, for, as a French statesman said, people get the government they deserve.

Why does one come to the opinion that the Bible, literally understood, is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Usually because one's "elders and betters," or an impressively large group of ones peers, have this opinion. But this is to go along with the Bandar-log, or monkey tribe, in Rudyard Kipling's Jungle Books , who periodically get together and shout, "We all say so, so it must be true!" Having been a grandfather for a number of years, I am not particularly impressed with patriarchal authority. I am of an age with my own formerly impressive grandfathers (one of whom was a fervent fundamentalist, or literal believer in the Bible) and I realize that my opinions are as fallible as theirs.


much more at this link:

www.metaphoria.org/ac4t9909.html

[Jo March]

26. Journeyman, Jesus instructed his followers to lay down their swords

"What a good thing it is when the Lord putteth into the hands of the righteous invincible might."

That verse deals with one of the many fights that the faithful had to fight. It is used by the Christian right as a rallying cry when it doesn't mean that at all.

Jesus told His followers to "turn the other cheek" and to lay down their swords even when His own life was threatened.

Please, if you are going to pull verses out of the Bible or quote those who do, at least know the context of the verses.

Then the men stepped forward, seized Jesus and arrested him. With that, one of Jesus' companions reached for his sword, drew it out and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear. "Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword."
Matthew 26:50-52

The soldiers and the authorities lay hands on Jesus and arrest him. At that moment of confrontation, according to Luke, all the disciples ask, "Lord, shall we strike with a sword?" (Luke 22:49) Then Matthew's, Mark's, and Luke's unnamed disciple attempts to defend Jesus by using the same means as the arresting authorities. John's Gospel, however, goes further by naming the sword-wielding disciple as none other than Peter himself. Shortly thereafter, this Peter, who is willing to kill to protect Jesus, will deny three times that he even knows Jesus. Perhaps Peter, like the disciples and the rest of us, resorts to violence because he is more interested in protecting himself than in protecting Jesus.

The disciples are unable to comprehend Jesus' way of nonviolence. Over and over, Jesus instructs them to love their enemies and to lay down their lives for one another, thus preparing them for confrontation with the ruling authorities and the inevitable outcome. But the disciples never understand Jesus. They hear his Sermon on the Mount, and they celebrate the Passover meal with him. But they keep asking, "Lord, shall we strike with a sword?"

[Journeyman]

76. *Chuckle*

Alan Watts was one of the premier scholars on comparative religions in the 20th Century. This essay -- possibly his last (he died the year it was published) -- his culiminating word on Western religious thought as encapsulated in the Bible.

In the passage you cite, Watts is relating the words of George Bernard Shaw, one of the foremost intellects and dramatists of the first half of the 20th Century, winner of the Nobel Prize for Literature (1925), and a tireless lecturer of international renown.

Shaw’s intent in the quoted exchange -- as Watts is at pains to relate -- is to illustrate how “stupid and ignorant people” will misinterpret what they’ve read and apply to it a misconstrued and indeed quite dangerous judgment.

All this duly noted, I’m left to ponder a simple conundrum: Are Watts and Shaw in error on this point, or do you, dear arnheim, fit within the category they decry?

[Jo March]

13. Ladyhawk, may I respectfully suggest something?

Speaking as a Christian, I see those on the right who pick and choose verses from the Bible to condemn gays, Jews and pretty much anyone and anything that they don't like.

You are doing the same thing. You are picking pieces of the Bible to condemn the whole book. Also, you are going to a pretty biased source to get your arguments. ("Christian myth" doesn't sound unbiased to me.)

Yes, there are parts of the Bible, especially the Old Testament, that are violent and downright horrible (for an example, read about how Lot's daughters got him drunk and had sex with him).

I am a Christian. That means that I follow the teachings of Christ. "Some of his teachings weren't very nice" isn't exactly solid evidence to throw the whole book, along with many, many Christians, into the river to drown.

I suggest that you read the verse in its entirety. It is a parable. Jesus is not saying to beat your servants. It is a parable that speaks of punishment. It is a PARABLE - a story to illustrate the point that if you are not a faithful steward, then there will be punishment.

Parables are not to be taken literally but rather to be read and interpreted.

Here it is:

41 Then Peter said unto him, Lord, speakest thou this parable unto us, or even to all?
Luk 12:42 And the Lord said, Who then is that faithful and wise steward, whom lord shall make ruler over his household, to give portion of meat in due season?
Luk 12:43 Blessed that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing.
Luk 12:44 Of a truth I say unto you, that he will make him ruler over all that he hath.
Luk 12:45 But and if that servant say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; and shall begin to beat the menservants and maidens, and to eat and drink, and to be drunken;
Luk 12:46 The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for , and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers.
Luk 12:47 And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not , neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many .
Luk 12:48 But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few . For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.

[Tux]

29. Christians done that

throw the whole book, along with many, many Christians, into the river to drown.

Salem Witch Trials had a test to submerge women for a few minutes under water. Those that came up alive were witches and burned alive. Those that came up dead were innocent and buried.

[Jo March]

40. Not all Christians, not true Christians!

Jesus told us that we should not judge because whatever way we judged, then we would be judged that same way.

Are you seriously saying that the people who participated in the Salem Witch Trials are representative of ALL Christians??

[Tux]

53. Brief look at history

Shows that Christianity promotes war, genocide, and mindless destruction. Crusades, witch trials, Inquisition, and the killing of Gnostics right after the Bible was formed. Define real Christian in terms of history and yes, violence is required part of the religion. If it is not, show me one place/time where Christians didn't go on a killing rampage. Show to me how the NT trumps the OT to the point OT is strictly Jewish and not Christian. Then, we can settle this.

I am angry over the endless Christian stuff in the media. Hell, my family is beginning to push me to Baptist churches for being a Deist. All over fear of life. Sad.

[Jo March]

55. No - people using the name of Christ did those awful things

Christ repeatedly told His followers to put down their swords, to turn the other cheek, to love our neighbors as ourselves. He said, "Blessed are the peacemakers" in the Beatitudes.

Jesus was not a warmonger.

Again, you are judging Christ's teachings by what His followers did in His name.

You say: "If it is not, show me one place/time where Christians didn't go on a killing rampage. Show to me how the NT trumps the OT to the point OT is strictly Jewish and not Christian."

I say to you: Show me where Jesus commands us to go on a killing rampage. You won't find it. Why do you think that Jesus caused such a stir? Why do you think that the Romans had to kill Him? They killed him because He was preaching love, tolerance and peace and they didn't want that.

It's like people who look at * and say that all Americans are like *. We are not all evil murderers like * is.

I am sorry that you refuse to see the real teachings of Christ because you wouldn't be able to reconcile His words of love, peace and tolerance with what has been done in His name.

[Tux]

62. Ever read Revlations?

It's the last chapter where Jesus kills people and sends their souls to hell forever. Nice and peaceful I'd say. He is nice while alive yet when he comes back, he kills everyone. Yeah. Time to take that out so life on Earth can be preserved. Nukes will be launched over the fear that he won't come back. We'll all die over a chapter.

[Jo March]

67. Revelation is not the words of Christ

Do a little research on Revelation and see what many Biblical scholars have to say about that particular book of the Bible.

Tux, you are determined to see only the bad in Christianity so there is no use arguing with you.

You are determined to only see the bad. I know that my religion is not perfect but I refuse to see it as horrible and evil. I see Christianity as a peaceful, tolerant and loving religion when the teachings of Christ are followed.

You see only what has been perverted and spewed forth from people who want to use Christianity as a bully-club.

I can't fight what is so deep-seated within you.

Intolerance of Christians is no better than when so-called Christians are intolerant of non-believers. I have no patience or understanding of either.

[trotsky]

72. "I come not to bring peace but a sword."

Who said that?

[MaryBear]

88. I've read Revelations,

and it didn't seem all that awful to me. I think the interpretations are the problem, not the bible itself.

I find the bible compatible in many ways with paganism.

I find it a good read. And somewhat inspiring.

People are the problem, not a book or a religion.

I'm sorry your mom died from PD, Tux. I know the condition well.

[DIKB]

14. Sadly.

Their faith is just that, theirs. As long as they are willing to keep it to themselves, and out of the political areana, I'd be happy. Such is not the case, and now we look at a looming theocracy, and it's very frightening.

"How can you believe in heaven and/or hell?"
This one seriously gets to me. If one can conceptualize ETERNITY, in my opinion, one must therefor REJECT the concept of a hell. Infinite suffering for finite offenses is barbaric. It in no way is "just and loving."

"I don't buy the idea that miracles only happened in ancient times."
The Old Testament had a number of "miracles" performed in front of doubters. On one notable occasion "God" proved himself by with an altar with a sacrificed bull, drenched in water. Supposedly in full view of those who didn't believe he engulfed it in a pillar of flame. Elijah then had the other religions priests (whom he had just disproven) MASSACRED, for believing in a different religion. I would have thought humiliating them and proving them wrong to be enough, but then I'm a rational person.

Though I find christianity to be appalling. I view it like I do Fairy tales, there are good and bad stories, with many moral lessons. Though these are NOT to be taken seriously. It should be left out of the political arena COMPLETELY.

I don't care how many or how vehemently a bunch of idiots believe in wish granting Leprechans, our society should not be dedicated to appeasing these sad individuals. Rather, as long as they don't hurt anyone else, they shouldn't be locked in an insane asylum. It's a concept everyone can agree with, in my opinion, and for the agnostics/freethinkers among us, obviously a parallel to the religion/political situation we have now.

[Jo March]

48. DIKB, Christ does not teach us to force our religion on anyone

He does not teach us to force the government to make Christianity the "national religion" or whatever. The Crusades would have been condemned by Jesus Himself were He on the earth at that time.

Jesus never wanted to be a king or governor or whatever. Those who would try to annoint Him one were rebuffed.

[damntexdem]

15. Sounds like you just need to take it on faith, because ...

1. you just don't get it; but
2. recognize that we need the religious left.

So what can you do but simply accept that those folks are, somehow, despite their book, despite your gut feelings, OK people -- or at least acceptable allies.

Just think: wouldn't it be great if we could see beyond the glitz and the hype, beyond the labels, see each other as we truly are -- and hate each other for what we truly are?

[I Have A Dream]

89. There are groups like the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Rights.

These groups are important because they show that every person who is religious does not think the same way.

[delhurgo]

17. Nice rant.

Don't forget that The Koran is just as bad. That seems to be lost on many on the left these days. And in fact, Muslims are much less tolerant and ... modern than most Christians are these days.

Plus I think its hard to find fault with Jesus' message. I don't think the New Testament is as bad as the old.

I don't care for the 'religious left' either. It seems to me like both the left and the right just use parts of the Bible to further their agendas. Religion should stay out of politics from both sides imo.

[realisticphish]

18. first of all

the bible is allagorical, but you've heard that a hundred times

second of all, I detest parts of the bible, and i'm a christian. whoopdeshit. what matters to me is what CHRIST said; after all, i'm CHRISTian, not RESTOFTHEBIBLEian

[redqueen]

19. Some don't put much credence in that book.

I consider myself spiritual, not religious... because it seems to me religion as a construct always perverts spirituality -- as you've just shown with your critique of this book.

There's no question it was written by men who considered their wives to be chattel. There's no question it has been edited to remove the most ridiculous and embarassing and the most obviously contradictory parts.

I, too, fail to understand how any spiritual person can defend it. It's just a book, nothing more. Same for any book about anything spiritual. Once you start putting significance on the things which represent spirituality (books, scrolls, etc.), you start to lose sight of what's really important about the thing the book's supposed to be all about, anyway.

People have used religion as a way to control the masses since time immemorial. Tradition (and the lack of education about critical thinking in schools) keeps most people from even questioning things like this. I don't excpect it will stop anytime soon.

[I Have A Dream]

90. Amen!

[madeline_con]

20. just a couple of comments...

The Bible's not like one book someone sat down and wrote, worrying about consistency and continuity.

A bunch of old farts throughout the centuries decided whose gospel made the cut, and which books were left on the cutting room floor.

The snake, it's said, is a metaphor for Kundalini wisdom, which purportedly makes people realize God (or the divine nature of man, so to speak) is within them, not an outside thing. The elite, noble priesthood would be obsolete, and unnessecary to relay messages to the Gods, if we all knew that. Their gravy train gigs were at risk.

No one should take literally a bunch of writings that were changed so that all the illiterate ignorant masses could understand it. Too much is lost.

BTW, maybe EVERYTHING Jesus ever uttered wasn't written down, and he had a lot to say about injustice, slavery, etc. that challenged the status quo, and it was left in the cutting room.

Just some random thoughts.

Your POV seems a bit intolerant, IMO. As long as no one's trying to convert you, they should be able to have their beliefs without being assumed ignorant.

My Dad used to eat peanut butter and tomato sandwiches. He never made me eat one.

:dilemma:

[toddaa]

23. Religion != Christianity

When are so called "antitheists" just going to admit that the only religion the know anything about is Christianity.

[Jo March]

47. The poster specifically mentioned the Bible

So, for this discussion, the OP was referring to Christianity.

But to your point, there are many, many other religions besides Christianity.

[Inland]

24. I'm not sure what your point is.

You start off by saying "I can't respect the Christian left", and I'm all ready to hear some dirt about those Christian lefties, like they really are mean and mysogynistic and believe in slavery.

Instead, you pull out an unedited text, none of which was written by Christian Lefties.

What's THAT all about?

If you don't understand how a good religion can come from something as destestable as the Bible, then that's a problem for you to figure out, if you find Christian lefties to be part of a good religion. Detestable book, yet good religion---you know, Christians call that a "mystery". Or, you could actually find out how it works in practice.

Now of course, what you'll find is that non-fundamentalist Christians realize the book was written by men, not God, and that means its imperfect the way men are imperfect. Holy does not mean perfect. God is perfect, the book is holy.

But you understand, of course, exactly the difference between perfection and humanity, and the glory of an ideal developed over time. Here we are, Americans, respecting the genius of a constitutional democracy born in slavery and ransomed by a civil war dripping with fraternal bloodshed, still striving to fulfill the promise of ideals the founders never even knew they had established, so you understand exactly how that goes. If "it happened in ancient times" is a cop out, what is "it happened a hundred years ago", particularly since you brought up slavery?

[Selatius]

27. Just don't talk religion with them. Let sleeping dogs lie where they may

You can work with Christians when there is common ground, but you don't have to work with them when there isn't common ground. The only rule I could tell you to go by is simply the Golden Rule.

If you disagree, that's fine. Just don't let it be an excuse for conflict. In cases of disagreement, all you have to do is separate yourself from those you disagree with. It should go fine as long as they don't begin assaulting your own beliefs as wrong or immoral. In that case, just maintain a cool head, say you disagree, and go.

[Extend a Hand]

28. I am a liberal Christian

I am married to an aetheist. My step-kids are Catholic. I was in the wedding of another close friend who is a Wiccan. I was adopted and raised by fundamentalist Christians. If I had chosen not to have relationships with people because they had different religious beliefs than me, I would have missed out on some of the most important relationships in my life.

[Bouncy Ball]

31. ....

From a member of the Christian Left: why are you reading all the icky parts? LOL! Here are some of my favorites. And yes, I pick and choose, so sue me.

The Lord who created you says, "Do not be afraid--I will save you. I have called you by name--you are mine.
When you pass through deep waters, I will be with you, your troubles will not overwhelm you." Isaiah 43: 1, 2

Be kind to each other, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, just as God has forgiven you because you belong to Christ. Ephesians 4:32

Be gentle and ready to forgive; never hold grudges. Remember, the Lord forgave you, so you must forgive others. Colossians 3:13

Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, with all malice, and be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you. Ephesians 4:31-32

Let him have all your worries and cares, for he is always thinking about you and watching everything that concerns you. 1 Peter 5: 7

Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God...since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. 1 John 4: 7 & 11 NIV

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy...It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs...Love never fails... 1 Cor. 13:4-5 & 8 NIV

Love...always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. 1 Cor. 13:6-7 NIV

Do not worry about your life, what you will eat, or about your body, what you will wear. For life is more than food, and the body more than clothing. Luke 12:22-23 NRSV

..."I know the plans I have for you," declares the Lord, "plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future." Jeremiah 29:11 NIV

And then there's always the 23rd Psalm, one of my favorites.

And of course the Beatitudes.....

[Jo March]

41. And the parts about not judging

And the part about turning the other cheek...

and not worrying about the splinter in someone's eye if you have a thorn in your own

and loving your neighbor

and caring for the sick

Yes, that darn Bible! It's so evil! :sarcasm:

[Bouncy Ball]

42. Yeah, the Beatitudes...

great stuff.

[Jo March]

45. Many on the right do not like the Beatitudes

You know, "Blessed are the peacemakers" and "Blessed are the meek" just don't sit well with many of them. :)

[Bouncy Ball]

46. Well they don't like ANY of the Beatitudes.

It's all about working for peace and not judging and forgiveness, etc.

Nothing THEY'RE interested in, that's for sure!

[Jo March]

50. Ain't that the truth?

The best verses in the Bible and they don't care anything about them at all.

[Bridget Burke]

32. Perhaps you should stop being a Fundamentalist.

I know it's a hard habit to break. Most Christians realize that every word in the Bible cannot be taken as literal truth. Especially parts of the Old Testament--what may have made sense 3000 years ago doesn't hold true today.

Read some comparative religion. Joseph Campbell is a good guide to the "fairy tales" of every faith, relating them to history, anthropology, psychology & art.

[Bouncy Ball]

33. "Living Buddha, Living Christ" is a good one, too!

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1573225681/qid=1117824982/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/104-0006211-4411112?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

[Ladyhawk]

69. I can respect a "faith" guided by principles. See above post. n/t

[Cleita]

35. To me the Bible is no different than any ancient work of

literature. It tells a lot about the cultures who wrote it and even hints at their possible history. I don't think for a minute that it should be used as a way to guide your life. I can find much more outside of the Bible that gives better advice than that even in ancient texts.

Once you start looking at the Bible objectively, like you would the myths of the Greeks, or the various sanskrit texts that hint at our own Indo-european past, or what's left of Native American or Australian Aborigine beliefs, then you will be able to put the Bible in context.

A really good place to start is with the writings of Joseph Campbell, who pretty well defines what mythology is and explains the universal truths in it, like belief in the Divine Mother, who always has a Divine Son. The Divine Father is the one Christians worship. But all these Divinities are borrowed from older cultures dating back to the Stone Age, no doubt.

Right now you seem very angry about it and probably rightfully so if you were taught that it was in truth the word of God. So stand back and start looking at it objectively, by reading a lot of other different mythology than this one.

[Tracer]

39. Since the Bible was compiled ...

... long before Jesus's time, it can hardly be called "Christian", since the etymology of "Christian" is obvious.

Why don't you just concentrate on the New Testament?

[supernova]

43. Concentrate on the people you know

not what they read.

Unless one of you brings it up, you're not likely to talk about it. Focus on the things you have in common and leave the rest.

And btw, you will most likely never hear a theologically liberal xtain say how devoted they are to the Old Testament. It simply doesn't apply to xtianity except in terms of "proving" the lineage of Jesus.

I say "proving" in quotes because these particular versions (as opposed to the origianl Jewish books) were written with that in mind.

[Dorian Gray]

51. The best way to get along with liberal Christians

is not to spill these thoughts to each and every one of them. If you are worried about working with people for social justice issues, the idea of converting you or you converting them shouldn't come up.

(The same goes for them prosthelytizing. They shouldn't do that to you.)

[Bouncy Ball]

57. Exactly right.

I work closely with an atheist organization because they work so hard on issues of separation of church and state. And I support that COMPLETELY.

I have never once tried to convert anyone religiously. And never will. I was raised to believe that's the height of rudeness.

[Dorian Gray]

61. Me either.

I only talk about my faith when it comes up naturally in a conversation with my GOOD friends or my family. I don't talk to people that I work with (and I work in the non-profit community) about my beliefs. It wouldn't be appropriate, nor would it be conducive to a good working relationship. :)

[Gelliebeans]

97. Bouncy

I think you hit the nail on the head. As I can only speak for myself. I really don't have a problem with religion and the right to believe whatever anyone wants to believe. I think the hyperbole created has much more to do with people not separating church and state issues.

For me personally that is my thorn. As for you and Arnheim and other lefty religious DUer's I would stand up for your right to pursue your religion as you choose.

I think the overload of religiosity in this administration has done harm dividing Americans.

I think in the end we all just want to be respected including the Atheists and Homosexuals who targeted by the religious right. They have used your bible irresponsibly and with malice. It is sometimes hard to see who the good/bad christians are when they all read the same book and twist the meanings to support the bigotry.

My cousin, whom I love more than anybody is a liberal christian and we often talk about this very subject. She wants to keep a firm line drawn when it comes to separation of church and state also.
FWIW :shrug:

peace

[Jamastiene]

106. You sound like someone I could get along with

pretty well. Where I am from, most Christians are totally fundamentalist right wing types complete with that obsession with hellfire and damnation of gays. That honestly seems to be the consensus around these parts. Everyone else to them is forgivable, but gay people, nope. There are a few moderate Christians around and I find them at least tolerable. Most DU Christians haven't been hard to get along with at all in my opinion. There have been a few though, one of which was just revealed recently as an agitator, not really progressive or something to that effect. I finally had to get away from those types. I never used ignore before they came along. You seem to have one of the best attitudes when it comes to (I don't know what to call it) diplomacy? between Christians and nonChristians...

[Jo March]

58. Christ teaches folks to come to Him "as a child"

That is - willingly and full of trust and faith.

A forced conversion to Christ is abhorrent (or should be) to every Christian for it means nothing. Some merely mouth the words to look better.

I'm glad the OP posted this. It always saddens me to see what the right has done to the name of Christianity. It lets me try to clear things up and point out the facts instead of the bile that has been spread by those on the right who would pervert this peaceful religion.

[Ladyhawk]

71. Yes, I've come to realize this. I really need to watch my impulses.

I should not proselytize them; they should not proselytize me. Unfortunately, it hasn't worked out that way. The last time I tried to work with liberal Christians I felt very judged and did a lot of crying...sorry, I'm sensitive. At first I was all excited because I thought, "At last, I'm going to be around people who are more like me!" It didn't turn out that way at all and my opinion of Homo sapiens went down yet another notch. :( I really wanted to get along and make friends. Sigh.

The reason I am bringing it up here is to have a discourse. I guess if you read my original post, it could come across as an attempt at proselytization, but hopefully, I'm not shoving it down your throat if you choose to read it.

In my everyday life, however, I am going to have to learn when to shut the fuck up. I'm doing better, but these issues shouldn't come up in conversation if both sides agree to disagree. I want to do be like that, but I am furious at both local fundies and local "liberal Christians" for trying to shove their ideas down my throat. It hurts a lot, so I am going to have to be careful not to retaliate against all Christians, try to remember that the actions of a few shouldn't reflect on all Christians. That's hard because I've only known a few non-Christians in my whole life and have learned--painfully--that MOST Christians are very judgmental. I thought the liberal ones at that class would be different, but they weren't. I was very disappointed. :( :( :(

[RevCheesehead]

143. It has been my experience that most people, not just Christians,

are judgmental. It's part of the human condition, and, if we're really honest, we have to admit that we, too, are guilty of it.

Ladyhawk, keep on seeking the answers.

The Old Testament is best understood as a story - a history of the Jewish people, and how God chose to interact with them, specifically, throughout that history. The rotten part? The people kept screwing up, ignoring God's word, treating others horribly. The good part? God never abandoned them, even when they royally screwed up.

I will honestly tell you that at one time, I hated the Old Testament (which is more properly called "The Hebrew Bible"). But then I came to understand the meaning of Covenant - a binding promise between two parties. The history of the Hebrew Bible is not propaganda, it does not attempt to show one glorious side. It even dares to include the sins and lapses of judgment of its greatest leaders! (Think here the story of David and Bathsheba - King David sent her husband to war, to the front lines to be killed, because he got her pregnant. Once he was dead, David thought he would be relieved of guilt. But Nathan, God's prophet, showed him how he was horribly mistaken.)

What kind of history or story would include all the dirty family secrets? One which is brutally honest, one which attempts to teach and inform the community, one which understands its past (warts and all), in order to learn from them and grow - - in essence, to become better people, and more like God.

[KamaAina]

59. I go back and forth on this myself sometimes

but the very existence of a "religious left" implies that many Christians have found something there besides the violence (sending bears to attack little kids for making fun of Elisha's baldness. Honestly!) and the sex (may I read to you from Song of Solomon? :-) ).

Proverbs and Psalms are pretty much safe; Proverbs in particular offers sound, time-tested practical advice. Then there's that song "Turn! Turn! Turn!" by the Byrds. The lyrics (except the Turn! part) come straight from Ecclesiastes.

Turning to the NT, some Bibles have the words actually spoken by Jesus printed in red. Go for the red. Meanwhile, Acts is pretty much openly socialist. Another poster mentioned the Beatitudes. I hit a bunch of anti-abortion zealots with "Blessed are the peacemakers..." right after the first Gulf War started (they were all rah-rah pro-war of course). You should've seen the looks on their faces...

[VTMechEngr]

70. The old testament is a history of the Jews

Like any modern nation's history, it has its bad moments. Think you could get through an American History book without Genocide? The point is we see where we came from, the message of a Messiah, and lessons to learn from.

As to your passage - Jesus liked to use parables to highlight important points to his disciples. You cannot take them literally.

41Peter asked, "Lord, are you telling this parable to us, or to everyone?"

42The Lord answered, "Who then is the faithful and wise manager, whom the master puts in charge of his servants to give them their food allowance at the proper time? 43It will be good for that servant whom the master finds doing so when he returns. 44I tell you the truth, he will put him in charge of all his possessions. 45But suppose the servant says to himself, 'My master is taking a long time in coming,' and he then begins to beat the menservants and maidservants and to eat and drink and get drunk. 46The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of. He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the unbelievers.

47"That servant who knows his master's will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows. 48But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.

This is about be watchful in your faith. Being prepared for the end. No offense, but some atheists fly off the handle as badly as some fundies. Its not Literal!

[NiteOwll]

75. I've been lurking here

for the past 8 months or so, and I have to say it really seems the division has grown between the Christians and non-Christians here on DU. There was a point during the Terri Schiavo case when I questioned whether I ever wanted to return here, after some of the not-so-nice things that were said about Christians.

Let me say first of all, I was raised in a very liberal Christian home. Dad is a minister, but in the 60's was a hippie and was very anti-war (and still is today).

The thing that you have to remember is that the OT was written at a time when people had no laws to govern them. So God gave an uncivilized people laws to live by. Yes, it is violent and barbaric but so were the times. But Jesus got rid of all of that, an "eye for an eye" was replaced with "turn the other cheek," no more animal sacrifices as He was the final sacrifice, He preached to "love your neighbor," etc.

I think most of the Christian Left tries to live by the teachings of Jesus Christ, whereas most of the "Christian" Right ALWAYS overlooks what Jesus ACTUALLY said about wealth, greed, war, helping the poor, forgiveness, etc. That is why I consider myself a "Christ"ian and I honestly don't know what they are, because they don't live by the words of Christ.

BTW, I don't read the Bible 10 hours a day or preach the Bible to every person I meet or spend 20 hours a week in Church...in fact, I'm a little scared of those kind of people. I don't need to, because I know what is right and I live it everyday, and I don't need to keep reminding myself.

But I think you are doing a disservice to the cause by alienating the Christian Left. We are all here because we believe in the same things and desperately want to change what's going on in this country.

[ultraist]

120. Welcome wildone!

:hi:

I agree. We are "doing a disservice to the cause by alienating the Christian Left."

I have made my full share of anti-religion remarks but I have decided to exercise some restraint and work at being more respectful and tolerant. The fact is, during the campaign, I worked side by side with Christians and we shared a common goal. Nothing has changed in that regard.

I am not a Christian and although I do not have respect for everything written in the Bible, I do respect the main principles of Christianity and people's right to freedom of religion.

[I Have A Dream]

138. Hi, wildone -- glad you stayed with DU...

I look forward to hearing more from you. You sound as though you have much to offer. (I'm really new here -- I just found the site a few weeks ago.)

[cap]

77. LadyHawk, the Christian left is on the same page as you

the left rejects most of the passages that you do.

[Swamp Rat]

78. religion, a universal construct

[DistressedAmerican]

79. Kick And Nomination!

That's three!

[Taverner]

80. Well many Religious Left denominations don't hold the Bible

As the ineffible word of God...some like the Unitarians, see it as a book of wisdom, inspired by God. Through that context, the genocide can be written off (basically a lot of the Joshua books.)

[jbnow]

83. Trouble with the bible?

It's the Koran that is "bad". After all the OT in the bible is filled with loving things like God sending a bear to kill 42 children for mocking a prophet for being bald as he passed through their city. (Kings) God ordered Joshua and his people to kill every man, woman and child in Canaan,in fact he ordered the Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites all to be smited. Loving genocide.
To be fair when they slaughtered the Midianites, they did let virgin women live to keep for themselves.

I am always amazed at the arrogant TV preachers who put down the Koran? have they read the bible? In fact have they read what Jesus preached? Most of that is against everything the right wing stands for...feeding the hungry, providing care and shelter. He damned only the Pharisees (well called them vipers and sons of Satan) for putting burdens on the weak and poor while they don't lift a finger, taking the homes of widows, acting clean and holy outside while being rotting hypocrites inside...

They ignore it all, the horrors of the OT and the preaching of Jesus. Holy, holy, holy.

When my kids wanted to go to church and catechism I let them, but warned them not to confuse it with God, truth or spirit.

[lateo]

84. Brilliant

*golf clap*

[JerseygirlCT]

86. Might I respectfully suggest

that you're finding what you're looking for?

It would be a rare liberal Christian who interpreted the bible literally. We look for allegory and insight, history and inspiration. We also know that the book is the work of human beings, and as such, entirely fallible and subject to all sorts of human kinks and problems. That doesn't mean we throw the baby out with the bathwater, you know?

The teachings of Jesus, as portrayed in the bible (and be careful here, reading Paul's words as God's is bound to get you into trouble!)are what come through most remarkably for most of us: love one another.

We heed, to the best of our ability, the call to care for the poor, the sick, the prisoner. To love everyone, not just our dearest, and to forgive those who hurt us. To seek justice, not vengeance.

Are these messages unique to Christianity? No, they are not. That makes them no less important or special -- to me that only shows the long history of God's attempts to reach us and demonstrate love to us. It only underlines the importance of the message.

Don't get too worked up about all that you want to hate in the religion or any religion. That's really not terribly productive, you know? Christians, and I'd bet many of the ones you may find yourself working with believe this, show their faith in their work. So honor them as they stand next to you at the soup kitchen or mentoring kids or teaching adults to read. They're honoring your work, too. And stop worrying too much about the rest.

[eridani]

91. Take Seattle's Hazel Wolf as a model

One of our local treasures, she died a couple of years ago at age 102. She was into just about every progressive cause over the years. She was a Communist until the Stalin-Hitler pact (and there are still elderly lefties around here that you can't invite to the same party due to longstanding disputes going back that far), and atheist, an ecologist and avid outdoorswoman. At 90 she had to switch from her daughter to her granddaughter as a hiking/river rafting companion--the daughter quit in her 60s on account of 'old age.'

Anyway, during the 80s it was the Christian left that held down the fort with the sanctuary movement, and she was right in there with them. Events often occurred in local churches, and during a question period someone who had recently found out that Hazel was an atheist asked why, given that she had done so much work with Christians and most of the movement events were in churches.

Hazel's reply was "I'm an atheist for the exact same reason that you are a Christian--because my parents were."

Many people just don't want to give up what they grew up with. They resolve cognitive dissonance by not thinking about it too much, and looking at the Bible as a historical record with flawed human beings as its subjects. Others are natural-born questioners, like you, and wind up atheist or taking up some other religion. It's a matter of intellectual temperament that doesn't really matter one way or another when it comes to ethics. And ethics is the bottom line--as the New Testament Jesus put it "By their fruits shall you know them."

[DerekG]

92. Ladyhawk: You would be well served to...

Actually sit down and *read* the King James Bible before you settle for such generalities.


"There are only a few decent passages in the gospels and that's about it."

You obviously haven't read Matthew, Mark, Luke and John: they serve as sweeping chronicles of a social prophet/healer/movement initiator who extolled charity and nonviolence and condemned the greed and barbarity of the charlatans who colluded with the Empire. Indeed, the only INdecent thing to be found in the four books concerns the authors' tragic admonishment of the Jews (in respect to their "role" in Christ's murder). This, of course, would usher in 1900 years of anti-semitism.



"Most of the OT is irredeemable."

Is that right? Now, do you speak of the prophetic books (Isaiah, Amos, Micah et al), in which the aforementioned scribes warn their *own* nation that the Hebrews' scorn for their impoverished brothers--coupled with the bloodlust that festered in the hearts of their leaders--was indicative that they had turned their backs on Yahweh? Is this the kind of text we'd expect from a self-righteous society, or does this reflect that there was greater nuance to this faith than you're letting on?

Are the Pslams "irredeemable?" Is there something vile about a child's grateful hymn to his Father/Mother?

Have you read Songs of Solomon (erotic as hell); or plumbed the depths of Job, home to some of the most beautiful poetry ever crafted?

Somehow, I doubt it.




"I can't understand how a rational person could believe in them. I can only deduce that such people must have been brainwashed or believe in these things because they fear to face life and death as they really are."

I couldn't think of three men who were less afraid to face life and death than Gandhi (the Hindu), Rev. King (the Christian), and Malcolm X (the Muslim). And Dorothy Day, Abraham Heschel, and Thomas Merton didn't exactly strike me as "brainwashed."

[eridani]

101. Personally, I think that the OT shows progress over time

The earliest writings are of a deity who is a mass murderer of Hebrew enemies. Your later works, like the book of Jonah, portray a universal deity under whom human ethical standards ought to also be universal. It was written at a time when the Assyrians were wiping out the Northern Kingdon, and the story line has Jonah assigned to talk them out of bad habits like piling gory skulls under a monument describing torture and pillage in all its lovely detail. If they were to repent, even such horrible people are then to be considered as brothers. Jonah wants to kick infidel ass, but the universal God sets him straight. Big improvement over orders to slaughter every man, woman and child except for young virgin girls.

[DerekG]

102. There certainly is a moral progression, isn't there?

By the time the third wave of prophets surface, Yahweh--the warrior god--transmogrifies into the God of mercy, Who watches over "the widows and orphans." Indeed, as Jesus of Nazareth breathes his last, proclaiming "It is done," the line of demarcation between Yahweh and the amoral, vindictive gods of Rome, is cut, and cut deep.

[Bake]

112. THANK YOU!

Most of the atheist wing of DU don't want to have to think too hard about precisely the things you pointed out so eloquently. They prefer to deal in broad generalities, just like the wing-nuts.

They'd rather lump us all in with Falwell and Swaggart. It does get tedious, doesn't it? Having to defend out liberal bona fides as well as our faith?

I repeat: Why don't some of you embrace an ALL-ATHEIST PARTY (not the Democratic Party), tell the rest of America how stupid we are, and see how many elections you even come close enough to prevent the other side from stealing?

Bake

[arwalden]

157. Oh Brother! Talk About Your "Broad Generalities", Dbaker41... LOL!

:eyes:

[Merope215]

93. Hi Ladyhawk

Since the "religion wars" first erupted, I've been thinking a lot more about this kind of thing than I used to, and I think it's actually made me more religious, funnily enough. I only had a couple of things I wanted to say.

I wrote in another discussion on this one time that for me, Christ on the cross is an incredibly powerful symbol. I think the idea of God assuming the person of the most miserable, downtrodden, voiceless, and oppressed invites us to a deeper contemplation of what our place is with regard to our fellow beings. It is an absolute identification with suffering, and suffering in all its forms. I see that both as a comforting thought in times of trouble and as a reminder that we are all called to relieve suffering and pain and sorrow whenever we can. Can this be accomplished if you don't believe in the Bible, or in God at all? Of course. But I still find the symbolism astounding, and it has helped me to think about these things in new ways.

I don't really feel the need to defend the Bible. As far as I'm concerned, all religions or doubts or lacks of religion are equally valid. I happen to find the theology and tradition and poetry of my own both beautiful and intellectually stimulating, though I have plenty of problems with it in the real world. But all faiths or lacks of faith, I think, are equally okay. I think that God (if you wish to call it that) knows what is in the heart, and that if we treat our fellow creatures with loving kindness, with compassion and justice and mercy without pity or harshness or self-righteousness, we will be at peace with the cosmos and with ourselves. Conversely, I am not a fan of practicioners of any religion who are demonstrative in their faith but unkind to their fellow humans. (As Kerry said in one of the debates - the second one, I think - "Faith without works is dead.") I think it is more important to love people (and, I would argue, animals and plants, though many would disagree) than to love God.

I guess what I am trying to get at here is that I don't understand religion. The world is such a vast and complex place, terrifying and lovely, and I don't know why it's here or how it happened. I try to approach these kinds of things as a child, with all of my senses pricked and with as much humility as I can muster, and I find people who are very sure that they know (whether they're Christians, Pagans, atheists or whatever) insufferable. We are all but one blind person each, and the universe is a very large elephant.

The books that have shaped my own understanding of religion the most have, actually, not that much to do with the religious texts themselves. I will send you a PM.

Peace to you and yours. :hi:

[shawn703]

94. Ok, I put on my flame-retardant suit

I was going to go point by point with your post, but it's much too long and I'm much too tired, so I'll just skip to the conclusion.

As someone from the Christian Left, I have no problem working with the non-Christian Left. You've made up your mind about faith, and I've made up mine. So I think you are wrong - do you see many posts from us on the Religious Left about how silly atheism is and how can we be expected to get along with atheists to get things done? Do you really care more about the reason why I feed and clothe the poor than the fact that I do? Do I care why you do (no)?

Really, what I don't get is why the non-Christian Left really exerts all this energy trying to "get" something they really don't want to. Just focus on the goals we both share and don't worry about the motivation - just be glad we are both motivated.

If you focus on the goals, is it really that hard to work with the Christian Left?

[kineneb]

95. From over here in the Buddhist camp...

I am also not a Christian; I could never suspend my logic circuts long enough to Believe. However, if one takes the NT, especially the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark & Luke), then looks at just the purported words of Jesus, the result is a much more reasonable viewpoint.

One also has to take into consideration the following:
1. The OT and NT were heavily edited in their own time and later to produce certian viewpoints.
2. The true "Christian church" is the one that was headed by James (brother of Jesus), and it died out around the fourth century.
3. "Pauline Chistianity" is a little historial fact with a lot of fiction and magic added on to appeal to the non-Jewish communities where Paul and followers taught.
4. The Gospel of John was written in direct opposition to The (Gnostic)Gospel of Thomas. See "Beyond Belief" by Elaine Pagels. Had Thomas been adopted instead of John, the direction of the Church would have been far different.

Sorry if I went out on a bit of a tangent. But knowing this allows me to work with all sorts of Christians. I just do not have to buy into a belief system that is alien to my life.

[deadparrot]

96. Like many have said,

the literal vs. the theoretical ideas about the Bible vary widely.

Nearly any religious book in the major religions stemming from the Middle East--the Bible, the Torah, and the Qu'ran--have passages that are less than "civilized." Violence and hatred abounds in parts of every book. Obviously, living in America, we're inundated with the Bible the most of the three, so it's natural to see a few ridiculous fundies and be annoyed by them (I completely empathize, BTW).

No, the Bible is far from what I would consider a book of high moral standard in many ways. But they did write it 2,000+ years ago. The world was a much different place than it was at the time when the Bible/Torah/Qu'ran was written. And yes, since that time, the Bible and its perpetuation has caused a lot of pain for a lot of people. I'm not denying that. But in looking at the Bible, one has to remember that there are obviously things that are going to be outdated and archaic and just plain cruel.

To base your whole opinion of any one religion on a document that is over two millenia old is just plain inaccurate. It's what the fundies do, and I have no interest whatsoever in maintaining any sort of tie with them.

When you have religion, you get hysteria...especially with the Judeo-Christian/Muslim tradition. My general disdain for ALL organized religion and religious fundamentalism stems primarily from this hysteria and the hate and violence it so often causes. The books and philosophies that follow mirror the hysteria AND the times in which they live. Take it as you will. But it's what comes with the religions that populate our society. Likewise, these religions also do a lot of good for a lot of people. You have to weigh the pros and cons for yourself, and decide if you think Christianity is worthy of respect.

[The Traveler]

98. Let me try a riff out on ya

Some of us have what can only be described as a "spiritual experience". At which point, you go about trying to explain it, describe it, put it in a box. But it really can't be put in a box. The instant you try, it slips away.

Imagine a world in which you are the first person to ever see fire. You could describe it. You could compare it to an animal that eats and leaves waste, but it is not an animal. You could explain it is warm and bright like the sun, but it is not the sun. You could talk all day about it without every coming close to bringing to me the experience of seeing fire for the first time.

Or, perhaps more clearly, explain the experience of sex to a virgin.

Thus it is for those who have had a spiritual experience when talking to someone who does not recognize their own.

Literal interpretation of the Bible is not only foolish but dangerous. The Bible attempts to describe sex to virgins. Its language is therefore largely that of the poet, and when reading it the Bible must be approached as such. The historical authenticity of Jesus is irrelevant to the message. The literal truth of virgin birth is totally irrelevant to the message. Genesis is not a scientific document.

But none of that makes the message less compelling, less important, less vital.

Christianity provides a useful set of symbols for discussing spiritual experience, and the Sermon on the Mount provides a powerful recipe for producing one. However, the Bible is not the only source of information on the subject. Check out the Mahabaratta, the Koran, the poetic writings of Rilke, Rumi, Rimbaud. Read the Epic of Gilgamesh. Dig into some Tao. Savor a few Zen koans. Neglect not the traditions of Native Americans. Check out the writings of Aleister Crowley.

A great tour guide to all of the above is "The Time Falling Bodies Take to Light" by (I believe) Willian Irwin.

BTW, if you have done right research on the Bible you will be able to discuss how the following quote (from a Hebrew mishram) relates to Genesis:

"God is that One which suffered the pain of Division, that He might experience the Joy of Union."

Happy trails.

[Kire]

100. just don't call yourself a servant, if you're not going to be one

great way to avoid stripes (and paychecks, too)

BTW, the servant was beating manservants and maidens when he should have been doing his job

[Jamastiene]

103. The only thing that works for me

so far is to stay away from any person that rubs me the wrong way in terms of their religion. I really don't have a religion and probably won't find one at this point. My theory is that if someone on the left is spouting off something that sounds a little too much like the right, ignore that person and find the positive ones. There are some really good Christians on DU, although I may disagree with the religion, if they will tolerate me, I will tolerate them. If not, then I have the ignore feature. In real life, I know very few if any Christians I would consider liberal at all. I do know maybe a few moderates I can get along with fairly well. It sounds like you and I are in the same sort of transitional stage where we are trying to find a strategy to get together with people of faith and work together toward a bigger goal we share. The only thing I can suggest is to discuss nonreligious issues with them as much as possible and find the common ground. If religion comes up, say your piece and leave it at that.

[pissed_American]

109. Religion is like the world`s BIGGEST gang-fight

"My God can beat up your God"


NOBODY knows how this all started. NOBODY! You can believe anything you want to your heart`s content, but it doesn`t make it so. Really, it doesn`t.

How can every religion claim to be right be right. Someone`s gotta lose. Maybe everyone.....

[many a good man]

110. You don't have to respect others' religions

But you should respect their right to hold religious beliefs.

Our government was designed to be secular and tolerant of religious beliefs. It must be REASON that guides our political decisions. Many religious beliefs intersect with reason. Many don't.

Many liberal philosophical beliefs coincide with religious teachings. Caring for the poor and the sick and the weak are rational methods of improving society. It doesn't matter so much HOW one arrives at their beliefs but whether their beliefs put into action will help better society.

As mankind progresses the fruits of reason will change the way we develop social policy. We must remain flexible, and practical to find what works best. We have much to learn from the great religions and philosophies of the world. If we can gain public support because it has commonalities with people's religious beliefs, so much the better. Respect and tolerance for other's beliefs will go a long way to making this world a better place.

[Bake]

114. Wow. And I'm having trouble keeping my promise to repect the atheists

on DU.

I have yet to see one post headlined with "What's wrong with the atheists???" Or a single post dissing the atheists on account of their beliefs/philosophy.

But I continue to see myriad posts by the atheists who insist on lumping all of Christendom in with the fundies. Which begs the question, who REALLY practices what they preach?

I'm tired, sick and dog-tired, of having to defend my faith and my liberal bona fides here on DU. The atheists here (some of whom I have the greatest respect for) aren't doing themselves or the progressive cause any favors by shouting out that a huge chunk of America is (a) ignorant, and (b) morally/intellectually inferior to them.

Thank you so much, DU Atheists, for tolerating us liberal Christians here. We'll try very hard to be worthy of being in the same room with you.

Bake

[Finder]

117. Well, atheists respect others right to believe....

whatever. In daily life and in society it doesn't matter what anyone believes. But, when it comes to some matters that require logic, skepticism and focus...it is difficult to trust those who embrace a particular religion or god or whatever. Hard to explain really...man(meaning mankind)cannot serve two masters.

Truth needs to be more important than anything. For the most part, Atheists, Agnostics, Deists see Humanity and today as the focus for improvement, not the soul or afterlife.

Non-believers also tend to "test" in order to see how open-minded an individual is.(wheat from tare)

Prob not making sense here but just my 2 cents.

[July]

115. As a liberal, you don't have to respect or "get" others' beliefs.

You do have to respect their RIGHT to believe what they wish to believe. You even ought to defend that right. The beliefs themselves -- well, they can defend them, and you can judge their defense as you see fit. Then they have to respect YOUR right to believe what you wish.

[Bake]

116. There seems to be damn little of that around DU these days.

Just more religion bashing.

Bake

[emanymton]

118. One Can Follow Jesus Without Following The Bible.

The messages of Jesus are positive, loving and giving. The Bible was written by people with guilty conscience i.e. winners writing history to cover their crimes.

[cmd]

124. You are right, emanymton

I do not consider myself to be a religious person, but I base my beliefs on the words and deeds of Jesus. I wish all Christians would do the same.

[ultraist]

119. I think we should embrace the Christian Left

We must accept the REALITY of the situation. The majority of Democrats are Christian. They are a vital segment of our party.

The Democrats of faith happen to have a powerful voice in the current climate of religious extremists. Furthermore, many faith groups do a lot of good work: anti-war, anti-poverty, social justice charity work.

As someone noted, one need not respect the beliefs but we must respect the RIGHT to worship. We are the party of tolerance and respect for diversity!

[kodi]

123. people are afraid to die. religion is the nite light against the Big Sleep

.

[cmd]

125. Read the "red words"

Find a Bible with the words of Jesus in red. Those are the words that should matter to Christians and the ones that real Christians should be following. Too many of the fundies are stuck in the Old Testament. That was the part of the Bible that Jesus stood up against.

[DerekG]

126. Thoughts from George Galloway (a Christian)

The following is an excerpt from a Galloway interview--"How to Build a Successful Progressive Alliance"--conducted by Esther Sassaman and Thomas Nagy.

--snip--

ES: And that's something that we on the left really need to catch up on. The right is really dominating the field.
GG: I think - talking as a leftist, to leftists - let me say, the first hang up we have to get over is that somehow religion is a reactionary thing.
ES: Hear, hear.
GG: Whether you believe in God or not, it can hardly be a bad thing that people want to live their lives by a value system of peace, which is what in the end religion is. Religions say, don't harm other people. Treat people as you would wish to be treated. Don't steal. Don't kill people. And so on and so on. Well there's nothing wrong with that. Even if you don't believe in God there's nothing wrong with that. And a person who sincerely believes that sort of thing is the kind of person that can be won to a broader progressive agenda.

--snip--

http://www.counterpunch.com/nagy05232005.html

[Geek_Girl]

127. I look at it this way

The Bible has both good and bad things in it. So does most religious scripture. There is light and darkness in the bible as well as everything in life. A religious individual's true self is revealed on how they use/interrupt their faith. If they follow and believe all the negative bad things their negative and bad. If they follow and revere the positive things then their basically a good.

[Pushed To The Left]

129. Banding together against a common enemy!

The religious left wants to defeat the right wing just like the rest of us. Those of us that oppose the right wing need to band together against them! If so-called "small government" conservatives can band together with the relgious right at CNP meetings, then the rest of us that want to beat the right wing--liberal, moderate, progressive, religious, non-religious, etc--should be able to band together to DESTROY our common enemy, the radical right!

[kliljedahl]

130. Thor's gonna get you for that.

Keith’s Barbeque Central

[Maraya1969]

131. When I used to go to the Unity church they only quoted the positive

parts of the Bible. And if there was some negative they had a way of explaining it as a positive. Like that verse, "Unless you believe in me, (Jesus)you will not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven" (Well something like that.) The way it was explained to me is, if you don't follow Jesus's teachings or anyone else's teaching on love, tolerance and non-judgmental awareness then you are just going to be miserable. The "Kingdom of Heaven" is living in peace I was taught.

So I can accept that. And they also said that the priests wrote a lot of the parts of the bible so that is why it is filled with negativity.

Fundamentalists can be real asses but a Christian who really tries to be a good person and does NOT believe that people of other religions will end up in Hell and does NOT try and shove their religion down my throat are OK in my book.

[The Straight Story]

132. Kind of like our constitution/et al eh?

Same thing, different document. Lots of people read it and used it to do harm to others. It allowed slavery, denied women a right to vote and so on and so forth.

The bible has also been used by many to help others, bring aid to the poor, and I have known many who read the bible over the years who devoted their time (based on inspiration of the word) to helping people in nursing homes and so on.

It is like a magic mirror - you get out of what you take into it. And yes, people do all those things without the bible or without any desire to read it - which is fine too. But when one reads only all the bad press they can get their hands on about something they tend to get biased and blinded.

[Telly Savalas]

135. Ever had strawberries with maple syrup?

They're really fucking good! :9

[Clark2008]

136. It might help if I pointed out some fallacies in your statement

First, "The Muslims" don't hate "The Christians" and vice versa. "The Christians" don't hate "The Jews" and vice versa and "The Jews" don't hate "The Muslims" and vice versa.

If everyone in their religions practiced what their religions preached, then none of these groups would hate the other. The problems in the Middle East aren't because of a Jews v. Muslim war - they're over land and bloodshed and have been TURNED into a so-called religious war by those who would want to continue the war.
The Christians who hate Jews are just stupid and don't understand their heritage and the Christians who hate Muslims probably don't know the first thing about the religion.

The Bible isn't any more gruesome than any other book of the mainstream genre and the New Testament certainly isn't as off-putting as the Old.

And, even scholars who don't believe Jesus was the Son of God or even a prophet DO believe that Jesus existed - as a man of low birth who rose to engage a "movement;" therefore, I'm not quite sure what you mean by a man who "probably never existed." I suggest you do some further reading on this subject. I'm sure there are some who say He didn't, but the fact that His birth is drawn in old Mayan ruins, several thousands of miles away leads me to believe that He existed and was a great man.

But, ultimately, what your issues tend to be is that you think that the Bible is horrible. You don't consider the age in which it was first written, nor the context. Women WERE chattle in those days - but Jesus didn't treat them that way. He included his mother, Mary Magdaline and Martha in nearly everything he did. Had Jesus walked the earth in this Century, they would also probably have been considered disciples. Also, war is horrible, living conditions 2000 years ago were horrible and science was not developed for either comfort nor explanation of the universe in which we live.

The Bible is a parable: a snapshot in the History of Mankind. I have problems with someone talking all or most of it literally, but it's historical relevance and the deeper meaning of Jesus's teachings (the Sermon on the Mount and the Beatitudes, both of which could easily be used as liberal credo) are certainly the most important aspects of the Bible.

And, on a lighter note, if you don't believe what I'm espousing, I can honestly say that I truly believe what I just wrote. My ex husband is Palestinian, I'm Catholic and I'm currently dating a Jew. :7

[durutti]

137. I don't think there is such a thing.

To be Left means to strive for the most rational possible society. Religion is inherently irrational. Religion is not Left to the extend it is not secularized and social movements are not religious to the extent they are Left.

[Clark2008]

139. That's your definition of "left," not mine.

And Jesus was probably the most well-known "social-movement hippie" known to Mankind. :)

[AlienGirl]

151. Poetry, dance, and romantic love are also inherently irrational

To be tolerable, a society must allow for its members to express the non-rational parts of themselves as well as the rational. The human mind is too complex to be limited to what seems rational.

Tucker

[napi21]

144. Take a look at the link here.

http://www.liberalslikechrist.org/politicalmenu.htm

It shows the extremists on both side for what they really are.

[funflower]

145. Lots of religious lefties would agree with everything you've said.

Also, when you're judging Jesus, remember that he didn't write his own biography.

[AlienGirl]

148. I wish you lived in Seattle

so I could bring you to services at my synagogue. (Don't worry, you wouldn't have to *believe* anything to go.) Rabbi Ted finds ways of explaining things that make you see that the whole purpose of spirituality is to look beyond the surface. This last Friday he talked about the Torah portion--part of the Book of Numbers that deals with a census. He used this as a lesson in recognizing that *everyone* counts, everyone is valuable. By finding the meanings behind the literal story, a person can learn important things.

If you really see your inability to come to peace with religious people as a challenge you'd like to overcome, start here: http://www.betalef.org . Rabbi Ted's contact info is on the site (and he answers emails). He's a very caring, nonjudgemental man, and he'd be able to answer questions like, "Why is this book full of wars worth thinking about?" (You wouldn't have to subscribe to any religious belief; you could keep your Materialist worldview, but he would be able to give you some insight into why smart, liberal people can be religious.)

Incidentally, Rabbi Ted's friend Imam Jamal comes to services sometimes and tells very funny Mullah Stories. And most of the cars in the parking lot have anti-war stickers, Kerry stickers, Amnesty International stickers, and so on.

Tucker

[dsc]

150. Given your extremely selective quoting it is hard to be sure of your

motives but assuming you really wish to learn, try reading Rescuing the Bible from Funamentalism by Bishop Spong. He also has several other books that might help but that is where I would start.

[arwalden]

152. Thanks For This Thread...

... I share many of your concerns.

[Lerkfish]

153. self-deleted

really, what's the point?

[LWolf]

154. How strongly do you feel about your promises?

Take back your promise and don't "work" with those you aren't able to tolerate. That seems the easiest course. It might be that the best "work" you do with the religious left is to stay out of the way; to not interfere with their efforts. Whatever those are (?)

Or, if you really wanted to honor that promise, you might find something positive, some common ground to focus on, and throw the rest out. If you can find one common thread, you can put your efforts there, and not deal with the rest. There are some universal things to be found; here are a few possibilities:

The golden rule: treat others the way you want to be treated.

You reap what you sow: what goes around, comes around, etc..

The Beatitudes

Love never fails, etc.,

It's really your choice. To withdraw, to find common ground, or to actively oppose.

[Skittles]

155. I hear you Ladyhawk but believe me they have an answer for everything

we will never get it; it's one of those things we will always have to put up with