Here is your chance: explain to me why I should not be a Christian

[Selwynn]

This is a very simple thread. There is so many attacks and denigrations on the faithful, on religion, on Christianity which are deemed perfectly acceptable, so I've decided to actually listen. Here's your chance. Convince me not to be a person of faith, tell me why I am wrong to hold to my personal beliefs and be a Christian.

You'll get farther with me if you can do so honestly, and thoughtfully without personal attack, but I'll listen to anything.

But before you do, I'd encourage you to read this post, "Selwynn responds to six Questions of Faith"
http://selwynn.blog-city.com/read/822597.htm

Now, go ahead - I'm listening. Hopefully I earned enough respect from a least so of you so that you'll trust me to actually listen thoughtfully.

Go.

[Liberal Veteran]

1. I have no problem with your choice of faith, but a better question...

....is why anyone thinks I, a gay man, should be a christian.

[leftyandproud]

47. because religion is stupid

most enlightened countries in europe have realized this...

the usa is stuck in the old fundie mindset...it keeps us from progressing

[SCRUBDASHRUB]

135. Because I am a Jew. That's why I'm not a Christian.

[grytpype]

2. Shit, go ahead and be a Christian.

Who says you shouldn't be a Christian? Or a Mormon, or a Hindu, or whatever? It's all made-up bullshit anyway, pick whichever flavor you like.

[samwisefoxburr]

3. I am a Satanist...

But, when the defense for Scott Peterson blames a non-existent "Satanic" cult, and totally shows that they have no idea what Satanism is about, I didn't get all pissed off. People are going to make generalizations about your religion, just be glad that YOU know you don't fall into those generalizations.

[Beware the Beast Man]

71. I never thought I'd praise the viewpoint of a Satanist-

but you hit the nail on the head. Thank you for not making a blanket generalization about followers of Christ, as I know not all satanists are ritual-sacrificing, rural burnouts or Norwegian white supremacists in mime makeup.

[juslikagrzly]

4. I can't, and I won't

but as someone who struggles deeply with my own issues of faith, I do believe that true Christianity has been co-opted by wingnuts, fundies, etc. etc. who believe it is there JOB and RIGHT and SALVATION to convert the unwashed to Christianity.

So, if your brand of Christianity truly follows Christ, then more power to you. The Christian religion needs more and louder followers who promote the real teachings of Jesus.

Jesus was a radical leftist in his time and most of his teachings had to do with injustice and discrimination.

Just my 2 cents

[Vickers]

5. I don't give two shits what you ARE.

I give a shit what you're LIKE.

Big difference, and labels do not help in figuring that out. It has to be done individually.

FTR, you seem like a decent sort to me.

[LoZoccolo]

6. What does this have anything to do with politics?

Can this at least wait until after the election?

[juslikagrzly]

8. It has everything to do with politics

when the * administration has crammed religious ideoligies down our throats, disguised as political policy.

[LoZoccolo]

9. No it doesn't.

That's an entire separate issue. I think your post is the first mention of the Bush* administration in this thread.

[juslikagrzly]

12. Maybe I'm the first

but issues of personal faith have brought into this election in a huge way and each of us have to struggle to figure out how to concile our regilious/non religious beliefs with our political beliefs.

I've seen many posts on DU condemning Christianity, and while I agree with some of the points, I also see the need to continue to fight the co-opting of Christianity by the religious right.

[LoZoccolo]

18. What does this have anything to do with politics?

I really don't see anything about the original post or it's purpose being here two weeks before the election here. I see some stuff about the separation of church and state, but this post is about someone's personal religious beliefs. Predictably, it seems most people have said that they don't care what beliefs the original poster holds.

[juslikagrzly]

24. Pardon me for my opinion that it is an important political issue

When moderators of debates ask questions regarding what are basically religious beliefs, and the candidates themselves discuss it, and many on DU attack those with strong religious beliefs, it seems like a good discussion point.

[wildeyed]

33. I tend to agree.

I have been very put off by organized religion in all its forms, not just Christians, after observing the actions of some of the practitioners. I also hate that we have to bring Jesus into every political policy discussion these days.

But I do have a much easier feeling about Christianity after reading posts of Christian DU'ers. It helps immeasurably to see perspectives of faith other than the wingnut variety.

And my commitment to winning this election and my work out in the community registering voters seems to have brought on something of a spiritual awakening in my own life. I don't know what the result of the awakening will be, if I will be Christian or just continue with my hodge-podge of eastern mystical beliefs. But the discussion is definitely important and relevant for me this year, both politically and in my personal life.

[Courtesy Flush]

129. Actually, this is SUPPOSED to be a non-political board.

To quote the webmaster:


The DU Lounge
This forum is for personal/social discussions, vanity posts, and all other non-political topics.

[charlie]

130. This began in GD

before it was moved.

[Misunderestimator]

131. I can't believe you just kicked this thread...

I thought it was already dead and buried.... *sigh*

[SidDithers]

7. You can be whatever the fuck you want to be...

as long as it doesn't affect me or my life.

Once you start prosletyzing, whether you're a christian, hindu, muslim, jew or buddhist, then we're gonna have words.

Sid

[JPace]

10. What an odd question....

and it doesn't sound like a "simple thread".
Seems more like a lightning rod invitation
with a promise from you to love the strike.

Good luck!

[Selwynn]

16. I'm tired of saying silent - so, here's your chance - present your best

arguments for why my life would somehowe be better if I was not a person of faith, or how my personal faith harms anyone else...

[CO Liberal]

67. If You Keep It To Yourself as Your "Personal Faith", Fine

But if you're one of those Christians who tries to ram their beliefs down everyone else's throats, then I have a problem with that.

[Raiden]

11. As long as you act like a true Christian

and not a Pat Robertson/Jerry Falwell Christian, I have no problem with it. I can tolerate Christians if they emulate Jesus Christ to the best of their abilities, however, most of the Christians I know use thier religion as an excuse to persecute others. Do whatever makes you feel good about yourself.

[truthpusher]

13. Christian...is a label...Jesus was not a Christian...

...Christ wanted you to follow his teachings...not join a club.
Today by stating 'I am a Christian' means 'I am part of your club'.
The club that I question in particular is the 'Evangelical' set.
The anti-gay, pro-death penalty, pro-exclusion and anti-open mindedness set. If Christ were here today I really feel that the first thing he would do is tell everybody to turn in there 'Club Cards' and follow his teachings by loving and helping others. I believe he would also say 'Drop the sinners prayer, you do not have to say this prayer to be forgiven. You are already forgiven'.
The 'sinners prayer' is dolled out by the Evangelicals as though they have the market covered and if you don't go through them, your faith is bogus.

By the way, Jesus never asked anybody to become a Christian. He asked people to follow him by doing works for those most in need. Basically it has to do with easing the suffering of others.

Judge for yourself...are Christians today easing the suffering of others. It is your decision to be a Christian or a follower of Christ.

[smirkymonkey]

44. Good answer!

It's not whether you call yourself a Christian, it's what your practice of Christianity entails.

[Selwynn]

14. I'm not asking you to tolerate me, I'm asking you to present your argument

Funny - when confronted directly, I notice that there doesn't seem to be anyone willing to stand by their words. Every other day on DU I have to put up with thread after thread of people mass-jeering religion and Christianity. People do not say limit their attacks to fundamentalists only, or certain people who do things in the name or religion, etc. They simple say things like "Christianity is for fools" or "Religion is evil and destructive to society" or "Chrisians are nothing but people who hate people" or "religion is for ignorant simpletons and sheeple, nothing more." All quotes I've seen on multiple occaisions in various forms.

But now all I see is, "hey I have no problem with your personal conviction"

I'm not asking you to "tolerate me" -- I'm sure everyone would say that they do that no matter how sincerely. I'm asking the many many people who freely bash religion without any exception or qualification all the time around here to put your money where your mouth is and explain to me exactly why my life would be BETTER if I was not a person of faith...

[StupidFOX]

26. I think you misunderstand us

When Marx (sorry to quote him) said, "Religion is the opiet of the people," he meant that people blindly following massive corporate-style religions that tell people to "submit or go to Hell" destroys their own cause. For centuries, leaders have used Christianity as an excuse to lie, kill, steal, and essentially break the very commandments that they claim to love. This is what we oppose. When taken too far, religious conservatism leads to fire-bombings, hate-crimes, and murder.

We promote personal belief, the existence of an "inner-light" that guides us. We don't look to the Christian Coalition to tell us what's right and wrong. If we couldn't feel in our hearts the difference between right and wrong, we wouldn't be human. "Liberal" religious people promote intelligent thought, application of old theories to todays world, and forward-thinking practicality.

In short: believe, but don't submit.

[Selwynn]

35. We? I can present you with countless examples...

..of posts almost DAILY from people who do not at all promote perosnal belief, but who point blank say that people of faith or stupid and misguided.

So this post is for them.

I don't want to be stupid. I don't want to be misguided. So come explain it to me in terms I can understand.

[StupidFOX]

42. Well you have to remember

Countless people here believe in religions strongly (not necessarily a bad thing, sounds like you do)
Countless people here believe in quiet agnosticism, tolerating those with or without faith (sort of stuck in the middle, like me)
Countless people hate religion and hate people who practice it.

Your bound to find lots of these types of people anywhere, and that's why you find the last group here.

Just remember where this hate stems from. They watch as Bush and Asskroft quote the Bible as some sort of "logical" reason to make a stupid move. They watch one faith be repressed by another. Bush wanted to call the war in Afghanistan (I think it was Afghanistan) operation ENDURING CRUSADE. The Republican Party in Texas wants to "reaffirm America as a Christian nation."

People hate Christianity after this the same way that people hated the government after Watergate and Vietnam. If people call you an idiot for practicing religion, I personally say I'm sorry (and I feel attacked as well).

If you've never screamed at a gay person and told them to "go to Hell", if you've never submitted to the will of another simply because he can quote the Bible, if you've never voted purely based on which religion they are, if you derive your faith from your inner beliefs and what YOU think the Bible says, then you truly practice an honorable religion.

[immoderate]

93. Because

Christians think sex is a sin.
Christians want to censor literature.
Christians conduct inquisitions.
Christians have holy crusades.
Christians kill Jews.
Christians kill Muslims.
Christians kill each other.
Christians torture people.
Christians are against free choice.
Christians think they alone can enter heaven.
Christians are hypocrites.

Is that enough? I can give you more.

--IMM

[Ron Green]

95. I think that real Christians do none of these things, but that many who

CALL THEMSELVES "Christians" do all of this. Anyone who follows the teachings of Christ is a fully tolerant and peaceful person, IMO.

[immoderate]

97. Oh I know that.

You're talking about people. I expect any decent person to follow the teachings of Christ.

But what is it that makes Christians different?

--IMM

[Ron Green]

101. I'm not sure that "any decent person" would turn the other cheek, or go

the extra mile. It depends on his culture, and what's acceptable in his neighborhood. A real Christian, or one who is Christ-like, would even do something that other decent people might not do in a given situation.

[immoderate]

102. A little word play?

So only true Christians will turn the other cheek, or walk the extra mile. A non-Christian (Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, atheist) is not capable of these things?

What per centage of Christians do you think are true Christians then?

--IMM

[Ron Green]

107. I think a very small percentage of "Christians" are true Christians.

However, the teachings of Christ provide for a level of humanity that some other religions don't, in that these others allow for "enemies" and retribution, and so on. I believe this is the natural state of man, to have enemies and to see the Other with fear and enmity. Christ's thing, as I understand it, is complete, unadulterated no-shit forgiveness of yourself and others, thereby forgiving the world. I don't know anyone who has attained this, but the ideal is in place and it's the way to be, in my opinion. The "decent people" to whom you referred could be ones who seek to attain this ideal, and of course people from any religious tradition can do this. However, it seems that the other big monotheistic groups, Islam and Judaism, have kind of "righteous anger" thing going that allows for enemies and holy wars and retribution. And of course it's this very bullshit that holds sway in the Middle East even today. The fundie "Christians" in our country are just as bad, IMO, because they claim a moral high ground but are just as eager to go to war to protect "freedom" as is any Jihadist.

[NC_Nurse]

38. I am not a Christian basher

I read your link to your beliefs and I am very like you in many ways spiritually. I just don't label myself a "Christian" because my beliefs are broader and bigger than any one tradition and I think that taking a label is limiting and divisive. Besides, there is a lot of things to be learned from other traditions is you have an open mind.

I also have a problems with the whole "Jesus died for our sins" paradigm whereby all you have to do is believe in Jesus as you "personal saviour" and you get a get out of death/hell free card. It just doesn't make a bit of sense to me. All other traditions go to hell because they were born into another tradition and didn't dump it to believe in Jesus?

:crazy:

The whole notion of God being into all the mind games that people of limited traditions believe in belittles the whole concept of divinity in my mind.

[DuaneBidoux]

70. DU is going to naturally attact the far secular left

What I would say is that faith is faith. How can you argue about it? I have gone from being a fully believing fundamentalist Christian to being agnostic over the course of my 40 years as an adult. 95% of scienctists are athiests. Why? I don't know, but I do know that the more you undersand about the physical universe the less you see a need for a divine being.

My problem with faith is how it is used. This is where I begin to have problems with "the faithful." I here people say they are going to vote for Bush because he is a man of faith. But good god, my plumber (a great plumber) is "a man of faith." I don't want him running the country based on the fact that he is a man of faith and can fix pipes. He has started a war, made tax policy decisions, and a dozen other extremely harmful decisions based on "faith." Would you write checks out of your checking account based on faith?

There needs to be a line between faith, and reality. It needs to be known and understood. For those who have no problems keeping this line in tact I have no problems.

By the way, don't let the fundamentalist athiests and secularists on the left get to you...in their own unbendingly certain way, their just as bad as the fundies on the other side. Deal with them.

[Pithlet]

103. Meant to reply to original post

[July]

105. I don't know if I can be accused of freely bashing religion.

But I have some problems with it.

I say this as someone raised as a Catholic who sees Jesus as a superb role model.

No-one can say what you should believe. That is a lonely journey, in my view, and the idea that other people's ideas of what one should believe could possibly replace one's own conscience is one of my problems with organized religion.

I have very mixed views about Christianity. Much of it is appealing, but some of the things I was asked to believe (as a Catholic) were hard for me to accept. I tried to be open to the message when I was young, but my questioning mind could never assimilate it (I know others with questioning minds have found a different resolution).

I now feel that I cannot really understand the believer's point of view, despite my long journey out of Catholicism, but I really don't want to make decisions for anyone but myself. So I can't easily say, "Come on over to the agnostic side," because I can't decide for you.

On the other hand, my personal conclusion is that, while eternal life and redemption through Jesus are quite beautiful notions, their appeal is not enough to convince me. I do have the feeling you mention that religion is harmful to society, because "religion" is a social construct rather than a personal endeavor. "Religion" of any kind doesn't affect me until it is organized and proselytized, and, therefore, is no longer the province of the individual conscience. But "religion" as a factor in my civic life is real and can be pernicious. I hold very strongly that religious/spiritual/ethical belief, if real and sincere, can only be an individual, conscious, and conscientious point of view.

So, long story short: I don't think you'd be better if you were not a person of faith, nor if you WERE a person of faith. I would like us each to view such an important issue as our understanding of the meaning of our own lives to be an individual matter. Once I have made my conscientious decision, you have no say in it, and vice versa.

[stlchic]

125. I'm curious as to why you care

about the opinions or input of people "who freely bash religion without any exception or qualification"?

I mean, I hear / read of religious people bashing "anti-American secularists and atheists" quite often (most often from freeper types), but I am never inspired to say to them, "Okay, then, convince me to be a Christian", and expect a civil, logical answer.

Is this just a test to see if they're capable of presenting a reasonable argument, or are you really questioning your faith and looking for a way out? Or, are you just looking for a civil religious discussion?

Just wondering...

:shrug:

[TahitiNut]

15. Follow your heart.

:shrug:

[Jade Fox]

17. I don't know if this is an argument to not be a Christian but...

One of the problems I see with Chrisianity is that it fixates on the drama
of Christ's torture and death (see "the Passion" for an extreme example).
That drama basically revolves around two roles: Persecutor and victim.
As a Christian, one is supposed to identify with Christ. However, most
people rightly do not want to be in the role of a martyred victim. And so
the other role beckons. How many times in the last 2000 years have we
seen Christians take on the role of the persecutors and force others into
the role of victim?

Expecting ordinary humans to be Christ-like is unrealistic. I, as a nominal
Christian, also believe it is presumptuous. We are not Jesus. We are
human beings with flaws he did not posess. Attempting to be Christ-like
guarentees failure, and generates resentment and the need to find an
"other" to condem, and who can be scapegoated for our own failures at
Christ-like goodness.

[Selwynn]

30. No all Christians focus on the torture and Death of Jesus....

...and awful lot of Christians focus on the life that he lived and the things that he taught.

Rita Brock wrote a book called "Proverbs of Ashes: Violence, Redemptive Suffering, and the Search for What Saves Us"
http://www.amazon.com/gp/registry/registry.html/ref=cm_wl_topnav_yourstore/103-2624493-2817429?type=wishlist

Not all Christians are alike.

There is nothing unrealistic in my mind in saying, "this example is the example of what I want to strive for." If I were to say to myself "I want to be perfectly compassionate toward all living people at all times, I wouldn't expect that I would perfectly do that in every instance. That doesn't mean that it isn't my desire. The way I judge my own success or failure in that case is based on if I'm doing better - not prefect -- and if I'm growing and becoming a more compassionate person every day, not a perfectly compassionate person.

[Jade Fox]

48. A question for you:

Why aren't more Christians like you organizing against the Rapture/Torture-
of-Christ fixated Christians who have no problem with trying to infiltrate the
political process and force their agenda on all of us? They are doing what they
do in YOUR name.

[NMDemDist2]

19. don't strive to be a Christian, strive to be Christ like

don't confuse the map for the territory

strive to follow Christ's teaching and examples

turn the other cheek
feed the poor
take care of the log in your eye before worrying about the mote in mine
be merciful and find mercy
be a peacemaker
be charitable in the shadows, not looking for public acclaim
tell the truth (especially when it's the hardest thing to do)

Lord make me an instrument of your peace
Where there is hatred, let me bring love.
Where there is injury, let me bring pardon.
Where there is discord, let me bring union.
Where there is doubt, let me bring faith.
Where there is error, let me bring truth.
Where there is despair, let me bring hope.
Where there is sadness, let me bring joy.
Where there is darkness, let me bring light.

O Divine Master,
grant that I may not so much seek
to be consoled as to console,
to be understood as to understand,
to be loved as to love.

For it is in giving that we receive.
It is in pardoning that we are pardoned.
It is in dying that we are born to eternal life.

if you strive to be Christlike the labels won't matter

[StupidFOX]

20. Christianity is great, especially when a person believes independently

But...

subscribing blindly to a huge organized religion (radical right),
using it as an excuse not to think logically (BUSH),
forcing it upon other people (BUSH),
and using it as an excuse to kill or hate (BUSH + right wing congressmen),

Makes one no better than Nazis.

[Selwynn]

32. Of course I agree with that, but that is not what is often said here

So I'm asking the people who so frequently say that all religion is evil, or ridiculous or for the stupid to explain to me why I should be different.

[StupidFOX]

43. I know...

I personally apologize for anyone who has attacked religion generally

[Cat Atomic]

21. I don't care if you're a Christian. You aren't Daniel and there is no

lion's den. You are not a persecuted minority.

[donsu]

22. there are no gods, that's why

nt

[Selwynn]

36. How do you know? And Bhuddism doesn't necessarily have a god

..its considered a religion.

[donsu]

119. evidence - there is no evidence

nt

[Cleita]

23. I would never try to convince anyone to abandon their religion

even if they were devil worshippers. What I would ask though is that they keep it private, within their congregation and between themselves and their deity.

[mandyky]

25. your religious rights end where someone else's individual

civil rights begin. Straight people have no business saying gays shouldn't marry, men have no business telling women whether they can get an abortion. If religious people would encourage sex ed and responsible family planning, other than just abstinance, that would be one thing.
People can be religious all they want, they just need to stop trying to legislate morality. Period.

[tinanator]

27. well said

and hypocrites do all the damage to the reputation of our faith. Dont expect piety to overcome centuries of evil under the cross.

[Selwynn]

37. Of course, I know this. And that wasn't my question.

If you know anything about me, you know that I do not evangelize. I agree with you.

[whodiedandmadeUSgod]

28. My bumper sticker reads Christians for Kerry

I find that being a Christian provides a sense of inner peace. I often draw on my faith in times of need or when presented with a choice. The words of the Bible and the actions of Christ help me to make good choices and give me direction in my life! Also being an active church member has encouraged me to participate in volunteer activities like Meals on Wheels, community food response and donating to families in need and the local womens shelter. I believe that my Christian faith has added a sense of meaning to my life.

[skygazer]

29. Question

If all the threads about Christianity bother you, why do you read them?

And if it bothers you that people don't agree with your beliefs, why do you post threads like this?

You're just baiting people here. I don't understand the point.

I doubt if anyone's going to tell you why you shouldn't be a Christian and I'm sure that's not what they're saying in these other threads. They're talking about why THEY aren't and why some Christians drive them nuts. That's a whole different thing that telling you what to do.

I've read a lot of your posts and I do respect you. But you seem obsessed by this subject and it really seems counter productive. It seems like a desire to start an argument.

[Selwynn]

40. Because I care about the attitude of the community. :)

How's that for an answer.

I know that I have the capability to hide threads - and I do sometimes. But I actually care about the attitude of the community, and I would rather address concerns that I have over things that I see rather than just hide and pretend they don't exists.

Your question is like asking a gay guy, "hey if it bothers you when people post and bash your sexuality why don't you just hide it instead of saying something about it?"

And I DO desire to start and argument. I'm asking people who bash religion DAILY to put their money where their mouth is, deal with a specific example of a person like me and explain to me what is wrong, tragic, misguided, sad, or in some other way wrong about my personal faith.

I think after listening for years to this stuff, I've earned the right

[Zorra]

31. "Each one must learn for himself the highest wisdom. It cannot be taught

in words." - Smowhala

I can tell you why you should not be a republican if you'd like, but I think you've already figured that one out.

Your spiritual or religious beliefs are fine with me as long as they do not cause you to harm others or infringe upon their rights.

[hiphopnation]

34. Good luck with this.

There's not really that much proselytizing here is there? :shrug:

[Egalitarian]

39. If I may point out a few things

I read your responses to six questions of faith and for the most part find myself largely in agreement with you and your understanding/interpretation of the proper place/meaning of religion. My concern is that you identify yourself as a Christian. Nothing that I read in your responses is within the strict domain of Christianity. In fact, I see more similarities to other religions than to Christianity (outside of some of the mystical traditions). To me, the problem with identification with any religion is that it can separate us humans. If you call yourself a Christian and another something else, then the words can create a barrier which promotes a sense of differentness; when quite possibly what you are both referring to is the same experience or thing. On the flip side of this is the fact that other Christians might see the label and accept you and feel a certain agreement with you wheras if they were to investigate further they would find that you are coming from a quite different understanding of the word.

To me, to be religious is to walk a fine line between feeling, embodying, and expressing our highest potential while at the same time doing so in a manner that is unifying, or breaks down our differences by sticking to our common experience.

Is it possible for you to hold the same views, faith, beliefs, etc. and not label them as Christian? Because they are not strictly the property of Christianity why attach this label?

Other questions. I wonder. Would Jesus have considered himself a Christian, or did the word come after he did? Likewise for the Buddha? I doubt that either had need for the label, and in fact would be dismayed, but not surprised by the fragmentation which has occurred as we have passed on their insights, or ways of perceiving life.

That said, be a Christian if you like. I just see the label as being unnecessary and potentially harmful to your relations with others.

[Selwynn]

46. Loved the response. Let me say a couple things, in answer

First of all, labels are complicated. Sometimes labels are road bocks to good communication and understanding. But sometimes they are shortcuts to understanding.

For example, in some circles, using the label "Christian" might be an obstacle, because one might associate that term with a host of things that I don't personally believe. However in other circles (say for example, talking to other people who call themselves Christians) it can be an apologetic olive branch - a way to initiate conversation and discuss subjects that other people might otherwise be closed to.

But speaking strictly personally, I often refer to myself as a Christian NOT as an evangelical statement. 99% of the time on these boards I simply refer to my faith, and to persons of faith. But sometimes, when pushed, I take on the Christian label. The reasons is because that is my tradition.

If you read what I wrote in that article, then you know that I believe all religion is essentially language. So my basic and most simple answer to you is, I sometimes call myself a Christian rather than something else like I speak English to express myself father than learning German. Christianity is the language tool set by which I express my religious conviction (through religious metaphor, symbolism and imagery.)

I'm not fixated on the label - that's why I liked your post a lot, because I deeply appreciate the argument. But sometimes, I use the label Christian to mean, "I come from a Christian heritage and that is my language set by which I describe and apprehend my spiritual experience.

Now admittedly, I'm somewhat of an independent. I place experience at the top of the chain, using the language tools of religion and faith to interpret experience.

Thanks for posting,
Sel

[Egalitarian]

64. Yes, so long as the label is recognized

as a label then there is no danger. I agree with the olive branch metaphor-I will reflect upon this further, as it has been one of my problems to be attached to not being attached. Thanks for pointing this out.

Without going back and re-reading this entire thread to respond more accurately I still feel compelled to comment with regard to those who attack Christianity and your desire to create a dialogue with them.

I suspect that most who despise Christianity have been hurt by it or one of its messengers. I hope you do not feel attacked by these responses, as I doubt most would have any qualms with your definition, understanding, and experience of Christianity. In fact, many would likely benefit from exposure to your type of Chritianity as it could perhaps open their eyes to an entirely different meaning of the word.

But, on the path of healing from pain, avoindance and anger(attacking) are often employed to protect ourselves from more pain. Understand that for many, simply the word "Christian" brings up within them many negative emotions and painful memories whether vivid or unconscious. So, when some encounter this word a wall goes up and they go into defense mode, protecting themselves as they should at this time in their life. I'm speaking from my experience here, so feel free to comment if I seem off base.

I'm not sure I can comment on what this means with respect to those who attack Christianity, other than: There is no need for any Christian or other who has a firm, rooted grasp of who they are to feel threatened by such attacks. A truly religous life is foremost a personal experience (IMO) and so long as one understands this it cannot be taken away by another. To the degree that one does feel threatened by such attacks, seize this feeling as an opportunity to confront ones own insecurities concerning their understanding/faith/belief. Expect these attacks and see that perhaps they are opportunities to bridge the gaps in understanding that exist; but be comfortable letting them go if a proper response does not seem possible at the time.

[NC_Nurse]

51. Thanks for saying what I was trying to say earlier but

failed to say so eloquently and clearly.

It's the label I don't like...for the divisive and separating aspects.

Excellent post! :yourock:

[peacetalksforall]

41. Be a Christian with humility and without hypocrisy and do it for the

gentle teachings and don't feel that being a Christian equates to following a life of doom or that you have to follow the words of one preacher, nor give that preacher all your money. Then, no one or few could fault you and you won't have to wonder.

My war against christians is because of the hypocrisy and their attitude of superiority and exclusiveness and the idea that they have to rule. Other people were not put on the earth for imperial christians to kick around. I am against christian missionairies who are hell bent on converting people or as in the past killing them or yanking them out of their community and forcing them into their own kind of clothes and filling their heads with their teachings and making them abandon their heritage. Or, as in America, use it and support it to kill other people and their own in a partisan way.

I capitalize and don't capitalize Christians on purpose.

[Neshanic]

45. Why are you trying to shove your faith in a box?

It does not fit. Not a big or small box, because someone will always come along and say that you forgot something critical to put in it.

The complete open mind, and like another poster said, trying to be Christ-like, can't be put in some neat file or box. You know in yourself from having an thinking open mind what you need for yourself to make it through life.

That is why the homo-sex-sin poll was so repugnant. Why would someone care? Why is it a concern of anyone's? Does it affect anyone elses's life that two people love each other?

Tha fact that people actually make it though a day without breaking down is proof for me, FOR ME ONLY, that faith must be as varied as each human.

As far as the things that go on that we must endure, such as cafeteria Christians, you are going to Hell fundamnetalists, a truly evil government, and an Orwellian media, MY personal belief is that God has a great sense of humor, and he laughs along with us as we see the hypocracy of loofah devotees writing childrens books.

[smirkymonkey]

57. That was beautifully put.

My sentiments exactly.

[ScrewyRabbit]

49. Do you believe that there's only one type of Christian?

When people vent their frustrations with Christians here, they're usually talking about intolerant, narrow-minded, hypocritical fundamentalist-types. Those people, you must admit, do exist. You're not one of them, thank god (if I'm allowed to say that) :). So most people on DU don't have a problem with you as a Christian.

[salin]

50. Question - why are you so offended?

I speak as a liberal Christian. I am not offended by the rhetoric on DU. I am quick to recognize the source of the anger and it isn't pointed at me or my religion - it is pointed at the bellicose, politicized religious right that has increasingly made headway on the airways and has been emboldened enough to start pushing (and making grounds) to legislate THEIR rigid interpretation of Christianity on the rest of the population, Christian or not. I am just as offended by the talibornigan (note - I seperate those who are evangelical/fundamentalists who do not seek to impose the religion upon the rest of the population from the "talibornigan" - a tag to refer to both the extremist religious views as well as the belief that the government and its laws should be based upon those beliefs and forcefully forced upon the rest of the population - as the vocal atheists on this board. When those folks go too far with the rhetoric - I take it with a grain of salt ... heat of the moment anger/arguments based out of the same anger I feel towards the aforementioned group (eg the Roy Moores, Tom DeLays, etc.)

[ScrewyRabbit]

52. By the way, I read your blog entry

and it's quite sensible, and sensitive. I could be your type of Christian.

[rogerashton]

53. No one seems to want to answer your question. I'll try to answer it.

"It is a moral wrong to believe anything on insufficient grounds." Since belief on faith is belief without (and indeed against) any grounds, belief on faith is morally wrong. That applies to every single "faith," be it Christian or whatever.

By the way, I do affirm a belief in God, based on reason. I admit that this belief does not bring me any emotional solace. It just seems to be better supported in reason than atheism. But if I were persuaded otherwise, I would switch positions. Indeed I did just that, 20 years ago.

So the answer is the same, whether you propose to ge a Christian, Muslim, Jew, Hindu, Jain, Sikh, or Good Land Buddhist. (Some forms of Buddhism may escape this argument. )

1) There are indeed many faiths that claim the ultimate truth, including several incompatible forms of Christianity (at the very least Predestinarian Protestantism, Foreordination Protestantism, and Roman Catholicism.) How can you choose among them? If you choose on the basis of reason, you are not basing your belief on faith, and so are not a true Christian. But if you choose at random -- and choosing the "faith of your fathers" is choosing at random -- the choice is not yours but is made for you. Thus, the faith is not "yours" -- it does not rest on your conviction -- but on prejudice. Existentialism and Roman Catholic tradition understand belief as an act of will -- but people who subscribe to this view often do not persuade themselves and have "problems of faith," i.e. no feeling of the faith they claim to have. I conclude that the whole concept of belief on faith is confusion, and people who subscribe to it are inevitably confused people.

2) Moreover, the differences between people on matters of faith can be settled in only two ways: reason or violence. If reason, then it is not faith. Therefore, faith commits the person to violence, with the qualification that one faith (Jainism) has among its tenets absolute rejection of violence.

3) Jainism apart, most faiths do not reject violence, and not rejecting it, promote it. For the Jains, the prohibition against violence is absolute. Other faiths may not approve violence, but do not reject it absolutely, and do affirm the truth of their version of faith absolutely. Balancing a relative distaste for violence against an absolute affirmation of truth, which cannot be supported by reason, you have an infinite weight for violence balanced against a finite weight against it -- so the balance can come out only for violence. (There is a reverse-color version of Pascal's Wager here.) In any case, it is not surprising that confused people, frustrated in their attempt to balance the unablanceable, turn to violence.

4) That's theory. In historical fact, religious faiths have in fact waged war and terrorism for thousands of years, causing immense human suffering. It is also true that great cathedrals have been build and occasional remarkable kindnesses done -- but the balance is far on the side of violence and suffering. The theory shows us that this is not incidental but a consequence of the intellectual bind a true believer finds herself in.

5) Therefore, if you are a Christian, you are contributing your bit to create more war, terrorism and suffering.

6) I'm not at all sure that the God I believe in cares, but Jesus probably would disapprove.

[Selwynn]

58. Thank you! Response:

You say,

"It is a moral wrong to believe anything on insufficient grounds." Since belief on faith is belief without (and indeed against) any grounds, belief on faith is morally wrong. That applies to every single "faith," be it Christian or whatever."

But then you say,

"By the way, I do affirm a belief in God, based on reason."

So I agree with you that it is wrong to believe anything on insufficient grounds. That's why I must remain silent when it comes to the subject of life after death, because I have no grounds to make any kind of statement about it whatsoever. However, the question really is when it comes to our experiences living on earth. Some people believe that their experiences do in fact give them sufficient grounds to legitimately use religious language and metaphor to describe it. It gets a little complicated to outright deny that.

For a much fuller discussion of this, please visit the link I gave in my original post, which link to something else I wrote.

"1) There are indeed many faiths that claim the ultimate truth, including several incompatible forms of Christianity (at the very least Predestinarian Protestantism, Foreordination Protestantism, and Roman Catholicism.) How can you choose among them?"

You make an assumption that I am claiming ultimate truth. But I have never made that claim myself.

"2) Moreover, the differences between people on matters of faith can be settled in only two ways: reason or violence. If reason, then it is not faith. Therefore, faith commits the person to violence, with the qualification that one faith (Jainism) has among its tenets absolute rejection of violence."

There are plenty of things in life where we must have reasonable discussions which lead us to reasonable beliefs. Those beliefs might be wrong, because simply by virtue of being human, we may not have all the facts or know all we need to know. There is such a thing as reasonable faith. You yourself said you belief there is a God, because it seems more reasonable to you to do so. But you can't prove there is a God, it is just a reasonable belief. There are such things as reasonable beliefs, especially when your talking about experience and not blind absolute dogmas.

The fact of the matter is, certainty is a myth. I can't prove to you that I am actually sitting here. I think that I am, but I can't prove to you that I am not actually a brain-in-a-vat being fed stimuli and led to believe that I am sitting here. Nevertheless I believe that I am, and I call that belief reasonable - why? Because it is based on the only tools I have at my disposal to make such a judgment and it is not practical to just stay silent on the matter. Every day I act as though I am really here and I really have hand and feet and I really do things with them, but I can't prove any of that is true. But I think it is much more reasonable to believe it is true than believe if false.

So saying that, "if its reason, its not faith" is not quite accurate. All reason leads us not to certainty, but to justified true beliefs. The could still be wrong, because we are finite and don't necessarily have access to all information.

"3) Jainism apart, most faiths do not reject violence, and not rejecting it, promote it."

My faith rejects violence. My personal faith includes the rejection of violence. Jesus himself rejected violence and in fact preached pacifism and peacemaking. I can't control what others do in the name of their faith, and that wasn't my question to you. I can only control what I do, and my faith rejects violence.

"4) That's theory. In historical fact, religious faiths have in fact waged war and terrorism for thousands of years, causing immense human suffering. It is also true that great cathedrals have been build and occasional remarkable kindnesses done -- but the balance is far on the side of violence and suffering. The theory shows us that this is not incidental but a consequence of the intellectual bind a true believer finds herself in."

What does that have to do with me and my personal faith? I haven't killed anyone, burned anyone at the stake, I haven't invaded Palestine, or participated in crusades. I've spoken regularly on how I believe these things to be wrong.

"5) Therefore, if you are a Christian, you are contributing your bit to create more war, terrorism and suffering. 5) Therefore, if you are a Christian, you are contributing your bit to create more war, terrorism and suffering. "

How exactly am I contributing? How does my personal faith contribute to war, terrorism and suffering?

[rogerashton]

89. Your response satisfies me that you are not,

in any meaningful sense, a Christian.

(And good for you).

So the question is, really, why should you not call yourself a Christian, although you don't believe most of the things Christians are widely understood to believe. The answer to that would be, because it causes confusion.

But I would say that, even so, by calling yourself a Christian you contribute, on net, to the sum total of suffering by lending credibility to Christians far less critical than yourself. See The End of Faith on the significance of "religious moderates."

[Ron Green]

99. I'm not convinced that taking the "faith of your fathers" is choosing at

random. Your accculturation and indocrination, augmented by whatever study you pursue, will bring you to accept or reject it. You cannot erase early religious training any more than you can change your personality. It will always inform subsequent decisions regarding spiritual matters throughout your life.

[smirkymonkey]

54. I believe true faith transcends narrow religious definitions.

You act in accordance with certain moral and spritual precepts. So do I. Yet you call yourself a Christian and I don't call myself a Christian. Why do you need the label of Christian to follow your spiritual beliefs?

If you do, that's fine, but I think specific religions are limiting and that faith should be personal, humble and above all, private. It should have no official standing within the sphere of government.

No one is saying YOU personally should not be a Christian. Asking this question would be like me going to a mixed political forum and asking why I should not be a Democrat. I would get all kinds of responses, some positive, some negative, but the point is that if I am secure in my political beliefs, or my faith, what other people think should be of no concern to me.

[Liberal Veteran]

55. Allow me to offer you a piece of constructive criticism....

As I see it, what your purpose in this thread is to defend your faith from what you see as relentless attacks on this board on it.

That is a symptom of "group think". IOW, you cannot seem to disassociate yourself enough to understand that most on this board have no real problems with religion on a personal level, but more in the broad sense when the more conservative/fundamentalist brands of Christianity (which obviously do not correspond to the type you subscribe to) try to impose their beliefs on the populace in general.

For example, when whackjobs like Robertson say 9/11 is the result of pro-choicers and gays, and people on this board make some really broad and general statements in response, you internalise the response and assume it's an attack on YOUR PERSONAL FAITH when it clearly is not.

That is a dual failing. It is a failing on the part of the initial responder who does not qualify his/her statement by putting in a disclaimer that he is specifically referring to people who use their faith as a tool of oppression.

It is a failing on YOUR part by internalizing and failing to realise that the person is not making an attempt to diss your personal version of your faith.

In other words, you set yourself up to be offended and people rarely let you down.

Now of course you feel like a desire to out everyone who dissed you with a thread like this and you seem confused that no one is taking the "bait" as it were.

The reason no one is taking the bait is because your initial premise is flawed: No one has a problem with your particular articles contrary to what you think.

Your failing is the inability to differentiate between someone speaking in the broadest sense when someone misuses religion and someone making a personal attack on your brand of faith.

[Selwynn]

60. The purpose of this thread is to listen to the agruments....

If you choose not to believe that, I can do little to change your mind.

I'm calling out all the people who do believe that if you have religious beliefs you are in some way wrong, inferior, evil or misguided and asking them to make their case so that I can hear the arguments and think on them.

If you don't trust me to do that fairly, there is nothing I can do to convince you otherwise.

I'm afraid I disagree with you strongly that there is no attempt to attack personal faith ever made. I understand and accept that there are many, maybe even most, who have no problem with personal faith but do have a great problem with the evils they see all around them done in the name of faith. But I think you are being disingenuous if you seriously try to argue that this is the only kind of perspective that gets expressed here. There is also the expression that makes no distinction between personal faith and things done in the name of faith, that labels all belief as the enemy of free and just society, and does in fact include every religious person in that pronouncement.

In other words, there are certainly some who feel that only those using religion as a tool of destruction or harming our society. But there are also those who believe - and say all the time - that all religion and all religious people are harming society. It is to them that my question is addressed.

[LiberalFighter]

56. I don't have a problem with anyone being a Christian...

as long as they are honest about themselves and doing it for the right reason.

Religion is necessary for some people. It provides them with a sense of purpose, of hope, of peace, of community.

Personally, I believe that ANY religion is a form of government that wants to enforce their beliefs on EVERYONE especially the extreme "Christians".

In addition, there are too many holes in the truth about Christianity that I cannot accept it. There are too many similiarities with other religions suggesting that they just copied so that others would be more willing to become Christians. Then there are the contradictions between science and faith.

Then there is the question of which is the "true" Christian religion. Supposedly, they are all basing their religion on the same bible yet they are all different. There should not be any dispute on what believers are suppose to believe and how they follow their religion. Even back during the beginning their were many different forms of the Christian religion.

I find it odd that a god would create a universe filled with stars and planets. Why? There would be no reason to do so for a god. A god would be able to create a planet able to sustain life. A god would be able to provide everything necessary in the immediate universe. Yet, there are these other galaxies.

[Philosophy]

59. Religion is epistemological laziness

I've read your blog entry and my analysis of your argument pretty much reduces to this:

Epistemological laziness

You have some level of intellectual curiosity, but you have conciously chosen to artificially limit it. There are questions "why" which you arbitrarily choose to believe are fundamentally rationally unanswerable because they are too difficult (for intellectual, emotional, or psychological reasons) for you to logically find the answer, and your religion allows you to "believe" an answer (which it also conveniently provides) without actually knowing it through knowledge acquired via a logically consistent method. Your religion actually deceives you into rejecting knowledge while simultaneously providing an emotionally satisfying justification - that the rejection of rationalism is considered a virtue, as it is in all religions. Unanswered questions make you feel uncomfortable, and ignorance is bliss, so primitive emotions have lead you to decide that achieving happiness is a more worthy goal than realizing objective truth, whenever these two conflict.

[Selwynn]

63. Laziness is insulting - how about epistemic incapacity

I don't think you know me nearly well enough to determine whether I am lazy or not. However, if you want to argue that perhaps I lack the mental capacity to see beyond belief, I'll accept that. Maybe I am just not mentally or emotionally mature enough. But I am not lazy.

Could you point me to some knowledge that my religion deceives me into rejecting. Could you also share with me some specifics of how exactly I reject rationalism?

My life is full of unanswered questions, and I find it interesting that you would assume that unanswered questions make me uncomfortable. If that were true I would have an ulcer, because I think I have more unanswered questions that answered ones.

You apparently believe that there are not questions that cannot be answered in concrete absolutes. I believe however that there are at least some parts of our lives that feel a lot like it would feel to try and describe the color blue to a blind person who had never seen blue before. Just because that would be difficult and non-concrete doesn't mean that our perception of blue isn't something that actually happens.

But I want to ask you a much more important question: you've said that I've chosen happiness over objective truth. My question to you is: why shouldn't I? Who has decided that this isn't the best choice? If I'm happy, and if my beliefs encourage me to treat others compassionately and care about their needs, and if my daily life is basically joyful (everyone has hard times, but I'd say my disposition is basically one of joy) - then why is that a problem?

Basically, despite your pronouncement on me as lazy, you really haven't answered the question. Why is my faith wrong for me? You've given me no convincing reason to be any other way. My spiritual beliefs are the main things that keep teaching me greater compassion for others, and concern over the state of the world, they are the thins which led me to my progressive politics, and the things which shape my relationships with others - not only am I happy, but I've become a good person toward the people around me, respected by them, and seen as someone willing to go the extra mile to take care of their needs, and I'm proud of that. I'm proud of the man that I have become and am becoming, and my spiritual convictions have helped me along that way?

What compelling reason could you possibly give me to change?

[Philosophy]

74. But are you sure you know what your capacity is?

The mere fact that your argument appears to admit that as soon as you are happy then you stop looking for answers that contradict your chosen, happiness-inducing beliefs would seem to indicate that you are underestimating your own epistemic capacity.

I never meant to imply there are questions that fundamentally cannot be answered. Rather there are questions that temporarily cannot be answered due to a temporary lack of knowledge. But where you seem to have a psychological need to answer these questions anyway by invoking your religion, however unscientific and irrational those answers may be, I am content to leave questions unanswered until such future time when increased knowledge will provide objective answers. And invariably these objective answers will not be the same as any previously proclaimed theosophical answers they subsequently prove false. In fact the religious answers only serve as a disincentive to seeking the real objective truth.

There is a danger in selecting your happiness as a supergoal, because 1. it is not necessarily only good things that make you happy, and 2. if your happiness is defined by fulfilling the obligations of your religion, it may not necessarily be true that your religion always tells you to do good things, therefore 1 again. So if doing good things is what directly leads you to be happy, your religion is at best redundant, and in all other cases hindering or even deceiving you. Unless you are not capable of discerning good and evil without your religion instructing you, there is no logical reason not to reject the middle-man of religion in favor of the freedom of a more pure and fundamental philosophy based on empirical fact.

[RetroLounge]

61. Who the fuck cares if you are a X-tian?

I don't...

RL

[JackDragna]

62. I'll give it a shot.

There are several reasons why I encourage liberal friends of mine to abandon Christianity, but there are two I consider most important. My main objection is based solely on empirical grounds, but there are others as well.

Firstly, you should abandon Christianity because it posits the existence of a real, physical entity whose existence cannot be empirically proven. All arguments I've seen to suggest the presence of a god is something more than metaphysical fail at some level. I feel it important for liberals to act on empiricial principles at all times, even if it means giving up a treasured religion. We are, after all, the party of pragmatism, of seeing how the world works and wanting to implement effective strategies about how to run the government. We cannot do this if we are shackled by remnants of spiritualism and magical thinking from the past.

Your attempts to refer to "God" as a feeling or your religion as the language with which to talk about the universe do little to support why you should continue to be a Christian. Many people accept a certain amount of awe or wonder about the world, but can express themselves without having to play the rhetorical trick of "we call this experience "God." Why not call the experience "flebbish?" I understand what you're getting at, but there's a little jump you're trying to make from language to concrete theology (namely, that Chrisianity is a worthwhile religion) that people shouldn't let you make. Arguing with you about religion is not like debating over whether French or English is better - it's pointing out that the concept of the existence of God is illogical and does not exist in the same way as language.

Supporting Christianity because it has made your life better may be comforting, but it's a poor reason to be a Christian or any other religion. As soon as you start arguing consequentialim in religion, you open the floodgates. Is it all right for someone to let themselves be duped by the Church of Scientology if it makes them happy? I'm glad you're currently a happy person, but there's ways of being happy that don't require supernatural appeals.

You say you are a critical thinker and examine your religion in the light of reason. I say to you, if you value reason, then you should abandon your religion because of it. I know religion can bring comfort and motivate people to do good, but it can also motivate people to do evil. When the good among us posit religion as an acceptable motivator for good deeds and a healthy lifestyle, we lose the ability to criticize those who act with ill intent because we have accepted supernaturalism as an acceptable motivator. Who's to say the correct "mystical and spiritual" path for an individual is to murder children? If you allow, as you do in your argument, a place in a person's life for mysticism, then why would actions that are attuned to societal norms be more moral than others? By adopting Christianity, you are disarming yourself of any moral clarity you pretend to have.
Now, I'll still love you and be your friend and all if you stick with Christianity. In my personal life, I have little care what religion people adopt so long as it isn't personally self-destructing. Since you asked, however, I have voiced my opinions about your religion. I look forward to hearing your comments.

Jack

[Selwynn]

68. I had a full response, clicked post and the thread was locked...

I followed it over here and now I can't get back to my comments.

I'm sorry, I wish I could, but there is just NO WAY I'm posting all of that again.

[ulysses]

65. do as you wish.

Personally, I think both sides could reflect a bit more - the anti-theists in order to remember that a lot of religious folks *are* on their side, and the religious folks in order to remember that a lot of other people who claim their religion have a lot to answer for.

Feh. They're dividing us again.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

66. Don't have a Christ, be a Christ

[Misunderestimator]

82. Wow... I really like that.

Had to read it twice.

[samplegirl]

96. Could'nt of been said better

Most people who profess to be Christian....are the ones trying to
let Bush be God

[CO Liberal]

69. You Can Be Whatever You Want to Be, Selwynn

Just afford others the same courtesy.

[Beware the Beast Man]

72. Courtesy is good, most definitely

But making broad attacks over one's beliefs is not. I think the thing that DU (and the world in general) lacks the most is respect for common people's spiritual beliefs (especially those that wish absolutely no harm upon others).

[JohnKleeb]

73. yep I think I found my common ground

score!

[CO Liberal]

75. Unfortunately....

...there are too many Christians out there who give otehr Christians a bad name. Ones like Fred Phelps who use their replgion to spread hate, and others who use their religion as justification to bomb abortion clinics or kill doctors who perform abortions.

[JohnKleeb]

77. Yes but judging a whole faith because of extremeists is wrong

This is what many right wing conservatives do Muslims, and I sure don't condone that.

[Misunderestimator]

78. Please point out to me ANYONE here who has judged all Christians

because of extremists... please. If there is someone like that, you can be sure I'll be after them too. I hate being accused of judging all Christians because of the hateful ones who hate me, since I don't do that, and I don't know anyone here who does. I also don't judge all men because of the misogynistic ones.

[JohnKleeb]

79. I don't have any links but people have said Christians are ignorant

and sheepish. Maybe they mean fundies but it reads to me like it's Christians. There are people like that and I wish I had links to prove it but its happened. Can't we say some Christians instead of Christians, I think they may be talking about fundies but how the hell am I supposed to tell? Here's a hypothetical and don't freak out at me but if a person said "Feminists piss me off" would you be upset but they actually met "Some feminists piss me off", it's not the same I realize but its the same principle, a person means some and they say the group and it seems like it. BTW I know and understand why there may be some hositility towards Christianity.

[Misunderestimator]

80. Ok, so I'll assume that there are a few people here that might do that...

But there are more than a few who say all homosexuals are sinners (based on last night's thread)... and don't tell me they mean the fundamental homosexuals as opposed to the mainstream ones (/sarcasm).

And your analogy doesn't freak me out at all. I've heard a LOT of people say that all Feminists piss them off. I haven't heard as many say that all Christians are ignorant. In fact, you hear from the MAJORITY of the right that Feminists piss them off... but you only hear from a MINORITY of the left that Christians are ignorant. Get the point? There's just no case for Christian bashing here. There are just too many others that are bashed by more people, apparently from both sides.

[JohnKleeb]

83. and I said that homosexuality wasnt a sin

Ok I don't have any links but ask any old time DUer about a guy named Liberator Rev, he went specifically after Catholicism. Of course there's only a minority on the left who says Christians are ignorant, the nation is 70% Christian after all. Check your PM btw. Yes a majority of those on the right don't like feminists and I have disagreements with some feminists on some issues.

[Misunderestimator]

84. And I'm not talking about YOU.

I'm giving you degrees of bigotry. I'm saying that there are more people who call themselves Christians who are bigoted against gays, than there are gays or anyone else who are bigoted against Christians. And there are CERTAINLY more people in this country bigoted against Jews than there are Jews or anyone else bigoted against Christians. I just think this whole thing has been blown completely out of proportion by some insensitive remarks made by a VERY few people who don't tolerate Christianity for whatever reason. Take it as a personal affront, but don't go making a blanket statement about how you're getting bashed. (And that's "you" in the general sense, as in the person who started all this nonsense, not you, JohnKleeb, in case you misunderstand me again.)

I'm one who barely tolerates Christianity myself, but I don't make a point of bashing it, since that would be hypocritical. And I barely tolerate it because of many, many, many experiences of being subjected to those extremist Christians who hate me, for whatever reason... as well as because of my hypocritical upbringing in a very "Christian" home that was not very Christian at all.

Damn... I don't come on here and say... Why is everyone bashing homosexuality, if a few people make some bigoted remarks about it.

[JohnKleeb]

85. I understand that

I don't feel people are bashing Christianity, I just feel some are and you know what I don't like it. In fact I don't think I am getting bashed as a person. Of course the anti semtism and anti gay attiude is worse than the anti Christian attiudes, and I admit damn well that intolerance of other religions is part of why I nearly became Athiest. Perhaps it was taken out of proportion but I am gonna defend my religion. I didn't say EVERYONE was bashing Christianity either, I said there are some who do.

[Misunderestimator]

86. This is the sentiment to which I am responding:

"There is so many attacks and denigrations on the faithful, on religion, on Christianity which are deemed perfectly acceptable" from the original post on this thread. Not to you. I'm talking about the thread as a whole. What is meant by "so many" in that original post? I haven't seen that many, and I have certainly not seen most people here deem them "perfectly acceptable." "So many" does not equal "Some." So... there, you're off the hook. I'm not talking about you.

[JohnKleeb]

88. and I disagree with him

That the religious as a whole are discrimianted against here. I wish I could explain what I mean but it's hard to really explain.

[Misunderestimator]

90. I think we understand eachother now.

:) I do understand what you mean that there are people out there like that.

[JohnKleeb]

91. phew

and I'll admit again that Thiest---Nonthiest discrimination is far worse than vice versa. Glad we understand. Oh and I've leaned Athiest-Agnostic before so I do know damn well that they get shit.

[CO Liberal]

94. No, I'm Not

As a former Christian, I am only judging those who deserve it - not the majority of Christians.

[JohnKleeb]

98. I understand and it's cool

[Beware the Beast Man]

108. Without a doubt.

But to smite an entire belief system becaue of a few bad apples (or, in some cases, a heirarchical structure of bad apples) is ridiculous. Sometimes I feel like I can't win: either I'm too "Christian" for the left or not "Christian" enough for the right.

[JohnKleeb]

111. ahh you can never be too christian for the left

Especially when it's a Christian who helped make you left.

[BigMcLargehuge]

76. allow me to attempt to answer you challenge

Lack of belief in the Christian doctrine, mythology, or cosmology offers you a tremendous amount of freedom both with respect to how you view the universe around you and how you adapt and react to situations. Without the need to please a diety you can truly be led by your conscience. You will do good deeds because you want to, not because you are compelled by a religion (of course, you can also do nothing, or do bad deeds as well... you get to choose though and not worry about ephemeral consequences, only real ones. i.e. will not acting break the law...). You can engage in any sort of behavior society allows without guilt or worry that it will offend some diety or break some written rule attached to a subset of the population. You can love someone unconditionally because you want to rather than because it is Christlike. You can accept someone's faults irrespective of their religion.

Suddenly, all people become equal (this is more theoretical then actual, as many atheists will look own on all people of faith)

You can enjoy your Sunday/Saturday/Friday (pick a sabbath) and enjoy it without the obligation of organized worship.

You can explore the myths and mysteries of all faiths without angering the diety in your own. You can see David Hume's arguments more clearly without the precondition that he was a heretic. You can enjoy music, films, and books that many Christians decry as heretical or blasphemous.

You can choose to enjoy or not enjoy every single day of your life without the idea that you are storing up wealth or bonus points to get you into heaven. The afterlife ceases to be important. You can live for today and plan for tomorrow and focus on what's important NOW as opposed to what will be important to heaven's admission policy.

You won't have to worry about how the universe, or life on this world started. You can say "I have no idea at all," and enjoy it because it's true. You can avoid arguments about whether Martin Luther was right, whether the Albegensianists were wrong, or the crusades were the spirital beginning of the Arab Israeli conflict. You can throw away the Left Behind books, or dismiss them as poor writing trying to push a religious agenda.

Things you can STILL do as an atheist -

Enjoy reading the bible, but as a history of a people with a VERY limited grasp of the world around them. Take moral cues from it, but a fables rather than doctrine. You can still enjoy Christian music, Handel's The Messiah, Beethoven's 9th, etc... You can still marvel at renaissance art and find beauty in works of devotion, the poetry of T.S. Eliot, and still see the power of Passion Plays. But you aren't bound to them by faith, only by appreciation for the technique, the sound, the colors, or the idea.

You can still celebrate Christmas.

You can still enjoy conversations with priests, rabbis, mullahs, reverends, but your conversations will probably be more interesting especially if you speak of faith. Some of the best conversations I've had are with people of faith, about their faith.

There, now go be an atheist. :)

:hi:

[SemiCharmedQuark]

115. But none of those things is a requirement for Christians

Basically all you have to do to be a Christian is believe that Jesus is Christ.

I don't go to church, haven't gone for years. I don't because i don't believe in the institution of the Church.
I do believe we're all equal regardless of faith
I still say "I have no clue" about the Universe.
I believe that we have an obligation to explore faiths, beliefs that are not our own, otherwise what is curiosity for?
I have studied different types of Biblical criticism and I enjoy it on different levels, from literature, to a history etc. etc.

But I'm not an atheist.

[jukes]

81. you *shd* be

jukes def shd not!

:evilgrin:

[samplegirl]

87. Because Christians seem

To want to end the world!!!!

[Beam Me Up]

92. More than a matter of language

In your blog you wrote:

The beginnings of religious traditions are always about establishing imagery, metaphor and symbol to describe what certain living experiences feel like. It isn't to say, this is who/what God is, but rather, this is what this experience islike

I don't agree with that assessment. The beginnings of religious traditions are techinical having to do with means through which one can have a direct experience of the ineffable. Only later as these "means" loose their force do the traditions become merely linguistic or descriptive. This may be why, for the most part, Christianity is a LOST TRADITION: Other than petitionary prayer, means through which one can come into direct contact with or experience immersion in the Logos have been lost, leaving a "religion" that is meant to be believed but seldom if ever experienced except sentimentally.

The real FORCE of genuine Christianity (not in quotation marks) must necessarily be transformative.

Also, consider this:

...a new experience of one's self tempts us to believe we have discovered the sole direction for the development of consciousness, aliveness or--as it is sometimes called --presence. The same machinery of explanatory thought comes into play accompanied by pragmatic programs for "action." It is not only followers of the new religions who are victims of this tendency, taking fragments of traditional teachings which have led them to a new experience of themselves and building a subjective and missionary religion around them. This tendency in ourselves also accounts, as we shall see later, for much of the fragmentation of Modern psychology, just as it accounts for the fragmentation in the natural sciences.

In order to warn us about this tendency in ourselves, the traditional teachings--as expressed in the Bhagavad-Gita, for example--make a fundamental distinction between consciousness on the one hand and the contents of consciousness such as our perceptions of things, our sense of personal identity, our emotions and our thoughts in all their color and gradations on the other hand.

This ancient distinction has two crucial messages for us. On the one hand, it tell us that what we feel to be the best of ourselves as human beings is only part of a total structure containing layers of mind, feeling and sensation far more active, subtle and encompassing (like the cosmic spheres) than what we have settled for as our best. These lawyers are very numerous and need to be peeled back, as it were, or broken through one by one along the path of inner growth, until an individual touches in himself the fundamental intelligent forces in the cosmos.

At the same time, this distinction also communicates that the search for consciousness is a constant necessity for man. It is telling us that anything in ourselves, no matter how fine, subtle or intelligent, no matter how virtuous or close to reality, no matter how still or violent--any action, any thought, any intuition or experience--immediately absorbs all our attention and automatically becomes transformed into contents around which gather all the opinions, feelings and distorted sensations that are the supports of our secondhand sense of identity. In short, we are told that the evolution of consciousness is always "vertical" to the constant stream of mental, emotional and sensory associations within the human organism, and comprehensive of them (somewhat like a "fourth dimension"). And, seen in this light, it is not really a question of concentric layers of awareness embedded like the skins of an onion within the self, but only one skin, one veil, that constantly forms regardless of the quality or intensity of the psychic field at any given moment.

Thus, in order to understand the nature of consciousness, I must here and now in this present moment be searching for a better state of consciousness. All definitions, no matter how profound, are secondary. Even the formulations of ancient masters on this subject can be a diversion if I take them in a way that does not support the immediate personal effort to be aware of what is taking place in myself in the present moment.

Jacob Needleman: "A Sense of the Cosmos" pp 21-22

[RollergirlVT]

100. I would never try to convince anyone not to be a christian....

or any other faith for that matter. But I can tell you why I am not Christian. I cannot fathom the idea of worshiping a deity that would deliberately sacrifice his only child to malicious torture and murder for the sole purpose of allowing others to have no accountability for their own actions. After all this is GOD why does GOD need an excuse to forgive the sins of his "children"? He also claims to be a vengeful GOD, these are not characteristics I would admire in any man or woman, so why in the world would I admire and worship them in an all powerful GOD?

[Pithlet]

104. You need to realize

that there are assholes in all groups. A great majority of people without faith, myself included, do not say those things. Christians aren't singled out for bashing here at DU. As a matter of fact, one cannot even criticize anything that anyone does in the name of Christianity without being accused of Christian bashing. All of these hand wringing, Oh Poor Christian Me posts do nothing for your cause. I hate to see true Christian bashing, and it should be pointed out at every turn. But, until you have lived in an atheists or agnostics shoes, I'd be VERY careful about painting us with a broad brush. It's a little like white people complaining about racism, or heterosexuals complaining about special rights for homosexuals.

I will not tell you why you should and should not believe what you do. Frankly, if anyone close to me asked me that, I would be insulted. I would feel that my own believes were also being taken to task. Like I was being put on the spot. Just a round about way of making ME have to defend MY beliefs.

I hope anyone, regardless of their beliefs, will reconsider these kinds of posts at DU, or confrontations in real life.

[RebelYell]

106. What Pithlet said n/t

[Tikki]

109. Faith should be a show of optomism.....

Religions (that would be all religions) are games. And a strange game, at that. The only winning move is not to play.

[pauliedangerously]

110. Very interesting question

First of all, I glanced at your blog but didn't read much of it because I didn't see anything new; I have considered these matters for most of my life. Second, I read about half of the posts here and got bored with them, so I decided to just write a response.

My main objection to Christianity is that it is based on falsehoods. Whoever Jesus was or may have been, he was not the product of asexual reproduction, he did not make fish from nothing, he did not part the Red Sea, and he did not die and come back to life. I didn't have to be there to know that these things did not happen; today we have knowledge of science that people didn't have back then and we know (or should know) that the four things I mentioned are impossible.

There are some good lessons on how to behave in a civilized society in the New Testament, but that doesn't validate its fictitious claims.

Most everyone basically knows right from wrong, I knew right from wrong before I ever read the Bible. I first read it when I was in my early twenties, and I was appalled by it. I was appalled by the fact that it told stories and described instances that were obviously fictitious, like the story of Adam and Eve, the story of Noah's ark, and the account of Moses talking to God to name but a few.

There are better ways to encourage civilized behavior than chastizing people with a tired old book of lies. The number one way is leading by example.

I will never assert that a creator does not exist; I often consider the possibility...in fact I entertain the idea almost every day, but I am able to distinguish beliefs from reality. Christianity blurs the line between the two, causing confusion and mental anguish. Again, I can understand the method due to the point in history in which it occured, but today, especially in this civilized nation, it is an abomination and an insult to peoples' intelligence.

My second objection to Christianity is that it releases people from taking responsibility for their own actions. If they do something wrong, they can just blame it on the Devil...or they attempt to JUSTIFY their wrongdoing by declaring that God told them to do it.

My third objection to Christianity is that it is being forced upon people. Christianity was on the decline thirty years ago and science was on the rise. Then a man named Pat Robertson, a Yale Law School graduate, decided to start the Christian Broadcasting Network, which has been pumping filth into peoples' livingrooms for over three decades...and making a heap of money to boot. These types of enterprises have been spreading like a disease.

Lastly, I object to Christianity because it isn't objective; liberal Christians claim that conservative Christians aren't real Christians; evangelicals claim that everyone else isn't a real Christian...yet they all read pretty much the same book, although there are hundreds of different versions of it. Everyone is right and wrong at the same time.

If it's a sound code of ethics you want, try Secular Humanism.

If that's not enough, if you need a faith, try Deism or Naturalism.

Just because some Christians do good things doesn't make it right. Wal-Mart and ADM support public television; does that make them good companies? I know many former drug addicts who were rehabilitated by evangelical Christians; does that make evangelical Christianity right?

Should you be a Christian or not? That is your choice. Only YOU can determine what you should or shouldn't do.

I have tried to be as civil as possible; I have read many of your posts and have no doubt about your decency. I don't expect to sway your beliefs; I am sure that your convictions are just as deep as mine.

I'm just happy to know that you're voting for Kerry in November.

:hug:

[the Princess]

112. I find this to be a very odd question on a political board

Do you really want to be convinced or are you just baiting those of us who are not christian? Because there are so many books you could read that will explain why christianity is a made up religion that you could do this all on your own in the privacy of your home. I think the question is not:

convince you that you should not be a christain

I think the question is:

explain to me why I should believe in any religion at all - since religion seems to be the real root of all evil.

[Bluebear]

113. The non-faithful have absolutely no desire to convert the faithful

The reverse does not apply, so I can understand the premise of the question, but my feeling is whatever gets you through the night.

[Rhiannon12866]

114. You should be what you are, what you believe

Don't let anyone else influence you. Only you know what you believe and what is in your heart and mind. I am sure that there is a serious backlash against the Bush* fundie attack at the last convention, but we have to rise above Bush*. We can be Christians, but decent free-thinking people, as well.:-)

[trigz]

116. George Bush is a christian as well. End of discussion (nt)

[Rhiannon12866]

126. Whoa! I take it that you're not a Christian

I am just not sure, myself, but I don't judge all Christians by one raving lunatic, who claims God told him to invade Iraq. All religions have insane members. The Muslims are stuck with Osama bin Laden, who perverts every teaching in the Koran.:shrug:

[trigz]

133. Not even baptised, dear...

...although I don't dismiss religion altogether, I fail to see what makes Christianity the One True Religion, which consequently would imply that the muslims, hindus and buddhists have all got it wrong. The same goes for other religions, of course, although I of course respect people's right and need to worship.

I believe in human rights, human ethics and solidarity. I find that to be more appropriate than religion, even though I too somehow believe in something other-worldly.

Phew. Was that a good explanation or what?! :)

[Rhiannon12866]

134. An excellent explanation. And that's pretty much the way I feel, too

I was baptized and forced to go to church, as a kid, which was a definite turn-off. Any vestiges of belief that I still had pretty much evaporated when my father died, at far too young an age and after a lot of suffering that he sure didn't deserve. And my dad had unwavering faith, so I couldn't understand why this had to happen to him. I was very angry.

When he was gone, he left a very big hole. He had a very responsible job, was well-known and respected and did a lot of good in the community, even though he was a Republican. This born-again guy at work tried to talk to me, at the time, which was absolutely the wrong thing to do.

Also, those who go to church, like my mother and George Bush*, somehow think that this is enough, that it doesn't matter if they are bullies or abusive or harm other people, because they consider themselves Christians. They think that this somehow absolves them of everything. I think the way we choose to live our lives and how we treat others, everyday, is infinitely more important than getting up and sitting through a church service once a week. I haven't been inside a church since my grandmother's funeral, six years ago. I had to speak. Oh, wait, I did go to one wedding, but that's it.:shrug:

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

117. Instead, I'll recommend a book for you to read:

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?isbn=0345409469

[hyphenate]

118. You don't have to do anything you don't want to

I firmly believe that people should be allowed to worship as they please. If they want to take that leap of faith and stick to whatever beliefs that will comfort them, then go to it.

I have no beef with people who are religious--in fact, it's an interesting insight into their minds, and a way to see in which direction they are going. What I DO mind is when some of these people, those who are so far to the right that they're teetering over the edge, start trying to ram their beliefs down my throat, and trying to claim moral superiority just because they can't keep it to themselves.

Religion is whatever you want to make it to be. I know people who have never set foot into a church, synagogue or other holy place, and who are far more pious than anyone who attends church on a regular basis. It's not necessarily that they are more "religious" but that they embody true spiritualism. They don't need to force themselves on others--they preach by their own example.

The question, though, is this: if you believe in the things which the Christian faith is all about, then you are a Christian, whether you are a churchgoing person or not. Some people are quite happy living in a very tightly woven world of faith, and that faith will often dictate to them a set of morals and tenets which they follow without hesitation.

I don't think you can really choose to be a Christian if it's not something you already have an affiliation with.

Some people who are religious find it very hard to imagine a secular person having any set of morals. Many of them feel that it is religious faith and belief that gives most people their moral center. I contend that it is not a religious element that gives us high character, but the way you were raised and your own, deeply imbedded soul that lets you know what is right and what is wrong.

If you believe, then be a Christian, or whatever other faith you choose. If you don't believe, then regardless of how much time you spend in a religious community you aren't going to be comfortable enough to stick with it.

[Blue-Jay]

120. Honestly, I don't give a fuck WHAT you are.

I don't have a problem with "people of faith", even though I'm an atheist. I can respect people's beliefs up to the point that they don't interfere with mine, or the direction of my government.

Aside from that, you can believe in whatever you want, and you'll get no argument from me. All I want is for people to keep religion out of government.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

121. selwynn..I like you..be a Christian but stop using it to get attention

because in actuality, that is all this thread has accomplished.

[kick-ass-bob]

122. Who cares?

Just don't force your views on me, and I'll leave you be.

:shrug:

[Coyote_Bandit]

123. The Word "Christian"

has come to represent a political agenda rather than a statement of ones personal faith. And the two are not necessarily consistent.

Your personal faith is your choice and your responsibility.

If you choose to be Christian you ought then to live a life that is consistent with and advocates Christian principles. Among those being your brother's keeper and not judging others. Even Scripture states that all of the law can be summed up as "love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul and spirit and love your neighbor as yourself."

There really are very few things more offensive than folks who violate these basic Christian teachings, maliciously hurt others and feel justified because they are acting in God's name. Makes me feel sorry for God.

[Wat_Tyler]

124. Why do you care what others say or think?

You can't change what others think, so I see little gain for you in picking at this particular scab.

[Lexingtonian]

127. Gee, what a nice fair query there!

Convince me not to be a person of faith, tell me why I am wrong to hold to my personal beliefs

Now, why exactly should we not want you to be a reasonable and socialized human being?

and be a Christian.

It would be nice to know exactly what aspects and particulars of the label you do and don't embrace. Not to attack them, but to see a bit of your convictions.

As I recall, the unique parts of Christianity are the ones surrounding the concept of Sin and the dogmas of Salvation and Mediation by Christ. My problems with them begin with these two thoughts:

-Where and why does the Jewish concept of averah, which would be the Hebrew Bible's approach to understanding wrongdoing, fail? (It presumes the Covenant to be binding.)

-Why does traditional Christianity make it logically impossible to be both a Christian and a Mystic- and yet has declared a great number of mystics its saints, reformers, and greatest exemplars?

This is not to convince you that you should not be a Christian, at all. It is necessary to you to be one for some set of reasons, and those are yours to consider and weigh. Still, the time may come when you do not find enough to the traditional answers and will have to find new sources and new answers outside the traditional framework.

[VOX]

128. One thing troubles me about Christianity, and that's its exclusivity...

You will hear this notion from the most stringent fundamentalist sects, all the way down to the loosey-goosey, guitar-playing, Christ-as-hippy meet-ups. Basically, it goes something like this:

All religions are gifts from God. But Christianity stands apart from all other beliefs in that Jesus Christ is a limited edition of one -- God made into flesh, one time only. There is no other genuine way to reach God but through Jesus. Etc., etc.

I have a major problem with this exclusivity. Firstly, it makes Jesus something of a freak -- something to be put in a glass case and worshiped, but not used. Second, it means that all men and women cannot be sons and daughters of God -- Jesus, and only Jesus, had the singular privilege of being the boss's son. Finally, it relegates all other world beliefs into the "nice try" category.

Although I can understand and admire the crafting of a faith in following Jesus, I chafe against this exclusivity, and find it nearly impossible to reconcile.

[Amaya]

132. No one can convince you to put faith in anything

You must decide this on your own.

I grew up in a multi-religious home. My mother is Catholic and my father is Jewish. I feel it gave me a well rounded view and I feel fortunate to have been brought up in such a way.
Personally, I don't believe you have to part of an organized religion to live a full and happy life.