Is the condemnation of a monolithic Christianity fair?

[johnmarc]

It has been awhile since I have been on the forum (and certainly hope that this visit is a short one)

Been puzzled by the following:

Question for debate: Is the statement, “Religion/Christianity is evil/immoral/stupid/illogical (insert your own negative adjective here) a valid statement or does it suffer from prejudice---a discriminatory statement as discrimination is usually defined.

I have been around long enough to know that there hasn’t been a disparaging phrase that has not been applied to Christianity on this forum. But are any of them fair?

It is not unusual to hear the following position:

There are a thousand (and more) different Christianities. The weight of those competing views should rule out any sense that Christianity is valid---how would one know if one or any were the ‘correct’ Christianity. It would certainly rule out any sense that Christianity is one monolithic ‘whole’.

I am calling the above statement, accurate. I would suppose that most all detractors of religion would be similarly disposed.

If that is true, then any blanket statement that praises or condemns Christianity must be false. One must identify the Christianity in question to describe it accurately.

The reason that I say this is that I live in the liberal Pacific Northwest where many Christian churches are outspoken allies of liberal positions. First Methodist here in Tacoma, was among the first and loudest voices in the early struggle for equal rights for the LGBT community. Without going into complete detail, I suppose that the most ardent atheist would praise the vast majority of community programs in which this church is involved. They are by no means alone. There are as many liberal Presbyterian, Methodist, and Episcopal churches here as conservative. The United Church of Christ is liberal as are many Evangelical Lutheran which are evangelical (conservative) in name only.

Are all of these churches included in your disparagement?

The Northern Baptist split from the Southern Baptist during the time of the Civil War. One used the Bible to uphold slavery and the other used the Bible to condemn slavery. Are they both to be painted with the same brush?

I was told once by a member of this forum that 60% of Christians represent the worst 1%. If we discard the math for a moment, is it true that 60% of Christians hold the same positions as the Westboro Baptist Church? Or are churches ‘different’ and deserving praise or condemnation in their own right?

I am a member of a moderate Presbyterian Church in Pierce County with the explicit understanding that I do not believe in a literal God or a literal Bible. The birth, death, and resurrection of Jesus is rendered as meaningful metaphor---not literal flesh and blood. I believe that there are a few million of us running around here and there throughout the country---a small but growing minority. Europe must be up to their armpits with folks like me.

I would suppose that you can call the church whatever you like, but it would be productive to define it first. Many of you are kicking allies in the teeth. Liberal Christian churches will continue to be fairly obscure until liberal folk are more precise in their condemnations in general.

[johnmarc]

I'm all for what you, johnmarc represent about Christianity. I find you very kind, rational and fair. My point in all this is to show that confusing one self-professed Christian with another'n is so easy to do - until such time as the individual Christians set to explaining he doesn't buy into the goofier, more hateful aspects. And how when such hateful and slanderous language is presented in the Bible, we shouldn't be faulted for thinking those who promote the Bible also promote those aspects of it some others of us find so repugnant.

You hate the Bible. I love the Bible. That's good. Let's sit down and discuss it. But not on this thread. I know you to be a smart, responsible individual with excellent debate skills. This would be challenging for me---I look forward to it.

I presented on two different occasions in this thread some really horrid tales of Christians whose beliefs informed their actions. As I type nobody's bothered to dispute they're Christians, nor dispute their personal religious beliefs are fundamentally flawed..

I did not look at those examples because they were not pertinent to this thread. However, I am not the judge of who is a Christian and who is not. There is ample evidence to show that Christianity has been used in some incredibly immoral ways---Are they bad Christians or non-Christians? That is a rhetorical fine point that I have no control over. I have no problem condemning immoral actions justified by a selfish reading of the Bible. There is a great deal of condemnation of conservative literal interpretations of the Bible in Progressive Christianity.

I propose that you, as a liberal Christian, may well do best to start hollering about the wrong stuff some of your bunch does, than to holler about how wrong we are for looking in your metaphorical church and noticing some of 'em sitting in the pews sure are a hateful bunch.

What exactly does my bunch do? Apparently, I could go on for days describing the differences between my beliefs and conservative beliefs and still be lumped into the conservative literal church. Why is that? It addresses the OP perfectly. How is it possible that we can have a clear understanding of just how fragmented the Christian church is and still have the church as a whole labeled, 'my bunch'. Yes, there are hateful Christians out there. My 'bunch' is trying to do something about it. It wouldn't hurt at some point to realize that my bunch is not their bunch.

[Zzyzx]

.

How could something that exists as myth have failed miserably?

A myth presented as though it was literal truth can (and should) fail miserably to be convincing.

One of the main problems with this kind of discussion is that detractors see the stories as imaginary and then argue against them as if they were literal.

Many, whether "detractors" or not, challenge tales presented as though they were literal truth. They need not believe the tales in order to argue against any position claiming they are literal.

One can challenge tales about the Easter Bunny from the point of view that the tales and the character are imaginary. The same is true for tales told about invisible, undetectable, supernatural entities and events.

God doesn't exist. Jesus only exists as example. I am not evangelical nor am I literal. It is impossible for me to respond responsibly to questions that are framed in a literal context.

Those who find it impossible to respond responsibly to questions are not required to respond at all. Complaining about questions contributes nothing to debate.

I have not yet begun to share my approach yet. I have no idea why you think that you have any understanding of my approach at all.

An OP and thirteen posts in this thread may share more about one's "approach" than they suspect.

[Elijah John]

[quote="Divine Insight

I reject the Biblical stories as being utterly stupid, extremely unrealistic (even if I allow a supernatural God to exist), and ultimately immoral.

I also "despise" any ancient authors and clergy who may have been contributing this nonsense knowing full well that it's total BS. And I highly suspect that there were actually quite a few who knew it as BS. I feel sorry for those who couldn't even tell that it was BS.

You claim that Jesus and God are "Real" yet you also claim to reject the Bible literally and take these only as metaphors. As far as I'm concerned that's total nonsense. Moreover, as far as I'm concerned any God who would condone a story that has his very own priests calling for the brutal crucifixion of his son would be an immoral sick God even if the story was purely metaphorical and no actual demigod was harmed in the process.

Even as a metaphor it's emotionally and intellectually sick, IMHO.

I believe I have already stated earlier that I'm not a strong atheist. None the less I wouldn't blame any atheists for making a laughing stock out of your claims. I think it's more than "fair" of them to do so.





I think it's perfectly "fair" for atheists to have a field day with you and make you the laughing stock of the town.



But that's not what you are requesting. You are EVANGELIZING, and proclaiming that Jesus and God are REAL.

That's "preaching".

And therefore demanding that you provide compelling evidence to back up your silly proclamations is more than fair.

You claim that you want a nice "quiet place" to talk about this. But all you are asking for is a chance to "evangelize" without being interrogated for PROOF of your claims.

I don't even believe in a judgmental God that is out to damn me. So don't even talk to me about any Jesus Savior.

In fact, I would even say that you sir are being "dishonest".

The reason I say this is because on the one hand you claim that you don't take Jesus and God literally, and then on the other hand you demand that they are "real".

Personally I think that's an extremely dishonest tactic. You are most certainly not the first evangelist who has used this dishonest tactic. In fact, this kind of tactic is actually quite common in evangelism.[/quote]

Moderator Warning[/color


Do not accuse others of being dishonest. That is a personal attack. Also, uncivil in tone. Also, if you think someone is evangelizing, report them for violating preaching guidelines, and moderators will judge.

And the rhetoric in your post here can be considered over the top rant. Please tone it down.


Please review our [url=http://www.debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6]Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[johnmarc]

Back when I was a Christian seeking to "preach" the word of God, I too sought to a "softer kinder" version of Jesus. In fact, that was quite easy for me because that's how I viewed Jesus from the get go.

I was going back over this thread to see how we got so derailed and happened on this. Perhaps it will help and perhaps it will not.

I grew up in conservative Yakima Valley and attended 'The Old Stone Church---Assembly of God. We were called the Holy Rollers. I never did see anyone roll in the aisles, but speaking in tongues (and interpreting tongues) was an almost weekly diversion. I grew up in that church until we moved at age ten.

But never once in in those ten years did I believe in God. It was great showmanship and great entertainment, but never once did I take it seriously. As a result, I never ended up with the baggage that comes with "God drowned the world." I never ended up with a God that I needed to 'get even' with.

Our contexts are completely different. You see an evil God and I see a storybook filled with stories. I don't know what it feels like to be close to a God that disappoints you. I have been sent to Hell at least ten thousand times---what does that mean exactly when one has never seen Hell as any other than Sunday morning entertainment? It is just something that I cannot get riled up over.

Heated rhetoric over a book filled with mythological structures is just something that I cannot get my head around. It is just words. Yes, those words have been used to commit travesties but had that book not been written, those same travesties would have been committed in the name of another book.

People are cruel to each other. They shouldn't be. (I got that from the Bible)

[Divine Insight]

I don't know what it feels like to be close to a God that disappoints you.

Neither do I.

People are cruel to each other. They shouldn't be. (I got that from the Bible)

I don't know why you would need the Bible for that. You should be able to see that just from looking around you.

Moreover, if you look around you carefully you'll notice that the vast majority of people around you are not cruel to each other at all. That, of course, could depend on precisely where you live, and how locally you look.

I think the stats for world crimes says it all. In almost all cultures the percentage of the population that actually commit violent criminal acts is typically less than 1% to 2% of the population.

This is hardly a world where the bulk of humans are cruel to each other.

In fact, I would hold out that this behavior of humans in general actually refutes the Bible's claim that men who "reject the Biblical God" are sinners who lust for evil over good. That is clearly false.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 41:

You hate the Bible. I love the Bible. That's good. Let's sit down and discuss it. But not on this thread. I know you to be a smart, responsible individual with excellent debate skills. This would be challenging for me---I look forward to it.

Set up a thread, we'll have at 'er.

I did not look at those examples because they were not pertinent to this thread. However, I am not the judge of who is a Christian and who is not.

Extreme examples to prove a point about how it can be difficult to know what form of Christianity one follows, when all we see are "they're Christians".

There is a great deal of condemnation of conservative literal interpretations of the Bible in Progressive Christianity.

Let's hope those voices become louder and louder, 'cause what I perceive is that conservatives have the ears of the public, as it were.

I propose that you, as a liberal Christian, may well do best to start hollering about the wrong stuff some of your bunch does, than to holler about how wrong we are for looking in your metaphorical church and noticing some of 'em sitting in the pews sure are a hateful bunch.

What exactly does my bunch do? Apparently, I could go on for days describing the differences between my beliefs and conservative beliefs and still be lumped into the conservative literal church.

What I'm getting at is that while you're perfectly justified to get onto me and some of my bunch when we carry on, that it could serve us all well if you get onto some of yours - that broad category of Christian, liberal or conservative who do a disservice to the religion, a disservice to humankind, a disservice to freedom. Granted, I find liberal Christians far less problematic, but it'd surely be more effective for the liberal Christian to engage the conservative, than for me to hafta do it.

Alas, above you said you had no right to tell who is, and who ain't a Christian, which - perception being reality - tells me that you take less issue with those who damn Christianity from within, and concentrate on us who damn it from without.

Why is that? It addresses the OP perfectly. How is it possible that we can have a clear understanding of just how fragmented the Christian church is and still have the church as a whole labeled, 'my bunch'.

'Cause like it or not, right or wrong, when someone does them something goofy, and profess they did it 'cause they're Christian, us who can't always tell y'all apart set to thinking it's all of ya.

I'm in the other boat, where my doing me a goofy, and I do me plenty, it can impact how others perceive atheists.


And you're making the start here, by demonstrating your rationality, and explaining to us all how it is there's some of y'all Christians who not only do y'all don't do no goofy, y'all ain't even goofy to begin with. YOUR VOICE NEEDS TO BE HEARD!

I encourage you to invite more of your like-minded Christians to spread y'all's message here in these debates, and out there where society is.

You, Micatala, and the now offline Jester do much to help show that the vitriol coming so loudly, and so oftenly from the right, has gotten y'all painted in the wrong paint, much less the wrong color.

Yes, there are hateful Christians out there. My 'bunch' is trying to do something about it. It wouldn't hurt at some point to realize that my bunch is not their bunch.

Fer sher, and you've engaged in a process others of your ilk have, if only to me, only just begun.

My background is such, and my paranoia is such, that in order to "get over myself", I came to this site in an effort to make sense of it all. It's been a long road, but it's working. Through therapy, and learning here, I'm starting to see that my paranoia drives my fear of the religious, more'n the religious drive my paranoia.

Unfortunately, after a lifetime of living with my perceptions, it's a long road to go from "all Christians are >insert insult<", to where now I'm at, "Well how 'bout that, there's some of 'em I done grown to love".

Bring me and my bunch to see that there's far more of y'all Christians to love, than there are to hate.

[Divine Insight]

You hate the Bible. I love the Bible. That's good. Let's sit down and discuss it. But not on this thread. I know you to be a smart, responsible individual with excellent debate skills. This would be challenging for me---I look forward to it.

You keep saying this. So why don't you then just start thread to discuss what you would like to discuss.

If I were going to discuss the Bible with someone from scratch I think we should start at the very beginning.

I would be more than happy to do that. I can't imagine being convinced of even just the first three chapters of Genesis.

[johnmarc]

You hate the Bible. I love the Bible. That's good. Let's sit down and discuss it. But not on this thread. I know you to be a smart, responsible individual with excellent debate skills. This would be challenging for me---I look forward to it.

Set up a thread, we'll have at 'er.

I don't know what you want---I suppose I want an area where I will not be ganged up on---there is just no way to sufficiently respond to twelve different condemnations coming from twelve different contexts. Not interested in anything formal---no particular win or lose---just a conversation that honestly tries to muddle through all of this.

Open Dialogue? Head to Head? You choose. I suppose we are on the topic Love/hate the Bible. You know more about how to set this up than I do.

Bring me and my bunch to see that there's far more of y'all Christians to love, than there are to hate.

I wish that I could be so optimistic. There will probably be more to hate than to love for quite some time. I am just hoping to become less invisible.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 40 by bluethread]

If it's supernatural atheistic mysticism then yes, I do consider it religious, otherwise I generally would either consider it an ideology, or just word play and overindulgence in poetry. (I'd lean towards the latter for a naturalistic mysticism, similar to those who'd call the Universe 'God' and mean nothing else by it.)
As I said before, my view of religion is that it's similar to an ideology, but generally has supposedly supernatural elements. I admit that my definition isn't amazingly precise, but the mainstream impression of Christianity is certainly a religion - that's one of the ways to appropriate the attributes implied by a definition.

[Divine Insight]

I don't know what you want---I suppose I want an area where I will not be ganged up on---there is just no way to sufficiently respond to twelve different condemnations coming from twelve different contexts. Not interested in anything formal---no particular win or lose---just a conversation that honestly tries to muddle through all of this.

You could probably use the forum entitled "Questions for a Specific User"

Once you have a specific person you have agreed to discuss something specific with just set up a little conversation topic in that forum. That should work. It's not a debate forum so it would just be for causal conversation.