The Christianity Thread

Yeah, if you put that trope in a different story he would generally usually be the bad guy, or at least a very strong anti-hero.

That's unfortunately what happens all too often during these types of discussions...including this one. My point was that there's a certain privilege that religious concepts cannot be offensive, and that's a pretty bad privilege in my mind.

They can be, and they often are. So is outright atheism really. But I'm not going to shy away from that. It is what it is.

But along the same lines, I'm not going to shy away from the point that I think that monotheism is morally problematic. I think that more often than not it leads to bad moral ends rather than good moral ends. And I think that a big problem with Christianity...especially the GOOD flavors of Christianity is that they still embrace monotheism in tradition instead of moving past it, something which I think is much more in line with what a lot of people actually believe or are open towards.

The difference, of course, is if you see "God" as being a specific unique entity or something non-specific, along the lines of pantheism or other such belief in the system as a whole.

When you use the term "God", people assume..as they should, I might add...that you're referring to a specific, unique, interventionist deity. Because that's kinda what the word means. And I do think that actual belief in this is, again, very morally problematic. But my experience is that people kind of run away from this definition.

So maybe "offended" isn't the right word. Maybe it's better to say that I think you're promoting bad values, even if that's not intended. (And I'm going to say that it's probably not)

edited 24th Nov '11 5:20:10 AM by Karmakin

Democracy is the process in which we determine the government that we deserve

I find the idea that God has the right to tell us what to do is immoral and impossible. Consider the role of a parent. a parent doesn't have the "right" to threaten his children. Is anything, a parent's role is ultimately one of total responsibility to his children. We even have laws that say a parent can have his children taken away if he abuses them. Moreover, children are expected to leave their parents eventually. It is not a good parent who expects his children to be obedient to him for their whole lives.

What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.

Yes, because wanting people to love each other, and torturing them, basically the same thing.

Still Sheepin'

Fair enough, you think that monotheism is morally problematic, and that my religion promotes bad values. This is something that it's possible to have a discussion about — chances are that you won't convince me and I won't convince you, and since neither of us is a trained theologian/philosopher it is highly unlikely that we will open any sort of new ground in the discussion, but still it's something that can be done.

However, the main disagreement about monotheism I see in your post is that

I disagree with this, obviously; but still, even if it were true that monotheism tends to lead to bad moral ends, this would not tell us anything about whether monotheism is or is not true.

As I see it, monotheism is ultimately a necessary consequence of the very high opinion that Abrahamic religions have of the worth of human beings. It is unworthy of us to submit to anything that is less than all-powerful and perfect — and yeah, this includes ourselves too: being slaves to our natures would be just as humiliating as being slaves to anything else.

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

Yes, because wanting people to love each other, and torturing them, basically the same thing.

Aside from the fact that many historical depictions of God, including the OT and Revelation, show something that is at best a Knight Templar, it doesn't matter what he does with us. It's still immoral to take possession of sentient beings.

A single phrase renders Christianity a delusional cult

Depends on what you mean by "possession". It is immoral to enslave sentient beings, on this I can agree; but this is not what God does, not in the least.

Really, it is strange. The Christian God gets criticized for not intervening in a direct enough way to protect humankind from pain, and for being some sort of tyrant...

edited 24th Nov '11 8:23:42 AM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

It's more because of how his character is portrayed and because of the Stocholm Syndrome like aspects of theological philosophies. The criticisms that he doesn't act or that he's a tyrant, or that he/it is good, need not to be exclusive, since we have no idea what he/it actually is like.

A single phrase renders Christianity a delusional cult

Well, the assumption really has to be that if such a being does exist, and can intervene in our world, and chooses not to in cases of blatant wrong, then said deity must approve of that wrong.

That's the way the tropes play out, to be honest. Now, one could argue that it's for our own good or something like that. But again, I think that it tends to result in more moral negatives than moral positives right here and right now.

Although, I will be fair. I also think that this is a trend that wanes and flows, and again, it has to do with how strong theistic belief is in religions and society as a whole. I actually think that theistic belief is at a bit of a high point right now, and as such it's particularly striking, and it may have to do with a backlash against increased secularism/non-belief.

Democracy is the process in which we determine the government that we deserve

I consider Geneforge 3 the best metaphor I've ever seen for certain branches of Christianity, despite being completely unintentional. The Shapers, the drakons, the rebels, and serviles map surprisingly well to God, demons, other religions (especially the Satanism that Jasonwill espouses), and the common man. (Granted, this isn't exactly kind to God, but it's even more unkind to rebellion against Him . . .)

edited 24th Nov '11 5:23:24 PM by feotakahari

That's Feo . . . He's a disgusting, mysoginistic, paedophilic asshat who moonlights as a shitty writer—Something Awful

I do find that odd, Carciofus. People saying 'you can't play the free will card to excuse God from fixing the world', and then turn around and say 'If God exists he is evil for taking our free will'. It doesn't make much sense to me, I will admit.

Be not afraid...

^ I don't actually believe in free will—I just think that God's evil if he makes us suffer. Ours is a world that contains much suffering, and a lot of people use their conceptions of God to promote further suffering, so I argue against those conceptions of God. (Then again, if I recall correctly, you have also argued against those conceptions of God . . .)

That's Feo . . . He's a disgusting, mysoginistic, paedophilic asshat who moonlights as a shitty writer—Something Awful

There are evils in the world (might be better to say bad things) that don't involve free will. Natural disasters being a really good example of this.

Although to be honest, I'm much less concerned with questions of existence as I am about the moral and ethical considerations of belief in said existence. I oppose common forms of monotheism not because it's wrong or untrue...there's a lot of wrong or untrue beliefs in the world I couldn't care less about, deism I think is still wrong but I think that it's a harmless belief..but because of the thought patterns that can arise from that concept.

Edit: To wrap it all together, for strong monotheists, natural disasters are obviously "God's Will". Now, how people react to that differs. You ignore helping the victims because they obviously deserved it, or you might see it as an opportunity to spread the word or an opportunity just to help people. I actually think all these things are problematic at some level (Even if you're helping people I think motive matters...if you don't have the right motives I think that HOW you help people can go quite awry.). That's not to say all Christians believe this, but that's because no matter what they say, I do not believe that all or even most Christians are strong monotheists or monotheistic at all.

I just think that the continuation of using monotheistic language, imagery and tradition empowers those that are strong monotheists. And needless to say I think this is a bad thing.

edited 26th Nov '11 4:56:09 AM by Karmakin

Democracy is the process in which we determine the government that we deserve

I think it is an accusation that God designed immature, faulty software, so to speak, and the faulty software (e.g. human nature) runs rather badly when given the freedom to do so due to its natural predisposition.

With cannon shot and gun blast smash the alien. With laser beam and searing plasma scatter the alien to the stars.

Just to comment on the whole "insulting" thing from a little while back, I must say, I never understood why the non-religious would ever find religious concepts to be insulting. Quaint? Sure. Odd? Certainly. Perhaps somewhat wonky and deserving of the term "stupid?" Depends on how confrontational you are. But insulting?

I think you take things way too seriously and way too personally to be insulted by the beliefs of religious people. A Christian, for example, tells me that I cannot be a moral person without believing in his or her God. Uh, whatever? I don't give a damn what they think, because I don't agree. It's not like they can prove that in any capacity, so it's just not relevant what they think on the matter. My opinion, for that matter, is just as non-falsifiable and just as non-objective, so it's not like they should be offended by anything I think, either.

It's just not relevant, in my mind. I don't get it.

~shrug~

I am now known as Flyboy.

Theoretically, people should not give a damn. In practise, people still have morals and standards despiste not having a justification for them.

edited 27th Nov '11 4:38:44 AM by Gannetwhale

A single phrase renders Christianity a delusional cult

Well, I think that's more of a personal point of view of not caring what people think than anything else. I guess that's a good attitude to have, but at the same time, my point is the very real double standard that exists.

I think it's a bigger insult to be called evil than to be called stupid/irrational. I don't see how one can see otherwise. Yet people make a huge massive deal about the latter but say absolutely nothing about the former.

Democracy is the process in which we determine the government that we deserve

Well, I think some people might find it degrading, in a way.

For example, if Christina were to tell Richard that all of the good things he has ever done actually came from God, he could think that dehumanizes him, to an extent. He could feel a bit shunted, because the things he did just to be a good person are credited to someone else, and Christina still might think that he's a bad person.

And it goes the other way: If Richard told Christina that he thinks she is just a pile of chemicals that happened to be lucky enough to achieve life and then be successful for millions of years, she could think that that made her less special, less unique, because in her mind, she is being watched over by a loving God that made her specially for her role in life (because she's obviously Evangelical).

That's just one possibility. (Two really, but who's counting?)

edited 29th Nov '11 6:02:31 PM by TheEarthSheep

Still Sheepin'

It's always offensive, no matter who you are, to be told that your core beliefs are wrong. It's perfectly natural to reject a system of beliefs that appear to contradict your own core beliefs. Many people consider it a worthy goal and a sign of maturity to be able to get over the offended feelings and try to learn something from a point of view that you disagree with. It's both rational to do so, and a Christian duty.

"We learn from history that we do not learn from history."

(Ignore the comment)

edited 30th Nov '11 4:34:08 AM by Gannetwhale

A single phrase renders Christianity a delusional cult

I want this thread back, but I'm not sure if bumping is allowed here...

I'll bump it anyway.

/bump/

Still Sheepin'

It might be more effective if you added a substantive comment. The previous discussion seems to have come to a natural conclusion, where would you like to go from here?

I found this discussion interesting. Basically supporting the idea that Christianity is not a set of doctrines.

"We learn from history that we do not learn from history."

I know, I just couldn't think of one.

But I take issue with this bit:

Christianity is never static. You are not a Christian because you live a certain way, do or don’t do certain things, or believe or disbelieve certain ideas.

While this is true, it doesn't take into account the fact that very few people describe themselves as "Christian". They describe themselves as "Lutheran" or "Catholic" or "Orthodox Christian", all of which do have relatively strictly defined tenets and modes of living.

Still Sheepin'

Hm, good point... maybe thats why I dont identify as any of those things...

"We learn from history that we do not learn from history."

Perhaps most accurately our faith could be considered just that, a faith in what we believe to be the word and deed of our Lord. Maybe it could be considered a specific Ideal rather than a set of core stipulations, a deep desire to become a disciple of Christ and to internalize his teachings. The specific rituals and tenets in each denomination's are born of different Christians' ideas of how to pursue that discipleship in the best way.

I kick arse for the Lord!

Eh... I always found the stark divisions between Christian—and indeed, any religion, but Christianity especially because I'm most familiar with it—denominations to be amusing.

Worshiping Jesus together just isn't good enough, of course; gotta have those rituals and minor beliefs straight!

~shakes head~

I am now known as Flyboy.