board77

TheEllipticalDisillusion wrote:

Until religion starts proving that it has some value

Christianity at least is about love and tolerance and I see a lot of them trying to help people in poorer nations. I don't get how that isn't of value.




*E*

We "help" poor people, very often, by trying to run their lives. Cuz we're rich we MUST be smarter, right?

Please don't get me started on the harm done by Christian missionaries in the guise of trying to help people. It was never about love and tolerance. And, by and large, it still isn't.

"Love thy neighbour as thyself"? Can't be done. Against Nature and against common sense. If the command had been, "Please remember that your neighbour is a human being, just like you, and he has the same rights as you do, and he is as valuable as you are in the Great Scheme of Things", that is realistic and moreover it is intensely important in the endeavor we all share of trying to get along with each other.

Maybe that's what Jesus meant, if there was a Jesus and if he said anything at all.

I really must try to stay out of these threads.

Why? As far as I can tell, the discussion has been polite and friendly so far.

vison wrote:

We "help" poor people, very often, by trying to run their lives. Cuz we're rich we MUST be smarter, right?

... wut?




*E*

*E*V*E*N*S*T*A*R* wrote:

TheEllipticalDisillusion wrote:

Until religion starts proving that it has some value

Christianity at least is about love and tolerance and I see a lot of them trying to help people in poorer nations. I don't get how that isn't of value.




*E*

Most religions teach this...Compassion and tolerance is the main teaching in Buhddism. I think that it is also tought in the Jewish faith.

However, as with any belief system if one group of people gets it in their heads that they are the one's God is talking too and that God doesn't like what so and so is doing, it's pretty easy to dehumanize 'those' people. When you wrap it in patriotism it gets worse. And honestly I don't see much difference between which God or Country it is, if one thinks my God thinks my Country is the Chosen Land and we are the Chosen People, everyone else is not right, really evil things happen. Then at that point everyone else becomes less human and thus easier to kill.


It makes it easier to say the Brits and Canadians just don't understand how down trodden they are under their bad health care system. The French are nothing but commies and have lost their way. Or that Americans are infidels. Or Jews are lesser people. Or Black people are lesser people. Most of these hates....I would almost say all of them.... are based on someone somewhere saying that they know that God has revealed to them what needs to be done.


And if one believes in the Devil one could see throughout human history that he uses this ploy often because it works so very well.

vison wrote:

Please don't get me started on the harm done by Christian missionaries in the guise of trying to help people. It was never about love and tolerance. And, by and large, it still isn't.

Having worked for two Christian mission agencies, both of which were extremely well educated about the preposterous colonial imperialism of the past, this is an outdated stereotype, Vison. And not a view shared by many indigenous Christians from the Two-Thirds World who I have met. They rejected the imperialism, sure, but they didn't necessarily reject the faith.

Quote:

"Love thy neighbour as thyself"? Can't be done.

Of course it can't be done.

Not without becoming a new sort of person.

Quote:

Against Nature and against common sense. If the command had been, "Please remember that your neighbour is a human being, just like you, and he has the same rights as you do, and he is as valuable as you are in the Great Scheme of Things", that is realistic and moreover it is intensely important in the endeavor we all share of trying to get along with each other.

Yeah, but Jesus has never exactly danced to our tune.

Plus, 'love your neighbour as yourself' is more pithy and memorable.


P.S. As for that pastor quoted in the first post, well ... and

*E*V*E*N*S*T*A*R* wrote:

Christianity at least is about love and tolerance

Religions can only be about whatever their adherents think they're about. Some liberal types might say that Christianity is about love, but most would tell you that while it involves love, what it's about is the one true path to salvation through faith. Very few would say it's about tolerance; in fact, in many circles "tolerance" is almost a dirty word.

Dave_LF wrote:

Some liberal types might say that Christianity is about love, but most would tell you that while it involves love, what it's about is the one true path to salvation through faith. Very few would say it's about tolerance; in fact, in many circles "tolerance" is almost a dirty word.

Just wondering where you are getting your statistics of "most" and "very few."

MOST mainstream Protestant churches in the US (ie: Presbyterians, Methodists, Episcopalians, Congregationalists, etc) WILL, in fact tell you it is about Love. "Tolerance" is certainly not a dirty word...for Unitarians and Quakers, it's practically a mantra. And the idea that there are, in fact, many paths to the Divine is an idea espoused by MANY modern and mainstream churches. Not just "some liberal types" (and you make THAT sound like dirty word yourself!)

Not all Christian denominations are Holy-Rollers-Fire-and-Brimstone-Only-One-Way-to-Heaven- and-It's-Our-Way types. Not by a long shot.

jewelsong wrote:

MOST mainstream Protestant churches in the US (ie: Presbyterians, Methodists, Episcopalians, Congregationalists, etc) WILL, in fact tell you it is about Love. "Tolerance" is certainly not a dirty word...for Unitarians and Quakers, it's practically a mantra. And the idea that there are, in fact, many paths to the Divine is an idea espoused by MANY modern and mainstream churches. Not just "some liberal types" (and you make THAT sound like dirty word yourself!)

Modern liberal churches promote a watered-down and secularized form of Christianity, otherwise they would struggle to attract open-minded and rational people. So they latch on to Jesus’ command to love your neighbor as yourself, while ignoring his admonition to parents who fail to kill their disobedient children in accordance with Old Testament Law, his claim that he comes to the world to being fire and sword and set brother against brother and the like, and in some cases even his central claim from the Gospel of John that ‘I am the way and the truth and the life and none shall come unto the Father but by me’.

What Jesus actually preaches in his reported sayings in the Synoptic Gospels is the need for people to repent of their sins and prepare for God’s imminent judgment of humanity. The idea that he teaches a message of tolerance and love can, in my view, only come from a pretty selective reading. It almost seems to me that liberal Christians put the cart before the horse – they believe that love and tolerance and everything are good on rational, utilitarian grounds and then try to use their religion to justify them.

In some ways, liberal Christianity actually annoys me more than Fundamentalist, Bible-thumping Christianity. At least the people who go on about how the gay people are going to burn in hell can cite chapters from the book that they consider to be divinely-inspired rather than talking about a ‘general message’. It’s almost like they’re being more honest.

jewelsong wrote:

Just wondering where you are getting your statistics of "most" and "very few."

Personal experience, FWIW.

Quote:

"Tolerance" is certainly not a dirty word...for Unitarians and Quakers, it's practically a mantra.

Both are small minorities. And Unitarians are Unitarians.

Quote:

MOST mainstream Protestant churches in the US (ie: Presbyterians, Methodists, Episcopalians, Congregationalists, etc) WILL, in fact tell you it is about Love
...
And the idea that there are, in fact, many paths to the Divine is an idea espoused by MANY modern and mainstream churches.

The mainstream has lurched to the right over the past few decades. I'm sure there are churches that believe this, but they aren't mainstream anymore. I've been in many churches and Christian schools in my life, and all of them viewed this idea as literally demonic.

Quote:

Not just "some liberal types" (and you make THAT sound like dirty word yourself!)

That was tongue in cheek. I was channeling a fundamentalist.

Edit: And I am in complete agreement with LM again.

Lord_Morningstar wrote:

Modern liberal churches promote a watered-down and secularized form of Christianity, otherwise they would struggle to attract open-minded and rational people. So they latch on to Jesus’ command to love your neighbor as yourself, while ignoring his admonition to parents who fail to kill their disobedient children in accordance with Old Testament Law

Um ... where does Jesus say this?????

Quote:

his claim that he comes to the world to being fire and sword and set brother against brother and the like, and in some cases even his central claim from the Gospel of John that ‘I am the way and the truth and the life and none shall come unto the Father but by me’.

Well, Jesus is fiery and uncompromising and often uses Middle Eastern hyperbole ...

Quote:

What Jesus actually preaches in his reported sayings in the Synoptic Gospels is the need for people to repent of their sins and prepare for God’s imminent judgment of humanity. The idea that he teaches a message of tolerance and love can, in my view, only come from a pretty selective reading. It almost seems to me that liberal Christians put the cart before the horse – they believe that love and tolerance and everything are good on rational, utilitarian grounds and then try to use their religion to justify them.

Such a view usefully ignores how loving Jesus is and also how radical he is. As a rabbi, he was spiritually contaminated by the woman with an obvious menstrual problem who touched him (Matthew 9:20-22; Mark 5:25-34; Luke 8:43-47), thus violating an ancient taboo, but this plainly didn't bother or disgust him in the least. In fact, he broke the taboo into smithereens. He was also accused of being a 'friend of sinnners' because he hung out with prostitutes and other despised segments of society.

Quote:

In some ways, liberal Christianity actually annoys me more than Fundamentalist, Bible-thumping Christianity. At least the people who go on about how the gay people are going to burn in hell can cite chapters from the book that they consider to be divinely-inspired rather than talking about a ‘general message’. It’s almost like they’re being more honest.

As one who would identify herself as an 'evangelical', i.e. I believe in a literal resurrection, for example, I don't think your depiction of liberal Christianity is terribly fair. There is often more common ground between the evangelical and liberal constituencies than is sometimes assumed: both 'sides' agree that 'God is love' is a major theme (not the only theme, but a major theme) in the New Testament. And it's not like the Old Testament is completely silent on the subject either. (One of my pet peeves is the belief that God in the OT is a crusty old so-and-so who has a sudden personality transplant with the coming of Jesus. This popular belief manages to denigrate both Judaism and Christianity, IMO. )

And as an evangelical I want to put light years between how I believe and practice my faith and the ignorant jackass quoted in the first post who spouts bile and venom at Barack Obama. This person doesn't speak for me or for what I stand for, and they do not represent the many, kind, godly people I know in my faith community.

Thus endeth the sermon. (I do it on a regular basis, so bear with me. )

Di wrote:

One of my pet peeves is the belief that God in the OT is a crusty old so-and-so who has a sudden personality transplant with the coming of Jesus.

An omnipotent god can be anything it wishes and is free of the constraints of time and space and could have spent the equivalent of several million years in another time/space dimension trying different management practices on other worlds and come back here ready to try some new theories on this project. Thus, the apparent personality shift would seem instantaneous to us, but one that --in the god's own timeline (if they even have one) took ages to achieve.

Omnipotence can explain anything.

Di of Long Cleeve wrote:

Thus endeth the sermon. (I do it on a regular basis, so bear with me. )

And she does it really well, too. I know; I've heard her live and in person!

I really think she has a calling. (Hear that "Yoo hoo, Di....?" )

This idea that that there are evils in the world for humans to sidestep and take the idea of God on just faith...

It seems to me that an omnipotent "all-loving" God would not use parlour tricks and require just faith, to feel needed and loved.

That's a pathetic, but very human, trait. I've seen it in so many relationships / marriages.

Lidless wrote:

This idea that that there are evils in the world for humans to sidestep and take the idea of God on just faith...

It seems to me that an omnipotent "all-loving" God would not use parlour tricks, and require just faith, to feel needed and loved.

That's a pathetic, but very human, trait. I've seen it in so many relationships / marriages.

Yes.

I figure if there is a god, then it's involved in some sort of entertainment industry for multidimensional beings, with this universe being the palette for a jillion different dramas for it's audience to watch. That's the only thing that makes sense, really. Interesting stories require heartbreak and sin and redemption and cruelty and kindness.... and all that messy stuff that omnipotent multidimensional beings wouldn't get to experience easily.

The bad things in the world are plot devices....

I always worry when my life starts to get boring. It usually means something awful is about to happen.

"I'll put so many traps in your way. I'll even give you the ability to rationalise, to apply common sense, but if you sidestep those gifts and love me on just faith, I'll reward you. For those unable to side-step - eternal damnation."

Ridiculous.

Sorry. I *couldn't* love something like that. And I am in bewildered puzzlement over anyone who does.

Yes, the last half of the bible talks about love and compassion, but the main character is quite the expletive. As to the first half of the bible, he's an expletive beginning with the third letter of the alphabet.

I apply the same faith to everything in my life. Didn't know Jen's name when she registered our room at the Gathering. Didn't know where Squiddy and Eric lived when they said I could crash with them after Philly and get a ride to the airport. I still don't understand how everyone in brambleroseGamgee's family has a different last name, but with an address and the promise of a place to sleep, I've still been able to get across that border twice thanks to her. And while I regret having paid for the b77 server a couple years ago just so there could be more fights with hal in the symposium and snarky comments about my personal life, I wasn't going to not pay for it. I mean, it was important to me. So faith doesn't always work out, but I'll keep at it as long as possible.

When I don't hear from a friend for months or years, I try to remember it's probably not because they hate me. At least, that is what they would usually say, and I can choose to believe they are my friend or not. When the only people who can truly hurt me are friends and family, hope and faith are the most valuable possessions I have. Believing in God is easy, it's people that I'm working on tbh.




*E*

Allow me to spew forth some thoughts that are less half-baked than they're likely to appear here, mainly because I don't feel like elaborating right now.

I started pondering the question of where gods and religions in general come from a while ago. A long while ago. For as long as man has recorded history, we've been turning to gods or a god when things get inexplicable. And if you look at the mythic cycles, there are commonalities that literally cross oceans. For example, everyone's got a flood myth. I've yet to encounter a polytheistic religion that didn't have a hierarchy of the gods. And in the myths and scriptures, gods or their agents (aka demons and angels) seem to appear before men much more readily than they do now. Furthermore, there's a body of evidence that suggests humans are wired to believe. My conclusion, therefore, is that gods (or god) begins where human understanding leaves off.

I might expound in this later.

E, I put my faith in human beings as well. I took it on good faith when I was invited to a moot at Liddy's in Florida four years ago. I took his invitation as genuine, and my faith was not betrayed. The reason for this is that he's human. We can understand each other because we share the same type of existence. I can also speak with him in a variety of methods. I think it is silly to put your faith in god because you can't speak to god, and god does not share the same essense of your existence. It's not human, and when you "speak" to it, you're talking to yourself. I don't "see" god's work through other humans because that devalues the work of that person. Some might say that god inspires them, but that person does the work. That person deserves the credit, not some imagined, conceited being. My beef isn't with only the god of abraham, allah, any being that purports to deserve credit for people's good work.

Most religions preach some form of love and compassion, but love and compassion don't spring from religion. Those things happen without it. If we had no religion, and subsequently no Notre Dame, we'd still have love and compassion because those things are human, not divine.

Haha..... I'm an atheist, materialist.