At what point am I responsible for the behavior of groups I join?

Indeed, many street-gang members may have been raised christian and still consider themselves as such, but I would not want to tell one who is attempting to mug me the following:

In spite of this fact, theoretically christian believe in the teachings of the bible. Thus I believe it is fair for me to assume that all chistians believe the following statements:

and all the other quotes about being a nice person. However, it would be pretty stupid of me to believe that every single person who is a christian believe such things. However, my statement is that people should be free to assume until otherwise told that christian believe such verses, since they claim to subscribe to the book.

Again, it is not smart of me to assume that christians believe the actual teaching of the bible, contradictory teachings included, but it is “fair” of me.

Theoretically, everyone over the age of four in the U.S. understands that if you commit murder, if you are caught you will either be executed or will serve a long, long sentence in prison. That hasn’t stopped people from committing murder, though.

You’re perfectly right to assume that Christians believe in the two main precepts of the faith, as set down by Jesus Himself: Love God with all your heart, and love your neighbor as yourself. Those are the two main laws Jesus commanded us to follow.

The problem occurs when Christians do not act in this way (which happens quite frequently), or those who claim to be Christian ignore these commands. It only takes one bad apple to spoil the taste of Christianity for some people, and a single example of a self-proclaimed Christian acting in a non-Christian manner is enough to allow some people to dismiss the multitude of Christian faiths out of hand.

Sadly, the world is filled with “single examples.” It’s not hard to find a Christian acting in a manner inconsistent with Christ’s teachings.

Even Christians cannot agree on the “rules” that exist in the Bible, which is one of the main reasons there are so many different Christian religions … heck, it’s also why you can see three different churches of the same denomination within a mile of each other in my town. Even members of the same denomination can’t agree on the “rules.”

Regardless of any Christian’s attempt to emulate Christ, we’re still human. I doubt Christ would be pleased with some of the things I’ve done since waking up this morning, much less over my lifetime. Doesn’t mean I should chuck it all and stop trying.

I’m a member of a Southern Baptist church, and have been all my life. To some on here, that would make me a raving fundamentalist who wants to enslave women, stone all gay people and elect George Bush president for life. I also live in the heart of the Bible Belt, and one would naturally assume that the entire population here is up in arms about the Terri Schiavo situation, what with our supposedly ingrained right-to-life stance. In fact, the most popular radio program in the area had two theologians on the air this morning, talking with the hosts (they normally do a comedy show, so this was a little out of the box for them). The two hosts, and the two theologians, were divided on whether Terri should have been kept alive for so long. Callers into the program were also divided. We don’t see things in black-and-white; we’re not a homogenous mass of people.

Which leads me back to the assumptions and stereotyping deal. It’s human nature to want to pigeonhole people into personally defined zones based on a handful of characteristics, or even a single characteristic. I personally think it’s wrong to do so, because of the example set by Christ and some experiences I’ve had. I also think it’s intellectually lazy and dishonest. It takes time and effort to get to know a person as a person, rather than as a blob in a homogenous mass.

Then why identify as a Christian after making such a compelling argument for its meaninglessness?

I see your point. It is wrong to discriminate against a person based on what group they were born into. I feel free to assume things of christians, since they are supposedly able to choose their religion for themselves, but in practice, that often does not happen. That may not be nice, but it does seem logical of me.

I don’t see why I am not free to assume other precepts, such as belief in the Jubilee year, but that that is beside the point.

I don’t see how almost anyone can claim to be a christiany, besides in the case of Halloween costumes involving priests. If I person is born to a christian family and calls themselves christian, they are christian, regardless of how despicable their future actions might be
It takes time and effort to get to know a person as a person, rather than as a blob in a homogenous mass.
[/QUOTE]

We agree on that. However, going back to the title of this thread, I believe I can call a member of any group on things the organizing group does in the current time or the future but not the past. Groups which really or theoretically can be joined as opposed to born into, which also has an organizing body, or some sort of charter or text. For example, muslims (Koran), christians (bible), Confucianism(you know, his writings.) or the bahá’í faith. (the kitáb-i-aqdas) I can also point out bad things that have been done in the past, in an effort to point out such things may be done in the future, but that is not the same thing as holding them responsible for the past.

I’m not sure I understand this point. I didn’t realize I was making an argument about the meaninglessness of being a Christian.

I identify as a Christian because I attempt to learn and follow the teachings of Christ. There are a multitude of others who self-identify in the same way. However, we have different methods of doing so. Christ didn’t found the Baptist faith, or the Methodist faith, or the Catholic faith, or the Episcopalian faith, or any of the myriad other faiths out there. Those are constructs of mankind. At their core, though, they’re still Christian.

Scott_plaid: You’re free to make any assumptions you want regarding Christians as a whole based on the Bible. I’m attempting to show that those assumptions are apt to be incorrect outside of the absolute core teachings of Christianity. Christian scholars have debated for literally thousands of years on what exactly the Bible says and means, and they still haven’t come to a definitive conclusion on the whole work.

As I said, I belong to a Southern Baptist church. Applying a commonly held stereotype regarding Southern Baptists, one would assume I would believe the Bible is the infallible word of God, and is absolutely true. One would be wrong. What’s more, the group of friends I have within the church I attend believe as I do – the Bible was inspired by God, but because it was translated/filtered by humans, something got lost along the way.

Regarding holding members of groups/denominations personally accountable for the actions of the group – In some instances, I agree. However, as a group gets larger, it becomes exponentially less likely that any one person can be held accountable for the group’s actions.

As an example, let’s take the Southern Baptist Convention. This is an association of churches (I think approximately 35,000) representing something like 16 million people of the Southern Baptist faith. They meet once a year to make pronouncements, implement programs and generally agree on how the member churches are supposed to act locally.

The SBC has become a sizeable political force in the past couple of decades. There’s no denying it’s had considerable influence in local, state and federal government. As its power grew, the leadership of the SBC overstepped their bounds in many areas, attempting to change government at each level into a theocracy. They also implemented a more hard-line, conservative approach to the interpretation of the Bible.

And an interesting thing has happened. As the SBC has become more powerful, and has attempted to exercise its power ham-handedly (and most inappropriately, in the opinion of many, including many in the faith itself), it’s beginning to lose influence. It’s not particularly visible yet at the national level, but it’s quite evident at the local level. Individual churches are beginning to break away from the SBC. Those that aren’t rebelling openly are refusing to embrace the programs/pronouncements set forth by the SBC. In short, the SBC is proposing to represent the political views and wishes of 35,000 churches and 16 million people, when in actuality the number of churches who subscribe to their way of interpreting the Bible is dwindling, and the number of people who hold the beliefs mandated by the SBC is far, far less than 16 million. It’s interesting to note that the SBC self-reports a slow increase in members over the past ten years, when a Gallup poll conducted in either 2001 or 2002 (I forget which) showed a forty-percent decline in the number of people who self-identified as Southern Baptist.

So, you can look at the actions of the Southern Baptist Convention and attempt to apply those beliefs and logic to an average Southern Baptist person, but the application would be inaccurate in many instances.

You didn’t. You did, however, make a compelling case for the meaninglessness of identifying as a Christian. Being a Christian is like being anything: a personal quest which may or may not have some kind of external guidance. What that means to those around you, however, is part of a larger social identity. If that larger social identity is so heterogeneous as to be a useless descriptor, that is hardly my fault as a disinterested party. From here, it looks like Christians want the social identity of being “good people” and belonging to a larger group without the mess of the no true Scotsman fallacy, presumably in order to find some kind of consistency with tolerance but I don’t know. I’d suggest that it is not fallicious to defend a group one identifies with from attacks by self-proclaimed members, and if the label was supposed to actually mean something besides a mere taxonomical header they’d work to avoid suggesting that one is a Christian merely by one’s saying so. Unlike most negative stereotypes which deal with how people cannot help but be, we are discussing the larger social perception of how people actively choose to identify themselves.

Does that help explain my position better?

So, you’re a Christian, but neither you nor ANY Christian can be held responsible for any baleful effect Christianity as a whole might have upon society, such as forcing little kids to acknowledge a god they may not believe via the Pledge of Allegiance, because the group as a whole is just too big.

The Nazis were a large group with a very diverse set of beliefs, such as making the trains run on time and restoring stablity to the German economy. But we can’t hold any Nazi responsible for the acts of the Nazis, cause there were too many of them … right?

To be clear, I intend the thrust of this to be part of the mention I made to the “no true Scotsman fallacy.” Part of that, to me, means getting to cherry-pick exactly what you like about Christianity and saying, “Well, I don’t believe that” to the rest (but avoiding the “fallacy” by allowing anyone to be “Christian”). But then no one should be surprised if those who don’t like the religion are doing something similar, and cherry-picking what they don’t like… and disbelieving the rest. If this goes on long enough, what those who don’t like a religion are doing seems less and less like cherry-picking and more and more like drawing more reasonable generalities. In my opinion.

Lest anyone go off on the Nazi comparison Evil Captor just made, I think it is important to note that religions are an ideology, just like Nazism, or my example of idealism, or libertarianism or socialism. The importance of these labels should be clear. And it was never my duty to defend or disparage the label, “Nazi.” The Nazis did that themselves.

I see. You’re right in that all one has to do externally to be viewed as a Christian is to say, “I’m a Christian.” Saying it doesn’t make it so, and there’s no outward sign or mark to indicate if they’re actually telling the truth.

However, I continue to maintain that automatically viewing someone a particular way (or imparting motives/viewpoints to them) based on the person self-identifying as a Christian is not a defensible position. Apart from the two rules Jesus set down as mentioned earlier and the inherent philosophy therein, there isn’t a single unifying theme throughout Christianity. And as has been amply demonstrated, even devout Christians don’t always abide by those two rules on a consistent basis.

Well, sure, you can hold me personally responsible as a Christian for something like the Pledge of Allegiance having “under God” in it, if you want. (Although, technically, the term “God” isn’t restricted to Christians alone, but that’s a niggling point.) If you’re going to do that, though, I’d suggest you then have to give me, as the representative Christian, credit for all the good effects Christianity has had upon society – for example, giving to charitable causes and volunteering time (cite). (And yes, I realize that cite specifies religious vs. non-religious, but the percentage breakdowns hold true for all denominations, including Protestantism and Catholicism.) Wouldn’t it be simpler to just allow those things to cancel each other out and deal with me (or any Christian) as a person, rather than as a representative of a group?

This goes back to my earlier point: There are multiple denominations within the catchall term “Christianity.” Those individual denominations have agreed upon a general translation and belief regarding the scriptures. Within those denominations, there are subfactions who emphasize one or more aspects of scripture over others. And within those subfactions, there are individual differences between churches and, naturally, people.

I seriously doubt there are many Christians who are perfectly happy and agree completely with their particular denomination’s stance on the scriptures. In that case, it’s a little like being a Republican or a Democrat – you might agree with the organization’s goals in general, but not certain aspects or plans regarding those goals.

Very well, then. Let’s tackle it from the other direction. Which adjectives do you feel can be used by a person to describe themselves from which a listener is permitted to draw inferences from that is not attacked by your line of reasoning? My only request is that these adjectives actually be representative of ones people normally do use to describe themselves and which would indicate voluntary belief, association, and so on.

Lest it not be perfectly clear why I ask this, I will comment that I believe the reason we choose labels to identify with and tell others about ourselves in terms of those labels is so that they may draw inferences before they get to know us. Everyone seems so concerned with generalizations as shortcuts that I believe they miss the rather more common use of getting to know someone in general. It would be rather difficult to get to know someone without the labels they would use to draw inferences, and we rather clearly select the labels for others so that they will draw the right inferences. I have no other sensible model for human interaction available, but if there is one available which addresses the OP and my feelings about it then, please explain: I am all ears.

I am sure, and was before this thread, that there are excellent reasons to avoid making generalizations the end of any chain of reasoning, but please don’t consider that the only use of generalizations.

Well, really, the only feasible conclusions/labels one can draw/apply regarding a person who says they’re Christian are the basics of the Christian faith:

  1. The person believes Jesus Christ died for their sins, and believes Jesus is the Lord of their life.
  2. The person should love God with all their heart
  3. The person should love his/her neighbors as him/herself.

That’s the core of Christianity, as I understand it. Making any other assumptions or generalizations based on the label “Christian” is an extremely iffy proposition.

We’re all free to believe anything we want to about Christians. We can believe anything we want about Muslims. We can consider people to be part of a category, and believe whatever we wish to about the individuals based on our opinions of the groups they are in.

There is even a special name for this freedom. It’s called prejudice.

Forming your opinions about people as individuals is much more work.

Tris

I just found out today that Fleet’s Enemas and the Moral Majority both come from Lynchburg, Virginia. It’s a fact, not an opinion.

No argument here. Prejudice is a nasty thing, and furthermore an evil thing. However, I maintain that I am free to hold an opinion/stereotype of a member of an ideological group, and hold said member responsible for further activates of that group. But why’s that you ask? How can I? One reason is that if you are a member of a group, statistically speaking, you lend credence to them. Imagine much attention far the U.S. pro-life/anti-abortion movement would get it if consisted of 500 people spread through the states, as opposed to what ever large number they are currently. (Not gonna’ trust statistics from an anti-women’s choice site.) It is that member’s choice to stand up as a member of the group, and lend it credence.

The Center for the Advancement of Women, headed by former Planned Parenthood president Faye Wattleton, commissioned Princeton Research Associates to do a study, titled Progress and Perils: A New Agenda for Women (2003), on contemporary issues for women.

Of 1,000 American women that the study surveyed on abortion, 51 percent wanted to ban abortion altogether or to limit it to cases of rape, incest, and where the mother’s life is endangered. Another 17 percent said the procedure should be available under stricter limits than now apply.

In a similar study done in 2001 by the Center, when 2,329 American women were surveyed, 45 percent wanted to ban abortion altogether or limit it to cases of rape, incest, and where the mother’s life is endangered. Another 19 percent said it should be available under stricter limits than now apply.

More here, pages 9-11.

Well, you can say that these are the only things christians are required to do, but that certainly isn’t what christians of all denominations are saying as they prostelyze on tv, in the news, and at rallies aimed at drumming up support for their religious opinion on secular issues. They are not quietly contemplating god and neighborly respect. They’re talking about everything but! This is the face of christianity. It is the voice MOST christians want us to hear. They are hell bent on politicizing their personal faith.

I agree with everything you said except these two points. Saying that “most” Christians are supportive of a particular agenda or issue based solely on television reports/shows or attendance at rallies is faulty reasoning.

Allow me to give another example. Several months ago, Alabama was in the news thanks to Roy Moore, who at the time was the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court. Moore literally snuck a carving of the Ten Commandments into the rotunda of the judicial building in the dead of night, and then blocked several attempts at removing the stone.

As the drama played out in a federal court, hundreds of people held rallies outside the building in support of Moore. To a casual observer, it might have looked like the entire state of Alabama was behind Moore in his effort to keep the Ten Commandments in the rotunda.

Nothing could have been further from the truth. As the situation developed, the University of South Alabama commissioned a survey of Alabamians to see where they stood on the issue. Approximately 3/4 of the respondents said they were fine with the monument being in the rotunda – if it was an acknowledgement of the moral basis for our laws. Moore was adamant that he had placed the monument in the rotunda as a religious display.

What’s more, something like 80 percent of the survey’s respondents said that if the federal court ordered the removal of the monument, Moore should shut up and remove the thing. In other words, the hundreds of people who were shown on TV at the rallies were not in any way representative of the vast majority of people in Alabama. In fact, some of those at the rallies weren’t from Alabama – they were bussed in from other states to provide “photogenic support” for Moore.

The entire thing ended as it should have – the monument was removed, Moore was forced to step down as a judge, and the ninnies who were holding vigil outside the building went home.

Agreed. Most christians may not want the ten commandments in every school, etc. However, if that’s the case, the majority isn’t doing enough to make the majority’s opinion heard.

The government has, for the most part, defended the fanatical thirst for religious government, i.e., religion-fueled Schiavo law, the “err on the side of life” statement, vouchers, etc. I rarely hear christians say anything to the contrary. So if that’s the case, you need a better, louder spokesperson. I have nothing to base my opinion on except for the information that is given me. If it is inaccurate information, it is your responsibility to set the record straight.

No, it is your obligation to be informed of the facts before throwing out blanket statements. The information is there if you’ll get off your duff and look.

Walloon, is that post in responce to the OP, or to the post before yours? I can’t tell.

My response to post #57.