[QUOTE=Boyo Jim]
For a lot of these folks, if they looked at their beliefs and couched them in humanist terms, they would probably call themselves socialists.
[/QUOTE]
Y’know, that is true, though it would take some de-and-re-construction of their beliefs to make them see it. But that comes from hanging out with Evangelical Lutherans, who often consider themselves conservative but, if they really looked at it, would not. Crazy world, where the folks who thought they were upholding traditional beliefs find out they aren’t.
[QUOTE=Quiddity Glomfuster]
So if someone tells you he’s a duke or a senator or a spy, you believe him?
[/QUOTE]
Thing is, you can prove whether or not a person is a duke or a senator or a spy because there are tangible ways to determine so, and there is a much narrower standard to base that proof on.
Christianity is very splintered and freeform, and there’s no tangible set rules to go by. People make it up as they go along. You can say you like some of what jesus stood for and call yourself a christian. You can interpret scripture in a wide variety of ways so that the jesus thing fits your lifestyle, and no one can tell you you’re wrong, since so many interpretations are accepted.
In short, you can have your own opinion on what a christian is, but in the end it is only an opinion.
[QUOTE=LonesomePolecat]
Can someone come up with some specific examples of atheists who were arrested, tortured, and/or put to death for being atheist within the last couple of centuries? Or at all? My impression is that both the Catholic and Protestant churches were willing to ignore or overlook atheism so long as you didn’t openly oppose the Powers That Be. I can’t seem to think of a single example of an atheist being put to death simply for being an atheist, nor do I recall atheists being sniffed out the way “witches” were.
On the other hand, plenty of Christians died in the Soviet gulags.
[/QUOTE]
a) I can’t recall mass killings of atheists in particular either. However, not believing in salvation through Jesus got plenty of non-Christians tortured and killed during the Spanish Inquisition. It is true that Mao and Stalin killed loads and loads of people and they were atheists, but they didn’t kill people FOR believing in God so much as they did for NOT believing in The Party and The Motherland.
According to polls (if you think I’m hunting for a cite in non-GQ/GD you’re psycho) people in the US are more likely to trust a muslim (you know, current religious BOOGYMAN) or homosexual than an atheist. In several states it is still technically illegal for an atheist to hold public office. A chunky percentage of people who identify as Christian would not trust an atheist with their children.
As a note: I am also an afairyist, an acentaurist, an ababayagaist, an amermaidist, and many others. It’s not that I actively don’t believe in them; they’re just not real, and no one has ever given me evidence that they are. Also, I don’t know any atheists who “hate Jesus” any more than they “hate Satan” or “hate the Tooth Fairy.”
[QUOTE=Hamadryad]
a) … In several states it is still technically illegal for an atheist to hold public office. …
[/QUOTE]
I’ve never heard that atheists can’t hold public office in some states. Got a cite for that?
[QUOTE=Hamadryad]
a)…As a note: I am also an afairyist, an acentaurist, an ababayagaist, an amermaidist, and many others. It’s not that I actively don’t believe in them; they’re just not real, and no one has ever given me evidence that they are. Also, I don’t know any atheists who “hate Jesus” any more than they “hate Satan” or “hate the Tooth Fairy.”
[/QUOTE]
I did hear some British guy recently in a similar vein. He said something to the effect of, “I don’t call myself an atheist. It hardly seems worth having a word at all for something you don’t believe in.” And then he went on to list some other things he didn’t believe in, pointing out there were no specific words for them.
Clearly, he has missed out on your dictionary. 
[QUOTE=Boyo Jim]
I’ve never heard that atheists can’t hold public office in some states. Got a cite for that?
[/QUOTE]
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/StateConstitutions.htm
I doubt any of them are in force, or would hold up to a challenge.
[QUOTE=Telemark]
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/StateConstitutions.htm
I doubt any of them are in force, or would hold up to a challenge.
[/QUOTE]
They can’t be in force. They are in violation of the U.S. Constitution.
[QUOTE=FriarTed]
They can’t be in force. They are in violation of the U.S. Constitution.
[/QUOTE]
I would rather see organizations like the Freedom from Religion Foundation spending their money to force out clauses like these from the various state constitutions, than going after Christmas displays on public lands.
Jesus Christ, it’s tough to imagine that crap like this is still on the books in this day and age.
[QUOTE=Polycarp]
Small detail missing, I think from my post rather than your take on it: by my definition, a “good Christian” is someone who does God’s will *as it was set forth and explained by Christ Jesus (allowing for figures of speech and such, of course – we know, for example, that it was standard First Century Aramaic usage to do contrasts by the love A/hate B metaphor, even if what was meant was “Put A first, then consider B if time and resources permit”; hence “love God and hate your parents” is not to be taken as the literal words would suggest). Since those words are (at least reasonably acceptably) preserved and both internally consistent and capable of objective external review, they do constitute an independent measure.
Your other examples, of course, apply only insofar as they match up with that basic one – a Christian should be one who follows Christ, in the same way as a Randian follows Ayn Rand’s precepts or a Marxist Karl Marx’s. If someone elevates the Bible to a position of authority that eclipses Jesus’s authority in his/her life, he or she becomes a Bibliolater. The good Jew is a good Jew, following the Law as He understands it by rabbinic precepts. The “horrible sinner” is in fact a good Christian – according to Paul’s take on things, we all are, to one degree or another. (Unfortunately, most people stop there with the accusations and guilt-inducement, and don’t pick up on the other half of the message, God’s love and grace.
[/QUOTE]
I’d agree with your definition of both “good Christian” and “Christian”, but I still think QG’s point doesn’t work. As you say, being a good Christian has some outward sign, if a bit more difficult to measure than being a duke or senator. But the Christian part remains a matter of personal belief. After all, one could outwardly show all the characteristics of being a “good Christian” without actually believing in God or Jesus.
[QUOTE=Telemark]
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/StateConstitutions.htm
I doubt any of them are in force, or would hold up to a challenge.
[/QUOTE]
I’m pretty sure they wouldn’t stand up to a challenge because even though atheists are not exactly “mainstream” yet, barring a person from being confirmed due to his/her atheism would be a political nightmare. Or should better fucking well be.
Might have been Richard Dawkins, though he’s usually the one who says he’s also an a-toothfairy-ist. I like his way of thinking: “Christians are atheists as far as Allah, Ganesh, and Poseiden are concerned; I just go one god further.”
Way, way back to the OP, if I am remembering aright…
I grew up Roman Catholic. Although I never really felt a belief, I followed my devout family’s lead and did all the things I was taught to do. I learned that to be a good Catholic, it was more important that you be a good person than to follow the “rules”, though - this may be because our upbringing was in the midst of the SJ’s, IHM’s and RSM’s, though. (Slightly more liberal orders of priests and nuns)
Somewhere in High School, I had a problem with Ash Wednesday. I remembered the story Jesus told about the guy in the front of the temple loudly proclaiming his piety being actually less of a “good guy” than the guy in the back who prayed quietly and unnoticed. So I asked the nun teaching my religion class how that could be reconciled with Catholics going around “proclaiming piety” by wearing ashes on their foreheads. She agreed that it was a mixed message…
That leads to my discomfort with the whole fish/bumpersticker/in God we Trust/day of prayer thing. My family members are all still Catholic. They are good people, who devote a lot of time and effort into helping anybody who they can, regardless of any differences.
I’ve been noticing that the people I see being good folks and helping others where ever they can are mostly Christians, (due primarily to my location and social structure these days) but none of them have a fish/bumpersticker/IGWT declaration prominent in their lives. From what I know, they are Lutheran, Methodist, Catholic, Baptist, MCC and many unknowns.
The point of this whole ramble is to agree that the folks with all the stickers/fish etc scare me. They make me feel like running and hiding - like I am on the “opposing team”. Around here, MANY of the stores proclaim their Christian beliefs prominently - it took us 2 years to find an auto mechanic who didn’t! (I kind of worried that my car, with a rainbow on it and no Christian stickers, would get a lesser grade of service. I am much more comfortable with letting folks know that I am a lesbian than with letting folks know that I am NOT a Christian!
Oh - and to head off any arguments that I am being hypocritical by having a rainbow sticker on my car - I am now in a VERY conservative area. Gays out here are few, far between and hide very well. I made a conscious decision to let “my folks” know that if they need an ally, I am out here - but I still don’t see the point of having a sticker on my car to proclaim myself part of the majority!
(For the folks keeping score, I am an Atheistic Agnostic - I don’t believe, but I know that I don’t know everything!)
[QUOTE=Brain Wreck]
What’s going on is there are a lot of hateful, ugly assholes who see Christianity as the jersey of the side they think is winning, so they all went and signed up. A few million bad apples are spoiling the whole barrel.
[/QUOTE]
This sums up my experience exactly. And throw in the “If you ain’t with us, you must be against us…” mentality to describe Christian tolerance of differing belief systems.
(I have known a few loving, tolerant Christians, but I feel certain that the same people would be loving and tolerant individuals even without the pressure to conform to a regional religious habit.)
[QUOTE=Hamadryad]
According to polls (if you think I’m hunting for a cite in non-GQ/GD you’re psycho) people in the US are more likely to trust a muslim (you know, current religious BOOGYMAN) or homosexual than an atheist.
[/QUOTE]
Here’s one anyway.
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Here’s one anyway.
[/QUOTE]
I really love this:
This is the reason I get told I “hate God” after I state that I am an atheist.
[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
Er, all those things have some outside, obvious points. You can’t be a Duke without there being some framework to support you, records of your enoblement, etc.. To be a senator, again, has obvious points; they’ve been elected, and you can check electoral records or (depending on your trust level) the media to get information on that. Same for a spy - an outside agency makes you a spy. All these things have many ways we can tell if they have that role or not.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah but you won’t know. You can’t call up the CIA and ask if Fred’s really a spy.
And plenty of people have been fooled by con men who claimed to be all manner of fabulous things who weren’t at all.
Not really. Christians are supposed to be good to other folks. The Man said so. You see someone putting the hate on who does it on a regular basis, doesn’t matter if he calls himself the Pope Incarnate - that is no Christian.
[QUOTE=Taber]
The problem with this analogy is that there’s a clear, uncontroversial definition of spy, duke and senator, but there’s no real way to do so for religious beliefs. Polycarp’s definition of Christian as someone who does what God wants is good and all, but since we aren’t God, that just means we can’t know who is “really” Christian. It really just redefines Christian to mean “good person” or maybe “good person who also claims to be Christian” which is kind of self serving, and is a bit useless when talking about the Christians who exist in the real world. Under this definition, is the guy who earnestly believes that God wants him to discriminate against gays because of Leviticus Christian? What about a Jewish guy who does good works, under that definition, is he Christian? What about a person who believes earnestly in all the aspects of Christianity that you like, and none that you don’t, but turns out to be a horrible sinner? Is he Christian?
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Heffalump and Roo]
Conversely, if some people of a group are considered saints, we shouldn’t believe anyone else is either. So if there are a group of outliers on either end, are the vast majority core in the middle just like everyone else, regardless of belief? If this is the case, why believe at all?
[/QUOTE]
Huh?
[QUOTE=Hamadryad]
Might have been Richard Dawkins, though he’s usually the one who says he’s also an a-toothfairy-ist.
[/QUOTE]
Nope. Christopher Hitchens. I heard him say that exact thing on The Daily Show Thursday night.
[QUOTE=Quiddity Glomfuster]
Yeah but you won’t know. You can’t call up the CIA and ask if Fred’s really a spy.
And plenty of people have been fooled by con men who claimed to be all manner of fabulous things who weren’t at all.
[/quote]
Word. Ask any christian.
Now you’re going to have to define good. As with christianity, good comes in many flavors; not all of them appealing to everyone.
[QUOTE=Quiddity Glomfuster]
Yeah but you won’t know. You can’t call up the CIA and ask if Fred’s really a spy.
And plenty of people have been fooled by con men who claimed to be all manner of fabulous things who weren’t at all.
[/quote]
You’re quite correct. Nevertheless, it is possible to find out that way. There is tangible evidence that exists outside of their mind. I might not have access to it, but someone does. The same is not true of religious/irreligious belief. The only evidence for that is in their mind, only accessible by them. We can only ever go by someone’s word that they believe something.
And here lies another couple of problems. Who do Christians have to be good to? What does “good” mean? How far should a Christian go foresaking their own happiness?
People who call themselves Christians may answer these very differently. It’s all well and good to say “Christians must be good - we can measure that!” but there’s no concrete example for us to go on. They should give 10% of their money to the church. They should help the church, but only when they can afford it. They should make sure religion is part of government, so laws reflect the laws of God. They should keep religion out of government, because people need to be free to do what they want.
So three problems. A - who decides what the definition of “good” is, since people who call themselves Christian and (if we assume they aren’t lying) believe in God and JC may have very different ideas on that. And B - Why is their definition better than anyone else’s? And C - Under your own definition, Christians are supposed to be good. Not are. Supposed to be. So even if we were able to get a definition of good, and get it from a person who defines accurately, we still aren’t left with anything to measure. Not believing and not being a “good” Christian could easily look exactly the same.
Just as a side question on your own personal definition; it seems to me, then, that under it the statement “All Christians are good people” is by definition true, and that “A bad person cannot be a Christian” is likewise true. Would you agree?
[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
Who do Christians have to be good to? What does “good” mean? How far should a Christian go foresaking their own happiness?
[/QUOTE]
Read back up. I already posted a relevant quote. Attributed to JC himself.
[QUOTE=Quiddity Glomfuster]
Read back up. I already posted a relevant quote. Attributed to JC himself.
[/QUOTE]
You’re assuming he’s an authority (if he existed at all) on “goodness” and that goodness can only be defined by him. Such is not the case.
[QUOTE=villa]
But that isn’t the only interpretation of the First Amendment out there, and putting it forward as settled fact isn’t really fair. There are many of us, including some pretty smart legal minds I’ve come across, who would argue that while establishment of a particular religion is obviously verboten, so is the preference of religion over non-religion - “an establishment of religion” rather than “an establishment of a religion.”
[/QUOTE]
Unless and until you get a majority of the Supreme Court to rule that way, your interpretation of the First Amendment is entirely irrelavant, “smart legal minds”, notwithstanding. :rolleyes: