Christians like duffer and FinnAgain are far less enticing company in my book than good, kind people like Polycarp. Luckily, he’s who I think of, and people like him, when I think “Christian.” To take a pathetic stab at the theology of this thread, it seems like one has to relinquish power in order to express love.
It’s far easier to accept and respect a Christian who exhibits the virtues of patience and tolerance, and faith that means being humble in the presence of something greater, than it is to face a Christian that says, “You’re unsaved? Fuck you.”
It’s also more tolerable, I assume, to deal with an atheist who’s thoughtful and humble as well, rather than one who says, “I don’t need a crutch or threats of damnation to do good acts, you pathetic loser.” I am not attributing this attitude to gobear. I’m just presenting the parallel.
Too bad everyone’s morally superior in their hatred. Where was that part of the Bible or Bertrand Russell, again?
So, Gobear, are you going to retract your misinformed assertion that Catholics do not believe that faith without works is dead? It’s not only such common knowledge that several have corrected you already, but it was one of the original core differences between Cathlicism and Protestantism. I can’t speak for all Protestant sects, but you are wrong about Catholicism.
Loopydude, of course all religions are superstitious nonsense, but Xianity happens to be the one we are saddled with in this country.
Sol Grundy, in the words of Edith Piaf, Non, je ne regrette rien. I ain’t apologizin’, nor am I backing down.
Oh, and Christians never evangelize? Why is it that you can spew your nonsense on TV, in politics, at public ceremonies, and attempot to force your faith on the rest of us, but let one atheist post some snark on a message board and you act as if the Bible is going to be banned. Get off the cross, honey, you’re giving Jesus a woody.
Leander, good set of quotes, but one can also point to Acts 16: 30-31
Not to mention pretty much all of Romans, plus Titus 3:5
Tracy Lord
I assure you that I have neither anger nor hate in my posting. I just do not agree that your religion is kind, charitable, or loving. Nor do I think that it is true. Jesus did not rise, and you are not saved.
Ludovic, true, that the faith vs. works controversy helped cause the Reformation, but the Church (in which I was raised, BTW, and there is nothing you have to teach me about its doctrine) maintains that salvation comes through Jesus alone. The sacraments are a means by which grace is confered upon the believer, but one cannot earn salvation. From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
For all that you folks say that I make assertions, I 've got cites to back up my posts. Only Leander has bothered to cite Scripture to support his claims, for which I salute him.
“Now abideth faith, hope, and love. But the greatest of these is love.” (I Corinthians 13th chapter is all about the value of love.)
Another part of the Scripture talks about the “fruits of the spirit” – virtues that one should develop as a Christian.
Gobear, I am not blind to the damage that can be done by some Christians in the name of Christianity. The Christians who are judgmental and unloving in their attitudes and actions toward homosexuals are often the most vocal by nature; they think it’s their duty. That doesn’t mean that they are even a majority of Christians. (I don’t know.)
Any label or steretyping or misinformation that unjustly stirs up malice and resentment is part of the problem.
OK, that’s it, I’m going hetero just to take away that crutch as a debate tool.
How am I stereotyping? Are you saying that we may criticize the GOP, and the Democrats, and communism, and radical Islam, but somehow Christianity is somehow above criticism? Bollocks.
Gobear does have a point.
I really don’t like big-C Christianity (which is what I call mainstream US Christianity).
The power that Christianity has has really made it corrupt.
I also think that Gobear has an unfair amount of contempt for christians.
Then again, it strikes me as unchristlike for christians to demand to be treated fairly and respectfully (PC-protection).
Whenever he says something that pisses me off, I’ve learned that it’s wise to not jump the gun in attacking him. Rereading the post often shows that it’s not as bad as it at first appears. And is he really is speaking out of hatred, well, that hurts him more than anyone else.
I appreciate the kind words, but I would still like to address two issues:
“Christians do not believe in love…”
I think it’s hard to argue, despite what some of the more vocal assholes out there are doing and saying, that one of the central teachings of Christianity is love. It may not seem that way sometimes, what with all the bullshit that takes place in and out of the church by supposed followers, but it’s clear that the Bible places love and charity front and center (though perhaps slightly behind “faith” itself).
Disagree?
“The Bible teaches that one is saved by faith, not by one’s own efforts.”
This one’s easy to me, though much more difficult to discern clearly from Scripture. IMHO, change the statement to “The Bible teaches that one is saved by faith, as well as by one’s own efforts” and you’ve got it.
That being said, there is obviously room for debate about this, as both you and I have shown with our cites. And I think it’s fine to agree to disagree…but at least allow for the possibility that others (such as myself) have a different and worthwhile opinion and can support that view with Scripture.
I think **Gobear[/b[ is trying to make a point about basic Christian dogma - a point that is valid and is genuinely problematic - and his point is being misunderstood as a comment on the individual moral failings of all Christians. Of course, his repeated references to what “Christians believe” has not done anything to defuse the situation.
Still, there is something to what he says. Traditional Christian soteriology states that love and compassion without a specific faith in Christ as Saviour are insufficient to attain salvation. Many Christians may protest that you have to be loving too, but that is at least, arguable, and I think beside the point as well. Unless it can be said that specific belief is irrelevant to salvation and that being a loving person is good enough (and there are Christians who say exactly this…Liberal comes to mind) then there is a real ethical problem with the theology. A Salvation theology which makes no room for loving caring heathens cannot be said to truly value human compassion above all. This has always been my biggest problem with Christianity - the idea that humans need an intermediary to save them, that they must believe in this intermediary without proof, and that being a good person isn’t good enough - strikes me as fundamentally unsound and amoral.
There are plenty of individual Christians who recognize this problem and find theological /philosophical methods of resolving it. It is incorrect to say that “Christians don’t believe in love” (and I think Gobear is far too intelligent, articulate and precise as a writer for that phrase not to have been intentionally provocative) but it is not incorrect to say that an honest examination of core Christian doctrine shows that it is fundamentally a religion of specific belief and worship, and that values of human love and compassion without that specific belief and worship are often (and historically, almost universally) held out as being insufficient, irrelevant or even impossible.
I would argue that as long as specific faith is required at all (especially without proof) then no salvation theology is morally defensible. It is my contention that specific belief is an unreasonable and amoral condition for salvation.
That’s got to be one of the oddest things I’ve ever read.
My little old yiddish gramma would’ve probably been quite surprised to learn that I’m a Christian. Fuck, I’m quite surprised to learn that I’m a Christian.
Seriously, every religion must have faith as a central tenet otherwise the whole damn thing falls apart. That seems rather obvious to me. Now you can certainly argue that it is an “amoral condition”, but I don’t think you’ll get very far with anyone who believes in any theology whatsoever.
That being said, it’s certainly your right to feel that way, and I personally don’t think any more or less of you because of it. And I would hope that you would extend me the same courtesy in re: my views.
Bollocks? Is that really your argument? Criticize any political party, system or belief you want. You know you won’t be the first to do so for whatever sub-sect you choose. Further, you know you’ll have plenty of people either backing you up or arguing countering points.
But when you come along and say and then follow it up with multiple assertions that you stand behind it as fact, well, I thought you’d see where that might rub a person or 3 billion the wrong way.
See, Christ never taught this. What He taught is what you yourself want added to your list of rights. Acceptance, tolerence, love of each other. By definition, any follower of Christ is a Christian. (But you knew that, right?) So saying that Christians reject love and just want power is to say Christ Himself wanted the same.
Most of us Christians, and pretty much all of us Catholics, are embarrassed by the fire-and-brimstone rhetoric seen on the news and in national publications. For instance, homosexuality in the Catholic Church isn’t a sin. It’s taught that acting upon it is. Though forgiveness can be obtained even if you gang-bang the college football team. Being gay, though, isn’t an express ticket to Hades. This may not be acceptable to a person, and if so they can find another way to worship the Lord. There are many branches of Christianity.
Hey, if you join the right denomination you could even become a Bishop. [sub]coughVermontcoughThey obviously have hate in their heartscough[/sub]
Over the past few months I’ve read many and posted to a few of your threads. In a number of them I’ve seen you as reasoned and even said I’d vote for you if I was in your district based on what you’ve said. Regrettably I have to retract those now that I know how much you hate me.
I wonder what kind of shitstorm would be created if I stated, all-encompassing, something about gays in general? OK, I don’t wonder. We all know what would happen. Yet, it’s OK to do so when it comes to people’s deeply held beliefs. I challenge you to call every lawmaker you support whom has stated a belief in Christianity and tell them you no longer want their support as a gay man. Let’s be honest, they don’t believe in your idea of the faith, right?
One more thing. Why did you qualify “radical Islam”? Why not just Islam? You couldn’t bring yourself to accord the same to “radical Christianity”? Er, I forgot. Us Christians are inherently evil. We’re all the same. By that reasoning, how about I form my entire view of gays based on the fact they obviously hate Christians. That should justify growing hatred, right?
To be nitpicky, Christianity is one of the only major religions where specific faith is a requirement. In most other religions (including Judaism) being a good person is sufficient in itself. And of course there are some religious traditions with no theistic beliefs at all.
I say I think it’s an “amoral condition” because I believe it turns salvation into a guessing game. The only way to be saved is to correctly guess - without any proof - which belief out of thousands is the correct one. I have said before on this board that I think it’s akin to God demanding to know what number he’s thinking of between one and infinity (because there are an infinite number of possible beliefs).
Of course. Some of my best friends are Christians. My wife is a Christian. I don’t believe that most Christians really go around thinking that they’re going to Heaven and everyone else is headed for the burny place (though some do, of course). I just think it’s mostly an unexamined or outright ignored facet of an inherited tradition that also has much to recommend it.
