Meh, you can play that card all you want, but sometimes you just have to call a spade a spade. You’ve pitted people yourself, Poly. Gobear has a long history of making irrational and impugning generalizations about religion. I don’t “hate” the guy; if I found him mugged on the street I’d try and help him, but at this point I’m not really interested in conversing with him.
Hell, in a thread about overly broad religious generalizations, he makes this statement:
What’s the point of talking about religion (or pretty much anything non-factual) with someone who’s already decided that an important part of your being is “superstitious nonsense,” and continues to attack you even when he knows it’s hurtful? He’s perfectly capable of presenting those opinions in a conciliatory manner, but he chooses not to.
Gobear’s opinions are about as relevant to me as Fred Phelps’s.
It’s probably just another in a series of indicators that I’m slipping ever further toward the Dark Side, but I’ve read what our resident board saint has to say on the matter, and I can only grit my teeth and seethe.
Bullshit, Poly. Who among us, besides Paris Hilton, is playing life in easy mode? Not, I though I won’t complain; not many others who have their own ‘crosses to bear’, if you will excuse the religious cliché, that look so ponderously heavy from my vantage point.
Having a run-in with the Christian church doesn’t grant you the privilege of indulging in intolerant stereotyping. It simply does not; though even if did, how would this explain similar comments about Muslims, Hindus, and even those of German ancestry, for chissake? I’ll give you a hint: it does not.
I’m tired of special pleading based on some individual knowledge board members share with one another outside the scope of the topic at hand. Give them some slack? Fuck no. How about giving the rest of us some respite from the ignorance?
Also file under ‘things Waverly is tired of’ this tactic of qualifying intolerant comments with, “my prejudices stand, but I don’t refer to good people like Board Member A, whom I adore, and Board Member B.” As if vilifying an entire group of people is excusable as long as you exempt a few select SDMB members.
Okay, now you’ve pissed me off! Seriously, bodies which are “not much of a Christian church” by this definition include the Orthodox Churches, the Coptic Churches, the Catholic Church, and the Anglican Churches, all of whom claim lineal descent from the early churches that established the canon of Scripture and which have since their inception insisted on the teaching authority to explain what the thing is supposed to mean. For them Scripture is foundational but in no way has primacy regarding doctrine.
This is important in a number of ways. And speaking from my own concerns right now, thanks to the wedge Abp. Akinola and Bp. Duncan and their followers are driving through my church, it’s nice to belong to a church that teaches, with authority, that we are to act out Jesus’s Big Two Commandments and all they entail, and let the chips fall where they may.
You’ve said this several times in this thread, and of course it’s difficult to make any one statement about what “Christians” believe, but the Roman Catholic church officially believes salvation without faith is possible, and I’m pretty sure the same can be said about the Orthodox church and the Anglican Communion (I’m not sure how to find specific statements of belief for the latter two, if they exist). Together, I believe those three sects compromise a global majority of Christians…
And show me where i said this? Polycarp said it, not me. I am not mentioning any specific politicla issues in the news because my difficulties with the faith go back 2,000 years.
And I’ll ask again, what stereotyping? I’m talking about Christian doctrine, sure, I said “Christians” but who else believes in Christian doctrine, Zoroastrians? You are using the language of victimization to plead that your religion may not be criticized. Bollocks, I say. You people believe in a God so vicious that He killed His son to fulfill
[quote]
a thirst for blood. “Don’t kill the humans, Dad, take Me instead.”
Who am I exempting? Show me where I exempted anyone.
In that respect, I guess you can regard me as a 16th-century Lutheran because I am sola scriptura all the way.
While I appreciate the support your half of the church is giving gay people, you are being torn between tradition and modernity in a battle that will eventually end the sway of religion over the minds of humanity.
Gobear - I get frustrated with what much of what passes for Christianity these days as well.
However, I’m a pretty simple creature and I think that as a Christian, my primary duty is defined by the following:
Mark 12:30-31
Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength. The second is this: Love your neighbor as yourself.
The folks I worship with believe that just showing up on Sunday isn’t enough-you have to actively work within your community to make the world a better place-not by preaching but by committing yourself to helping the poor, the hungry and the oppressed.
They also define marriage as a committed relationship between two adults-period- and have since 1992.
From what I can gather, being a Christian seems to bear no relationship to whether a person is an asshole, a lunkhead or a pretty decent human being - witness duffer and Polycarp. So if being a Christian doesn’t mean anything; if it doesn’t make someone strive for social justice (Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness); if it doesn’t make someone work for peace (blessed are the peacemakers); if it doesn’t make someone at least try to forego insults (blessed are the meek in spirit); if it doesn’t make someone charitable (Blessed are the merciful) then what the fuck good is it?
We can sit here all day and type out point/counter-point of good Christians doing good work in the world and bad Christians starting wars and killing. That gets us nowhere; but makes the point that Christianity as a religion seems to be worthless as a force for good. I’m willing to bet that the folks who do great things in the name of Christianity would do it even if they were atheist or Hindu. It’s because of who they are. In the same way, the assholes would be assholes regardless of the religion they follow. The Taliban and Jerry Falwell are cut from the same cloth.
Individual Christians may care very much about Love. I know this is true. But the religion itself seems far more concerned about Power and Obiendence than making the world better.
I think Gobear has a good point here. How many hours of TV programming throughout the week, but especially Sundays, are dedicated to broadcasts from various cults of Christianity? How many are dedicated to broadcasts from athiests or agnostics?
It is one-sided, and nobody seems to think it’s a problem, because it’s the mainstream religion that’s being touted, and everybody gets a warm fuzzy as a result.
“I’m an atheist. I still go to church - I’m not a heathen. I go to an atheist church. Crippled people get up and testify that they were crippled, and still are.” - Paula Poundstone
That doesn’t really make for riveting TV. And it’s not like that TV programming has said “no atheist religious programming”. It’s about the market and the fact that the majority of people are Christians. It’s TV, for crying outloud, not equal opportunity pandering.
I’m an atheist/agnostic/humanist/whatever and I don’t think I’d be interested in watching a program devoted to that. It’d be as interesting as watching a program about people who haven’t been to Spain and have them talk about not having gone.
If you can’t read, don’t pick up the book. It’s fairly blatant about Jesus’ death allowing mankind to achieve heavenly wisdom. It is in no way certain that Faith is a requirement, random and vague quotes aside.
I’m really getting tired of people telling me what I believe. It’s amazing how much I apparently was missing from my own religion. Since I’ve now been corrected, I’ll go out and meditate on power rather Jesus. :rolleyes:
That is arguably the single wierdest statement I’ve ever heard. Let’s all get together and talk about how much we don’t believe in God!!!111
Incorrect. You still do not understand Christianity, but are convinced you do. The Bible is not the sole authority for most Christians, even most in the US, and even then must be translated and interpreted across 2000 years and 2000 miles.
Secondly, most of the quotes you put down don’t even say what you declare they mean. You’re putting your own words in them. You’re lying, or at least willfully blinding yourself, so that you can insult people and feed your prejudice.
I think he covered it very clearly. Christians constantly preach love (whatever THAT’S supposed to mean) but doctrine says blind faith will get them to heaven. They are NOT taught, in general, to be loving (there’s that word again) in order to be saved, but to believe in the savior to get to heaven.
This is the gist of the religion. There are some who interpret this differently to satisfy their desire to be good people, but then we get back to “what is a Christian?” Anyone can call themselves a christian, regardless of the cherry picking they do, so there is no universal answer. But if I decide to take the same liberty and call the christians as I see them, that’s not allowed. There are a number of prominent christians on these boards that I DO NOT consider christians (and you might be surprised who they are!), but according to statements made in the “What makes a Christian?” thread, that would be as insulting as to tell non-christians that they ARE.
I take Gobear’s statement to be that christianity is fueled by “believe in me or ELSE!”. I would tend to agree.
The positions of these denominations towards the salvation of non-Christians is extremely nuanced and qualified. Faith in God is still required at a minimum and salvation by one’s own works or personal goodness is still excluded as a possibility. The Vatican’s 2000 statement Dominus Iesus, states that
It also includes several statments like this:
The phrase “it must be firmly believed…” (italics original to the document) occurs throughout the Dominus Iesus. It is said that the Holy Spirit may work indirectly in people of other religions but that it’s much more difficult to get saved and that those who knowingly “reject Christ” as a personal saviour have no hope.
It goes without saying that some of the more Fundamentalist/Evangelical stripes of Christianity are quite exclusivist and that these denominations have quite a bit of influence on US culture at the moment. I think it could be argued that there are some equivalencies in Islam (Non-Muslims can be saved if they are righteous and believe in one God) but as far as I know, there is no school or sect of Judaism which is exclusivist, nor is this kind of thing found in traditions like Buddhism or Hinduism.
Would you like to see all the Bible quotes that say exactly that?
I’m not telling you what you believe, I’m telling you what has always been explicitly stated by Christian doctrine. Whether you believe it is neither here nor there.
Oh really?
I’m sure you can quote scripture to back this up, but honestly what does that prove? I could quote scripture that contradicts it; and by the way, I could also quote scripture that is pro-abortion, pro-incest, and pro turning your daughter over to be gang-raped. It proves nothing.
Maybe, just maybe, these little quote parties aren’t the most reliable means of understanding what Christians are or are not taught. Quit the freaking smoke and mirrors routine. Gobear stated that “Christians do not believe in love.” You can try to sell this as a discussion about catechism or theology, but let’s be honest. It’s a negative statement about Christians, and it happens to be untrue. If Gobear has some deep philosophical meaning in mind, he would have stated it that way.
Since when is quoting Scripture smoke and mirrors? What other way do we have to back up what we say other than quoting from the Bible? (genuinely confused)
Personally, I’ve always felt that it’s next to useless to examine a religion’s tenets and ascribe them to every single adherent of that religion.
I’m a Christian, and my religious beliefs boil down to three main items:
God loved the world, so he sacrificed His Son Jesus as an atonement for our sins.
Faith without works is dead. In other words, you gotta have both to be living the way God/Jesus intended. Faith alone doesn’t cut it. (As a minister once told me, “The Devil believes in Jesus and that He’s God’s Son. Doesn’t mean he’s going to Heaven.”)
Jesus said that the two things we should do are to love God and love our neighbor as ourselves. To me, the second part of that stentence means whatever power you wield you should wield for the good of all, to the best of your ability. This is not what I see happening in most religions today.
Seriously, bodies which are “not much of a Christian church” by this definition include the Orthodox Churches, the Coptic Churches, the Catholic Church, and the Anglican Churches, all of whom claim lineal descent from the early churches that established the canon of Scripture and which have since their inception insisted on the teaching authority to explain what the thing is supposed to mean. For them Scripture is foundational but in no way has primacy regarding doctrine.
That is arguably the single wierdest statement I’ve ever heard. Let’s all get together and talk about how much we don’t believe in God!!!111
(genuinely confused)