Most atheists or agnostics have better uses for their time than to try to refute something they consider nonsense or unknowable.
You know, I’m not even going to argue this, one little bit. For reasons that make sense to them, many Christians have converted Jesus’s teachings (which have been noted several times in this thread) into a new variation on Pharasaic Judaism, but differing from it in being armed with a desire to enforce it on others and often without the sense of divine compassion that suffuses good explications of Orthodox Judaism.
Too, Paul is responsible – inadvertently, a point I want to argue somewhere – for converting the ethics-based teachings of Jesus into a salvationist creedal system. That’s the point gobear has been making consistently through this thread and its antecessor. And it’s worth looking at.
I too am sick of stereotyping. And I’m not out to excuse anybody from being called on the carpet for having done it. But if you look at what gobear has been saying, it’s that the doctrine of love, compassion, inclusiveness, and forgiveness that suffuses Jesus’s teachings is not Christianity as it is taught and practiced today, for the most part. Rather, that has become a mode for dividing, condemning, feeling self-righteous and elite, and any number of other things that would have horrified the Man whose name is attached to it. lel and I have been watching in horror the fallout from this in some particular cases ( ::: waves Hi to the lurking Chris and Beth ::: ) I’m disgusted by it.
But I’m not going to quit. We were here first! Because I believe in doing what Jesus said to, I won’t let the Neopharisees steal the name from me.
The “smoke and mirrors” I was referring to was taking a statement like “Christians do not believe in love” and, when pressed, repackaging the insult as a well intentioned theological conundrum. Eg. ‘Christians espouse virtues like love, yet if you examine scripture, there is reason to conclude that ‘belief’ is the most important tenet’. I think if insult were not intended, the former statement would have looked more like the latter to begin with.
Since we are on the topic, however, quoting scripture is wrought with pitfalls. Each statement is open to interpretation, and sometimes even the clearer statements contradict one another. Also remember that this work has been translated and re-translated, sometimes by people with their own perspective or agenda in mind. I personally don’t have the wherewithal, stamina, or desire, but you probably need to examine great chunks of the bible within their original context, preferably in the older Greek or Hebrew translations, and add to this an understanding of the anthropological history of the peoples involved, to really get the gist of the bible.
Here’s a great big ‘fuck you’ to gobear. I was raised that love and faith were required. Just because other people have looked at different parts of the bible and gotten different things out of them doesn’t mean I believe their fucking view. Just because one believes in America doesn’t mean they agree with what Bush is doing. So what if I’m a member of the Republican party, I didn’t vote for him. I wish I had a candidate that more reflected what I want, but I don’t so I have to keep working to find one. Does someone have to change their faith or political party because of what one person they support does? that’s rediculous and cowerdly. Far better to try and correct what you percieve as wrong rather than quit.
Well, for starters, you can’t compare faith to sexual orientation. One is choice, one is inborne. So until you have people who “choose” to be gay, you don’t have a valid comparison to base your argument on.
Deeply held or not, it’s nothing more than an idea. Ideas (and attitudes that spring from those ideas) are fair game for criticism.
Actually, I can’t quote scripture. Nor was I trying to. Nor do I care to. I was indicating what I thought Gobear meant when he said what he said. I was also indicating that I had no problem understanding what he said.
Another attempt at clarifying (or clarifying my understanding) of what he said: People who claim to be Christian may very well be loving people. But they aren’t loving because of what Christian doctrine has taught them. The good that comes from their actions is independent of the bible’s teachings. Christian doctrine does not teach love above all else. It teaches blind faith and power above all else.
Gobear, Am I close?
Do people “choose” their beliefs? I believe that George Bush exists. I hold this belief deeply. I did not “choose” to believe it. Given a choice, I would disbelieve it. Duffer is right.
Gobear,
So, basically, this is some atheist version of “hate the sin, but don’t hate the sinner?”
Your contention seems to be that what love I might wish to bring into the world is from me, rather than from my Lord. You despise Christ, as opposed to Christians. (I think Poly is onto something about it being Paul, or even Calvin that is the person at issue, but that is a side debate, and one of theology, which I suck at.)
But it leaves me with no remedy for the personal case. For all that it fails in intellectual significance that I try “to be a decent person” I have no other options. I am not a Christian because of the Authority of God. I am probably theologically in error on this, but like I said, I suck at theology. “Being a decent person” is the close in goal of my faith. I thought that Christ’s doctrine was that that was the path most likely to lead me to God, but that’s theology, the real reason is that I want to be like Christ, as I know him.
It’s because it is good, and right and loving that I choose to do what I believe He would want, not because he stands ready to kick me down into the pit of despair. (Which is another theological point I disagree with.) I think that the issue of Salvation is misunderstood. It is the part of me (and you, although that probably won’t please you) that can turn to Him that is immortal. All the rest is mortal, and will perish, without exception, and without any hope of survival. Immortality is a consequence of that nature, not a reward for behavior. Faith instead of works.
But that is all theology, and as mentioned, mine is weak and lame, and illogical, and not text based. Much like my faith. So, still I have no remedy for the absence of love you perceive. I will not simply pass it over to “other Christians, not me” on the basis of your assurance that I am a decent person. Christianity is a very large part of my identity. And, if there is decency within me, then if it did not come from Christ, it is given to Him, nonetheless. And he bid me give it to you, as well.
I will still speak out against those who feel your sins are important, but mine are forgiven. I find that hateful. I find it sanctimonious, and false, and contrary to the spirit of Love, which I still think is the fundamental force in all of the Universe. It is love in which I have faith. God loves man, and that love became the body of Christ, a man. To have faith is to join your spirit with love, or so it is to me.
Tris
That’s debatable. You may not like that it is, but it is.
And we all know what would happen if one were behaving towards homosexuals the way gobear is towards Christians: They would be banned.
But I don’t want him banned at all. I just want him to straighten up. Lose the big chip. Stop blaming all Christians for whatever pain a few have caused. And stop lumping us all together and bashing us for sport – which is exactly what he is doing and exactly what lots of folks have been doing to gays for ages now. This, to me, makes it all the more disturbing – that someone who so clearly has suffered from bigoted hatred wants others to suffer as well.
How can I choose what I believe? 
Well then, “gay sex can be moral” is just an idea.
And all atheists are self-righteous, smug assholes. Get yourself educated, you ignoramous:
Magic, Science, Religion and the Scope of Rationality by Stanley Tambiah.
The Practice of Belief by Marilyn Motz, from the Journal of American Folklore, vol. 111, no. 441 (Summer 1998).
The Terror That Comes in the Night: An Experience-Centered Study of Supernatural Assault Traditions by David Hufford.
People definitely choose their beliefs. You know that Bush exists. You might believe that he will do good things or bad things for this country, but you KNOW he exists.
You may *believe * that there is a god and that Jesus was his mystically conceived son, but you don’t know that.
That may be true in some cases, but you still haven’t explained how people can decide what to believe (other then simply stating that “People definitely choose their beliefs”).
Why don’t you lose the morality clause and just say gay sex is gay sex. It is what it is, man. Nothing more…nothing less.
As an irrelevant aside, I am an atheist. I could be wrong about God, and I could be wrong about Bush.
You weigh the evidence. You use the knowledge base available to you in the 21st century and insert that evidence into your brain for processing. You can either believe that there’s a supernatural being that is trying to control the universe in the way christianity lays it out, or you can believe that it’s the most far-fetched steaming pile you’ve ever run across. You can believe that they laid it out for all to understand and reap the benefits of, or you can believe that it contradicts itself at nearly every turn.
Of course, no one will ever know until they are dead what the truth is (hence the belief thing), but until then, you definitely have a choice.
No shit. But making that insipid tautological statement wouldn’t have made the point I was making: saying that it’s OK to overgeneralize about religious people but not OK to do so about gay people because religion is “nothing more then idea” is ridiculuous, because you can phrase the controversial aspects of homosexuality as "nothing more then idea"s as well.
I’m not gobear; but I think you’re reading completely wrong. Christ seemed like a pretty cool guy, with his emphasis on Love, Equality and Social Justice. However the religion named after him and many of the things done in his name stink. The Religion of Christianity is concerned with POWER. To deny that is to deny the whole hierachy of the Catholoic Church with it’s wealth and influence and a Pope who is supposed to be a mouthpiece of God. It is to deny the actions of the Anglican Bishops who are trying to toss the Episcopals from their Communion. It is to deny the Southern Baptist Convention moves to disassociate churches that don’t toe their line. It is to deny that there are significant numbers of Christians who hang on the words of Falwell and Robertson and would willingly accept a Theocracy.
But . . . but, I do deny them! I deny them a lot. Right now, in fact, I find myself in a struggle. I have given in to hate. I have come to despise some people for failures as Christians.
No, I won’t publicly forgive people for trying to blame Christ for their own hatreds, for such an expression would affirm their hatred. But I must forgive them; for my Lord does, and bids me do the same. So, it will be a matter between us, me, and the condemning Christian. And the best expression I can come up with is to ask their forgiveness for hating them in my turn. That is the point of weakness for hatred. Stop, and put it aside, and ask those you have hated for their forgiveness. They many choose not to give it. This is their choice.
In the exact same way, I have asked Gobear’s forgiveness; not as a spokesman for a greater group, but as an individual. I may aspire to emulate my Lord in this world, but I am not anointed, and do not have authority to represent Christians. I speak only as myself.
Tris
** By the Diogenes the Cynic, who obvisouly still hasn’t actually read anything I posted.**
What would be the point? The Bible was written by human beings, who introduced error, in a language far older than our understanding of it, and then crossed into two other languages before landing in English. I have already seen quotes which purport to ssay that. There are three responses, any of which may be valid.
-
The quote is in error. This is entirely possible
-
The quote is erroneously interpreted
-
The quote says what is means but was not intended as an absolute.
Number (3) seems the most likely, actually. People say things all the time that they don’t mean under all possible circumstances or all the time.
The point is, your incomplete understanding of my religion does not entitle you to lead my around by the nose by a quote out of context from a section of my eons-old religion. To do so is both ignorant and insulting, and demonstrates only your foolishness.
In the future, you should probably stick to citing theological textx, which intended and prepared for scholarly debate, and use terminology much more exact that the writings of pre-Christian Jewish Rabbis.
And of course, your inability to differentiate between Christians is your greatest weakness. You do not know the opponent you chose, and you therefore cannot argue against them. Instead, you repeatedly create fictional opponents, knock down the strawmen, and then declare that the scarecrow was your chosen foe.