“Christian” has come to mean “anti-gay and pro-life.” Now homosexual acts, like building a skyscraper or not screwing your late brother’s wife, may be disparaged here and there in the Christian Bible, but I’d hardly call any of these a major theme of the book. And as for pro-life–there is no scriptural support for the idea that abortion is murder. None. Zip. It’s a position that a reasonable person can hold, but it’s not biblical.
As I see it, the main themes of the Christian Bible are: God demands to be recognized, God doesn’t like bullies, God wants us to love each other, and God doesn’t like judgmental hypocrites. The latter three don’t seem to be popularly associated with Christians. So what happened to you guys, or at least to your P.R. department?
Christianity has been ruthless, power hungry, nasty and bigoted since it’s beginnings. It’s the people who try to do good in it’s name that are hijacking it, or rather trying to.
Hmmm, I’d say that starting from the Old Testament flavour of Christianity that is a bit off mark but not entirely wrong. The OT big guy was certainly a nasty, ego maniacal deity. Around 30 something AD someone tried to reboot the system and bring in some love and warm feelings though, I think that is the more appropriate stage at which Christianity, as such began.
Jesus teachings were certainly not about ruthlessness or bigotry, at least not for the most part and unless you mince words and stories very thin.
Ever since then things have gone downhill more often than not. The problem is that power hungry people will stick to a holier than thou attitude, trying to out match their peers in the adherence (or appearance of) the religious doctrine as a means of gaining power.
Christianity very quickly became a means of people control for ruling elites, however its power has slowly declined starting from the Renaissance. Now in this postmodernist world religions (some of them at least) find in dire need to energize the base (ugh, hate the term), and warm and fuzzy feelings ain’t gonna do it so they drum up hot topics to excite the followers.
I’d say that the Democratic party, in the US, more accurately reflects Christianity. While the Republican party claims to be the Christian party, almost nothing they preach has anything to do with that Christ guy.
Doesn’t seem to me like anything’s changed – the ultra-fundamentalist Christians have always been hate-filled and extremely conservative, they just have more political power and a much louder voice now, far more power than at any point in modern history. The spiritual Christians aren’t as prejudiced, maybe some of them are but they keep it to themselves. To the spiritual Christians, the only important thing is having a “personal relationship with Christ,” and that all – they don’t even talk about it. The fundies, on the other hand, skip over that minor detail and go right into lecturing people and demand we brainwash all our schoolchildren with their psychotic, dogmatic ideals. It’s all about control, and it always has been for them.
I think religion, like most ideologies, is subject to being used for whatever purpose people want to use it for.
But, in the US specifically, we have a certain segment of the Christian population which is very vocal, politically organized, and media savvy. And on top of that, they’ve managed to become an integral voting bloc for a major political party. So, we tend to get a view of Christianity that’s very specific to that group bandied about in the press as if they represent everyone.
And just as a non-Christian looking in, it seems to me that the traditional denominations tend to be more reluctant to condemn or argue with other people’s theologies than the Fundamentalists. This means that the only people arguing theology in the public sphere ends up being Fundamentalists.
The problem is that a lot of Christians you’re talking about are the worst ones. It’s the “silent majority” of Christians that are actually moderate and decent and maybe care about doing good in the world. I’m not a Christian myself, but I feel I ought to know them well enough. The ones who are least tied to dogma are the best ones. You just won’t see a lot of support for churches where people go to learn to hate. Sure there are good bit but there are also many more moderate churches too.
The thing about the Christianity associated with the RR is that it’s based on fear and hate. Those are two very negative emotions to build a religion around, wouldn’t you say? From what I know of the bible, I think both of those things are frowned upon and that love and forgiveness is encouraged.
The point is though, these RR people have always been around in some form or another generally hating and fearing the unknown. They started to hijack Christianity when someone realized they could use them as a political force. It’s sad but unless some equally vocal moderates stand up then it’s the state of the religion.
Depends who you listen to. I’ve read C.S. Lewis, too, but he’s not running for office or begging on cable tv. The people who do while loudly proclaiming their “Christian values” are pandering to somebody.
Talmudic arguments, Vatican encyclicals, degrees in theology–nope, don’t buy it. Religion is compatible with thought.
ETA KGS and BrightNShiny: You’re right, but it strikes me as very weird; as if I woke up this morning to find large numbers of people who idolized Washington, Jefferson, and Franklin, but by “democracy” meant “having an 8” penis that you stick in a pickle jar."
As Ale mentioned, the Old Testament God is a nasty bastard. So when you get right down to it I was being overgenerous; Christianity was nasty before it began. That Old Testament God has always been part of the Christian baggage. And it’s fondness for the Apocalypse is part of what makes it nasty, as well. And the giving up worldly goods and turning the other cheek is bad as well; by setting an unmeetable, self destructive standard it breeds hypocrisy. And it’s fundamental belief that it’s the one true way everyone else is wrong and the “Good New” must be spread - that too makes it bigoted and dangerous.
Bad thought; irrational thought. Being based on unreality, the result is always unreal.
*No idea why that thought came to my head, but it did. I think I learned about Jackson in History class and something to do with pickling, but I think it was a human head and not a penis. But still. It amused me. :shrug:
I can rationally fanwank out all the solutions to Star Trek I could ever want, that doesn’t mean that most people will come up with the same solutions, rational or otherwise, nor does it mean anything other than that we’re talking about fantasy to begin with.
How people choose to interpret their fantasy has nothing to do with logic unless the person himself is logical, and even then that doesn’t mean much.
You may see the main themes as such. With respect, that’s not the way the first Christians or the great majority since saw them. I notice you don’t mention Jesus at all in your ‘main themes’; whatever it is you’re describing, it isn’t Christianity, which centres on Christ.
I suspect that’ like many people today, you expect religion to conform to the current wisdom, rather than conforming one’s lifestyle to the traditional tenets of religion. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not knocking that (I’m an atheist myself), but I do have some sympathy with old religions which are expected to alter their beliefs every century or so in line with the prevailing orthodoxies of the time. It may be they need to do this in order to survive, but it does make the ‘timeless truths’ and l ‘Word of God’ bit look rather silly, as if God were prone to changing his mind every few generations.
No, it doesn’t; it centers on whatever anyone who calls themselves Christian believes it does. It’s a social movement, not an objective reality.
Of course, that’s because there isn’t any “timeless truth” or “word of God”; just a religion evolving to survive, spread and dominate as the social environment changes.
The Bible is not Christianity, or at least was not Christianity. Jesus’ teachings, or the “Christ’s” teachings produced loosely organized groups of people who met to share their experiences and talk about the teachings. It was corrupted, as all good things are, when it became a formal organization. Then you must have those with power and those without. Jesus did not intend to start a church. He said: “I come that ye may have life, and life more abundantly,” which you will have if you follow His teachings. Church attendance is not necessary.
Religion <-------------------------------------------------> Logic :dubious: