So, I’ve seen a lot of this the past few weeks. KGS is only the most recent example and, since it was in a Great Debates, I think it’s worth calling him out by name. Not all Christians are “bonafide nutjobs.” They are also not all “hypocrites” or “immune to logic.” I would even argue that the majority of them are not “totally judgemental.” Seriously folks, grow up. 75% of the country is Christian. Given the amount of ideological diversity that we know exists nation-wide, how could “all Christians” be much of anything? It just doesn’t work. Fight some ignorance.
Gross overgeneralizations are unacceptable when applied to a wide range of groups. I’ve never seen someone rant against Jews, Blacks, or Muslims without being called on it. Christians are no different. These groups are not monolithic wholes and treating them as such is offensive.
If you want to criticize a particular kind of Christian or brand of Christianity, go ahead. Some Christians believe that every word of the Bible is literally true. Disagree? Fine, go ahead and talk about it. Angry that some Christians are homophobic or hypocritical? Perfectly legitimate issues. Shitting on an entire faith because you’re either annoyed by a particular set of examples or psycho yourself…that’s a different story.
While KGS’s words were pretty inflamatory, how can a skeptic/atheist not claim that Christianity is averse to logic – not Christians, but actual Christianity – when the very tenets of the faith fly in the face of reality?
Same holds true for any religion. Christians get picked on because they’re so ubiquitous … and vocal.
Christianity is the most selfish religion imaginable. There’s no WORK involved – all you have to do is “have faith in Christ”, and you’re forgiven. You don’t have to change your behavior – you can continue to act like an asshole, abuse your children, drink and smoke and leer at younger women, because your “sins” have all been forgiven. Why bother facing your inner demons, when God’s already forgiven you?
I think this question underlies much of the problem (though I thank you for being very polite about it). Christianity has not been disproven, it simply hasn’t. Certain brands of Christianity do not stand full scrutiny, in my opinion, but that does not make the entire enterprise absurd. Given that, whether it is right to believe is an open question.
There are millions and millions of highly educated Christians. There are sane, rational, sensible people who devote their entire lives to the study of religion and still believe. They may be wrong, but they are not illogical.
No. I’m an atheist and I know better than this. The whole concept of ‘faith alone’ or ‘salvation by works’ is one of the oldest, most acrimonious debates within the Christian religion and tarring the entire faith with the views one sect (assuming any sect actually believes what you just said) is really immensely stupid.
You were an unapologetic dick. Your statement in great debates was false and offensive. Rather than correcting it and apologizing, you persisted. The only surprise is that a moderator didn’t call you on it.
I’ll agree this far, that some Christians are genuinely good people. However, most of them (at least the ones I’ve met) are merely Christian-by-proxy – they may have faith in the basic fundamentals, but don’t necessarily believe in all of them. Certainly, they don’t always believe that the Antichrist is coming soon, or that you must tithe 10% of your gross income in order to enter the kingdom of heaven, or that homosexuality is evil, or any of the other doctrines. Most Christians merely go to church for the social experience, nothing more. (For what it’s worth, most religions only exist as an excuse to socialize with other humans on a spiritual level, so Christianity’s not alone in that regard.)
Liar liar, pants on fire! I made only one comment, and was told to STFU by others (including tomndebb, a moderator, which your myopic perception clearly failed to notice) so I shut up. The only further comments I made were answers to direct questions…do you have a problem with that? And what’s to apologize for?
(And how come nobody answered my question about Mark possibly being the naked boy in the Gethsemane Garden?)
If by not following their faith how can you use their behavior to conclude that the faith, which they are not following, is selfish or in error? Is that not similar to looking as Shodan and concluding liberalism is in error?
I have a problem with this. I have spoken to a lot of Christians that backpedal from the basic tenants of their religion to make it seem less far-fetched. Once, during a discussion about the proof (or lack thereof) of an historical Jesus, was told by a respected priest that the question was irrelevant. Faith in Christianity was all that was important. Either the bible is true or it is not. If it is not you can’t cherry-pick a belief system from it.
I think you’re missing something important here. The beliefs you cite - the Antichrist, tithing, antihomosexual views - are NOT core Christian doctrine. In fact, they are all highly debatable points.
Tithing
Beliefs regarding homosexuality, most recently:
The Antichrist…is a really long story. Let’s just say that the Left Behind series takes a very unusual perspective on the End Times.
It sounds to me like you’ve taken every Christian who you know personally and don’t think is insane and decided that they’re not really Christians. This is problematic in that it allows you to keep your very limited view of Christianity despite counter-examples. I can’t speak for the particular individuals you know, but I am friends with many people who do not hold those views and are serious Christians.
There really isn’t much to say. People have suggested that the boy is Mark but, to my knowledge, there isn’t any evidence either way. Another tradition holds that it’s the angel from the tomb (see the end of Mark).
Of course it’s been disproven; it’s full of claims that fly in the face of both logic and reality.
Yes, they are all illogical. They are not “sane, rational, sensible people”, at least not in regards to that area of their lives or they wouldn’t buy into such nonsense as Christianity, or any other religion.
Because then you open up the question of why you should believe ANY of it.
Um, maybe cuz the Bible is such an important book to Christians because it was inspired by your god? And that by leaving bits of it out you’re 1) implying god made mistakes, and 2) saying your judgment is better than your god’s.
Yes, this is a sweeping generalism, and the form it’s in now is wrong. It should read:
Wait… you’re pitting KGS for a comment about how other people are wackos for whom truth and logic mean nothing? The same guy who informed people in another thread that he was going to send his invisible friend to kill them?
You’ve been hooked.
At least kGS is a more amusing fisherman than many we get here, but seriously, posters here should just learn their lesson and back away while smiling and nodding.
If you subscribe to the belief that the Bible is the unerring word of God, then I would see problems with cherry-picking the bits and pieces you choose to follow. If it is indeed inspired by God, supposedly omnipotent being, why would he include errors?
Maybe that’s uncharitable of them, but being a landlord can really try your patience.
Why? If someone agrees more or less with the ACLU, or the Republicans, or the Christians, why can’t they join them and identify as one of them? Is it really better to form your own group, just you and your clone, and sit in your basement bitching about the Untrue Believers?
There are those, even in the ministry, who are too willing to backpedal in the face of criticism. A minister who says it is irrelevant whether Jesus ever lived is taking what can charitably be called a minority position.
That aside, I think you’re holding Christianity to an unreasonable standard. The Bible is a 1900 (ish) year old book that incorporates texts from as much as a thousand years earlier. True in every detail? We’re lucky if the front page of today’s newspaper is perfectly true and that is reporting on what happened yesterday. There is plenty of legitimate room to maneuver when interpreting a text written in the Iron Age. Many Christian scholars are perfectly happy to interpret significant portions of Genesis as being metaphorical; logic demands it and whether Noah ever sailed in an ark is irrelevant to the broader points. The actual life of Christ is a much touchier subject, for obvious reasons. Even there, however, I know many ministers who take what I consider to be the highly legitimate tact of considering the New Testament books in their historical context, recognizing that the Gospels are good yet not perfect accounts of Jesus’s life,* and overlooking some of the odder passages in Revelations.
*Notably: I think John was going somewhat senile. It’s the most parsimonious way of accounting for the…non-linear structure of his Gospel. Whenever I read it I picture a team of frustrated scribes trying to get the old man to stay on topic.
