# What are your main beefs with Christianity? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 17, 2007, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-your-main-beefs-with-christianity/408372 "2007-06-17T16:47:02Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2007, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-your-main-beefs-with-christianity/408372/201 "2007-06-30T15:11:39Z")
[QUOTE=cosmosdan] Those are nice definitions. I’m not trying to be evasive. Since the point at least in part is to fight ignorance and promote understanding I thought you might want to understand what prayer is for the people who actually pray. Look at the words supplication and petition in your own definitions. Those couldn’t have anything to do with focus and concentration? Whatever the issue might be , problems with our kids, problems at work, or in a relationship, the act of taking time alone to pray about it is more than just saying “Dear God, fix these things in Jesus name, thanks a bunch” It is indeed, recognizing a problem, focusing on it, concentrating on the need and desire to handle it correctly and trying to tap into that inner intuitive consciousness I mentioned earlier. What seems to bother atheists is the form this takes. By prayer to God and asking for guidance from the Holy Spirit it appears that it can _only_ be looking for something outside ourselves to solve our problems. I’m here to tell you, that is not the case. [/quote] Why ask someone else to fix the problem (prayer) when you can (and do) focus on the problem and fix it yourself? Are you saying that you believe there is an outside entity that “fixes” things for you? If that’s the case, it’s prayer. If that’s not the case, it’s “introspection”, “contemplation”, “focus”, to solve your own problem. These two concepts are separate and we have words for both. You may be doing both at the same time, but they are not one and the same. There is evidence that introspection, contemplation and focus have an effect on an outcome. There is no evidence to suggest that a supernatural being answers one’s petition for help. > [@](#): > > I see your point and I agree in the need to clarify in communication. I do think the language in religion that places God as some being out there somewhere , or that keeps us children of some father figure needs to be altered for the sake of growth. Still, what’s the purpose of limiting the definition of prayer if it doesn’t really reflect what is going on within the person. How does that promote understanding? **Sure it’s an exchange between the person praying and God,** but it is more than that. IMHO to really promote understanding we must deal with the nuances of what is going on and why it actually works for people. > If OTOH you want to limit the definition in order to make it easier for you to dismiss it as nothing constructive, have at it. I would suggest that it’s a “perceived” exchange; not an actual exchange. People who pray are organizing their thoughts and plans alone. They might really _want_ the answer to come from outside their own abilities, but in the end, it’s a solitary effort. If you believe that a god can “answer” prayers about difficulties with a problem child, for instance, you would also have to believe that god might actually give a shit whether the Chicago Bears running back made the game-winning touchdown. I think it would be very bold, indeed to to think that god would care about one problem and not the other, if you believe he cares about us at all. > [@](#): > > Does it? It appears to me in many of these threads that there is a real effort by atheists to try and limit the conversation to objective scientific fact and use that as a means to dismiss and ridicule religion. Given the subject matter it seems completely inappropriate to me. Nobody…and I do mean nobody, lives their lives based solely on scientific objective information. Much of our lives , our morality, our day to day decisions and reactions to others is based on our subjective experiences and our emotions. To have a realistic and useful discussion about religion and beliefs we must include those don’t you think? I’m all for defining the lines drawn between objective fact and the subjective experience but in these discussions thsoe lines seem to fluctuate all too often and I don’t think believers are the only ones doing it. When I make a statement like the one I made above I am including our subjective experiences as part of the “information” we use to go forward. Why? Because that’s how people actually function. The information may is incomplete and influenced by bias. It’s not scientific data, but it is how we function as people. I don’t think any atheists consider scientific input to be all there is to the human experience. On the contrary, emotion and perception and all those intangible things are what make the outcome of our decisions different for each person. The existence of a prayer-answering god would effectively eliminate the variances we all see in our daily lives. It’s what we individually \*feel \* about a given thing or issue or problem that makes us the interesting creatures we are. After all, an answered prayer for one is an unanswered prayer for another. What makes you happy certainly will not be a good outcome for everyone. That in itself makes the very concept of prayer a selfish and pointless endeavor. > [@](#): > > I can understand that and I’m all for it. I do however feel we must be realistic in those definitions. If they do not accurately represent reality do they promote understanding? I guess that depends on what you think “reality” is. All I’m saying is that prayer and focus are two different things and should be treated as such. ---
**Author:** ![Incensed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/eb8c5e/32.png) [@Incensed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Incensed)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2007, 7:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-your-main-beefs-with-christianity/408372/202 "2007-07-01T07:17:00Z")
I’d like to start by saying that I agree with **Kalhoun** in the thought=/=prayer debate. I freely admit that thinking about problems is a positive way to set about solving them; I do not admit that asking ‘God’ for help is congruent in any way. Since you seem to believe that ‘prayer’ involves more than simply petitioning ‘God’, I’ll (rhetorically) restate the original question. “You admit \*action \* is necessary in order for people to solve their problems- Then my question would be ‘Is \*asking \* ‘God’ for help?’” [QUOTE=cosmosdan] I see. You might be surprised to know how many Christians who do indeed believe in God do not see this being as punishing and rewarding us as he sees fit according to our actions. Many do but the details of belief concerning the nature of God and his dealings with us do vary. [Here](http://www.gotquestions.org/God-punish-sin.html) they say. [Here](http://www.explorefaith.org/punish.html) they say. I contend that your view is built on a limited and narrow understanding of the variations and nuances of Christian theology. Some may believe as you describe but it is error to think that reflects a central and unifying theme. [/QUOTE] I can understand that the details of belief vary from person to person, but I thought that whether or not ‘God’ was watching and judging was too important a point to let everyone just offer their own interpretation. But then again, as per your contention in the second paragraph, I am not a Biblical scholar, and I thought, perhaps, the idea that ‘God’ was watching and judgine was a misunderstanding I had someone come upon secondhand. So, since you bolstered your position with _interpretations_ of the Bible-and in the interest of remedying my ignorance- I decided to got you one better and see what the **text** of Bible had to say; (Emphasis added throughout following quotations, and be warned, I fear the Bible I used is of a ‘remedial’ version, since I encountered very many fewer 'hast thou’s and 'thou hast’s and other such archaic phrases than I had expected to.) Ezekial, Chapter 16, Verse 38-“I will **punish** you as women **guilty** of adultery or as murderers are\*\* punished\*\*. I will put you to **death** because I am \*\*angry \*\* and **jealous**.” Punishing someone presupposes judgement of them, but maybe I happened to stumble upon an isolated incident and I have misconstrued it as being indicative of the bulk of the text…No, afraid not; From Luke, Chapter 10, Verses 14-15-"But on **Judgment Day** it will be better for Tyre and Sidon than for you. And you, Capernaum, **will you be lifted up to heaven? No! You will be thrown down into the depths!"** Wow, judgment seems to be such a pervasive theme that there is a Judgment Day (and it bears capitalization). More- Luke, Chapter 10, Verses 25-28-“Then an expert on the law stood up to test Jesus, saying, ‘Teacher, what must **I do to get life forever**?’ Jesus said, ‘What is written in the law? What do you read there?’ The man answered, ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your strength, and all your mind.’ Also, ‘Love your neighbor as you love yourself.’ Jesus said to him, 'Your answer is right. Do this and you **will live**.” The question “What must I do…?” implies a conditional agreement-conditional agreements, by definition, require that conditions be met; if one sees reason to ask about these conditions (and attempt to meet them) I would say they are afraid of the consequences of not doing so (ie, being judged, punished or damned) And of course no examination of the non-judgmental nature of ‘God’ can be complete without at least a quick look at the book of Revelation-shouldn’t take long to find a trenchant example- Chapter 16, Verses 4-7" The third angel poured out his bowl (of anger) on the rivers and springs of water, and they became blood. Then I heard the angel of the waters saying: ‘Holy One, you are the One who is and was. You are **right** to **punish** these **evil** people. They have poured out the blood or your holy people and your prophets. So now you have given them blood to drink as they **deserve**.’ And I heard a voice coming from the altar saying: 'Yes, Lord God Almighty, **the way you punish evil people is right and fair**." Hmmm…Its not as though I combed through the Bible for days to find these few instances of judgment and punishment. I sat down, started flipping through text at random, skimming chapter headings, and came up with 3 solidly worded instances of judgment/punishment in 10-15 minutes. Seems to be a major **theme**. It seems that, if Christians use the Bible as their justification of their belief in ‘God’, then they should probably take it upon themselves to believe in the Biblical ‘God’-one who is judgmental and doles out punishment throughout the text. Also I would like to note that your first citation (“As Christians, we will never be punished for sin.”) is noticeably silent upon the issue of non-Christians. Is it fair to say then, that even if Christians don’t believe ‘God’ will punish them for their sins, that they do believe he will punish heretics and heathens for theirs? > [@](#): > > For brevity’s sake let’s stick to belief in God. You’re correct. There isn’t any objective scientific evidence that God is. That in itself is just not enough. That should be obvious. The spiritual journey is an inner subjective one. Many believers have experienced something they identify as the transcendent, the divine, the spiritual. God. They are neither seeking or trying to present objective evidence about those subjective experiences. No, they are not seeking to present objective evidence, but a great many of them are seeking to spread a belief without said evidence. The recent push for Intelligent Design to be taught in schools is an example. The fact that many Christians believe removing ‘God’, and all his corollaries from schools, courthouses and even currency to be anathema is another. Judging from your previous advocacy of acceptance, I doubt this refers to you, but the fact remains that many Christians want their religion to be recognized by society and the government _as if there were insurmountable scientific evidence for it_. > [@](#): > > That some includes me and many Christians. If we’re only going to discuss the fundamentalist beliefs that are the easy targets we can stop wasting time. It’s likely I agree with you more often than not. Christianity is more diverse than that. Okay, but if you get to dismiss parts of the Bible as inaccurate or dated, why is the whole book revered as it is? At best, it seems to be in need of extensive revision. > [@](#): > > That’s true if they want to prove to you or anyone that God is. Most don’t. You’re right-most have no interest in proving it; many just want foist it upon unbelievers and have them accept as unimpeachable fact without critical thought, much as they have. > [@](#): > > How many mistakes could you make before you were forced to surrender your title? Do you know? No I do not know, but I know this; it is much easier to forgive someone for an ignorant or shortsighted mistake than it is for a malicious transgression. I know intent is hard to ascertain (since it requires knowing the thoughts of another) but I think it is safe to say that a great many people are calling themselves Christians without any intentions of attempting to ‘be’ one, even if, and possibly especially if, their knowledge of what this entails is severely limited. > [@](#): > > Do you suppose Christians teach their children to remain chaste until marriage or do they teach that it really doesn’t matter? If I break a law occasionally should I renounce my citizenship? No you shouldn’t, but then again the penalty for breaking most laws (at least the ones the average citizen is likely to break) fall far short of eternal damnation. Again, take the tenets of your faith seriously or don’t claim to adhere to them. If you do not believe in the tenets, then don’t pretend to belong to the religion. > [@](#): > > When I’m thinking about the feelings I just had, which came first? > AFAICT Thoughts can evoke feelings and feelings can evoke thoughts. Sometimes our emotions are prompted by things going on in our subconscious. I’m not convinced that would be called thinking. I do not wish to concede this point, but I feel that this is derailing the debate at hand and I will not address it for this reason; It seems as though it may be a good candidate for its own thread however. I can’t resist responding to one more before calling it a night- > [@](#): > > I think some people you don’t agree with are doing just that, starting with the truth as best they understand it, and attempting to broaden their knowledge from there. Your reiteration of my sentiment is slightly off; I said, “…as best as it is understood…”. You said, “…as best they understand it…”. The difference between those statements is slight syntactically, but the implications of those differences are huge- In short, it is the difference between advocating the use of objective fact versus subjective interpretation (personal opinion). ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2007, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-your-main-beefs-with-christianity/408372/203 "2007-07-01T16:10:36Z")
I’ll ask one more question with regard to what christians believe as far as the bible goes: It’s obvious that everyone picks and chooses what feels right to them as far as what christ was really saying throughout the text. Some people boil it down to one or two statements as gospel and write the rest off as window dressing. Others take every word at face value. But at what point are you no longer considered a “christian”, but merely a fan of christ? How much of the guiding text can you blow off before you can no longer count yourself as one of the “In Crowd?” Surely, sooner or later you have thinned the text to the point where you and the masses no longer have much in common. Would that be at the “don’t have sex outside of marriage” point? Can you believe that there’s no way in hell a dead guy rose three days later and teleported up to heaven? Where do you cross the line that says, “Sorry, Rogah…you Non-christian now!”? ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2007, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-your-main-beefs-with-christianity/408372/204 "2007-07-01T17:14:08Z")
[QUOTE=Kalhoun] Why ask someone else to fix the problem (prayer) when you can (and do) focus on the problem and fix it yourself? [/QUOTE] A pertinent question. Is it okay to ask for help in solving a problem? The form is prayer to God and reflects the desire to tap into something we are already a part of and use that to help ourselves. > [@](#): > > Are you saying that you believe there is an outside entity that “fixes” things for you? If that’s the case, it’s prayer. If that’s not the case, it’s “introspection”, “contemplation”, “focus”, to solve your own problem. These two concepts are separate and we have words for both. You may be doing both at the same time, but they are not one and the same. There is evidence that introspection, contemplation and focus have an effect on an outcome. There is no evidence to suggest that a supernatural being answers one’s petition for help. I understand your desire to clearly define terms and I agree that it really helps communication. I don’t agree with those in Christianity who insist on _remaining_ the children of some distant heavenly father who takes care of things and solves are problems for us. There are other other alternatives than the two you’ve offered. A common theme in many religions including Christianity is oneness. If we are connected to God and each other then the act of prayer is not asking some outside entity for help but trying to tune in to that oneness that we are already a part of. As we strive to tune into that oneness within this world that promotes separation we use prayer to God as a bridge between the two. Clear definitions are helpful but should not supersede the need to understand what is really going on within the people who pray. > [@](#): > > I would suggest that it’s a “perceived” exchange; not an actual exchange. People who pray are organizing their thoughts and plans alone. They might really _want_ the answer to come from outside their own abilities, but in the end, it’s a solitary effort. If you believe that a god can “answer” prayers about difficulties with a problem child, for instance, you would also have to believe that god might actually give a shit whether the Chicago Bears running back made the game-winning touchdown. I think it would be very bold, indeed to to think that god would care about one problem and not the other, if you believe he cares about us at all. Your point stands if you maintain that god is a completely separate entity . The fact is that many if not most believers do not believe that. As a writer I’ve had moments of inspiration that I might refer to as my muse. I don’t think an entity outside myself is moving me. It’s just a form of expressing something we really can’t explain. I’ve heard Neal Simon describe his creative flow being so strong that it actually seems like some outside spirit is telling him the story as he writes. I’ve had similar moments. Although I know it’s going on within me, it feels as if I am tapping some other source beyond my own thoughts. I feel prayer can be very similar and that component of prayer should not be dismissed. > [@](#): > > I don’t think any atheists consider scientific input to be all there is to the human experience. On the contrary, emotion and perception and all those intangible things are what make the outcome of our decisions different for each person. The existence of a prayer-answering god would effectively eliminate the variances we all see in our daily lives. Even given your limited definition I don’t see how. > [@](#): > > It’s what we individually \*feel \* about a given thing or issue or problem that makes us the interesting creatures we are. After all, an answered prayer for one is an unanswered prayer for another. What makes you happy certainly will not be a good outcome for everyone. That in itself makes the very concept of prayer a selfish and pointless endeavor. Yeah I remember the family praying for my grandmother after her stroke and I thought how selfish and stupid they were. Here again, you’re talking about your limited definition of prayer. I acknowledge it as a valid definition. That’s what some people do. I still maintain that for many prayer encompasses much more, and the options aren’t limited to the ones you’ve offered here. > [@](#): > > I guess that depends on what you think “reality” is. All I’m saying is that prayer and focus are two different things and should be treated as such. I accept that as a perfectly valid point. IMHO you’re leaving out that desire to connect to that unexplained transcendent other and the positive purpose it serves in individual and societal growth. You can dismiss it as one more religious myth out of personal preference but is is part of many people’s experience. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2007, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-your-main-beefs-with-christianity/408372/205 "2007-07-01T20:55:38Z")
[QUOTE=Incensed] I’d like to start by saying that I agree with **Kalhoun** in the thought=/=prayer debate. I freely admit that thinking about problems is a positive way to set about solving them; I do not admit that asking ‘God’ for help is congruent in any way. Since you seem to believe that ‘prayer’ involves more than simply petitioning ‘God’, I’ll (rhetorically) restate the original question. “You admit \*action \* is necessary in order for people to solve their problems- Then my question would be ‘Is \*asking \* ‘God’ for help?’” [/QUOTE] I’ll assume we both acknowledge that things can be true whether we admit them or not. We are talking about opinion and perception here. In answer to your question, many people would consider asking God for help to be taking action toward solving problems. I think I’ve addressed how in my response to **Kalhoun** > [@](#): > > I can understand that the details of belief vary from person to person, but I thought that whether or not ‘God’ was watching and judging was too important a point to let everyone just offer their own interpretation. But then again, as per your contention in the second paragraph, I am not a Biblical scholar, and I thought, perhaps, the idea that ‘God’ was watching and judgine was a misunderstanding I had someone come upon secondhand. So, since you bolstered your position with _interpretations_ of the Bible-and in the interest of remedying my ignorance- I decided to got you one better and see what the **text** of Bible had to say; (Emphasis added throughout following quotations, and be warned, I fear the Bible I used is of a ‘remedial’ version, since I encountered very many fewer 'hast thou’s and 'thou hast’s and other such archaic phrases than I had expected to.) Quoting the Bible is not going me one better since it is absolutely unavoidable for people to interpret the Bible. Add to that the fact that Christians don’t all agree on the extent the Bible should be seen as God’s will for man or how literally it should be interpreted. I did not claim that no Christians believe in angry judgment God. I claimed it is not a central and unifying theme. {your words} Your quotes here do nothing to support that argument. > [@](#): > > Hmmm…Its not as though I combed through the Bible for days to find these few instances of judgment and punishment. I sat down, started flipping through text at random, skimming chapter headings, and came up with 3 solidly worded instances of judgment/punishment in 10-15 minutes. Seems to be a major **theme**. Is that a literal Judgment day or is it a metaphor used in teaching? > [@](#): > > It seems that, if Christians use the Bible as their justification of their belief in ‘God’, then they should probably take it upon themselves to believe in the Biblical ‘God’-one who is judgmental and doles out punishment throughout the text. Is that because they’re not capable of discerning it’s meaning without your help or approval? Once more, I’m not denying that your descriptions fit no Christians. They do. My objection is that all to often atheists tend to categorize all of Christianity as if they were fundamentalists. I realize that makes it much easier to dismiss them as superstitious dolts but that characterization is uninformed at best. > [@](#): > > Also I would like to note that your first citation (“As Christians, we will never be punished for sin.”) is noticeably silent upon the issue of non-Christians. Is it fair to say then, that even if Christians don’t believe ‘God’ will punish them for their sins, that they do believe he will punish heretics and heathens for theirs? That belief also varies and would call for a thread of it’s own. We’ve likely had several on the subject already. I’m not going to hijack this discussion by going there. > [@](#): > > No, they are not seeking to present objective evidence, but a great many of them are seeking to spread a belief without said evidence. Yes they are. They are at times asserting as fact, things they can’t prove are factual. At other times they are simply sharing beliefs that they feel are valuable and helpful to others. Sometimes they speak passionately about things that are contrary to their beliefs. In other words. Humans being human. I’ve noticed an atheist or two doing those very things here on the SDMB. That’s not a numerical comparison, just an observation about human nature. > [@](#): > > The recent push for Intelligent Design to be taught in schools is an example. The fact that many Christians believe removing ‘God’, and all his corollaries from schools, courthouses and even currency to be anathema is another. Judging from your previous advocacy of acceptance, I doubt this refers to you, but the fact remains that many Christians want their religion to be recognized by society and the government _as if there were insurmountable scientific evidence for it_. I agree. A portion of Christianity seems to be threatened by our changing society and feels the need to assert dibbs on the USA. I think there is room for discussion when dealing with the 1st amendment but I support a separation of church and state. Perhaps the goal of those folks is a well intentioned effort to keep God and Jesus in the public consciousness. I find that superficial with time and energy misspent. Better to spend time on the introspective portion of the spiritual journey and teach by example. > [@](#): > > Okay, but if you get to dismiss parts of the Bible as inaccurate or dated, why is the whole book revered as it is? At best, it seems to be in need of extensive revision. Again I agree. One of the most pervasive and misguided beliefs in Christianity is that the Bible is in some way, literal or otherwise, the word of God. Like creation vs. Evolution that’s a belief about which, we have lots of real historical evidence. IMO the Bible serves well as a way to stimulate the inner growth process but was never intended to be elevated to the position of authority it has been given. > [@](#): > > You’re right-most have no interest in proving it; many just want foist it upon unbelievers and have them accept as unimpeachable fact without critical thought, much as they have. Like you I have problems with those who eagerly accept and defend and spread religious tradition as fact. My point in this thread is to point out that generalization is not true for all Christians. There is a substantial number whose belief is rooted in their personal subjective experiences. We all go through a personal and unique process of growth, or resistance to growth. We hold on to certain beliefs for various reasons and let go of them when we are ready and the time is right. It’s not that reason and critical thinking aren’t involved. It’s the balance or blending of emotions, and reasoning with a desire to grow that moves us forward. Those variables mix differently in people. > [@](#): > > No I do not know, but I know this; it is much easier to forgive someone for an ignorant or shortsighted mistake than it is for a malicious transgression. I know intent is hard to ascertain (since it requires knowing the thoughts of another) but I think it is safe to say that a great many people are calling themselves Christians without any intentions of attempting to ‘be’ one, even if, and possibly especially if, their knowledge of what this entails is severely limited. No argument from me on this. I’ve seen plenty myself. I’d only remind you that your concept of what a Christian “ought to be” may be flawed. Since there are so many Christians it’s hard to say if _many_ translates into _most_ or not. The occasional human error doesn’t necessarily translate into a lifetime of hypocrisy. > [@](#): > > No you shouldn’t, but then again the penalty for breaking most laws (at least the ones the average citizen is likely to break) fall far short of eternal damnation. Inappropriate and inaccurate comparison. > [@](#): > > Again, take the tenets of your faith seriously or don’t claim to adhere to them. If you do not believe in the tenets, then don’t pretend to belong to the religion. A fair statement. This would be an appropriate thing to say to the egregious examples you cited earlier. However, people struggling and sometimes falling short of lofty ideals doesn’t always equate to hypocrisy. The spiritual journey is a lifelong process with twists and turns, peaks and valleys. > [@](#): > > Your reiteration of my sentiment is slightly off; I said, “…as best as it is understood…”. You said, “…as best they understand it…”. The difference between those statements is slight syntactically, but the implications of those differences are huge- In short, it is the difference between advocating the use of objective fact versus subjective interpretation (personal opinion). Thanks for pointing this out. My mistake. You’re right , there is a major difference. My position is that our lives consist of both objective facts and subjective experience. I do not advocate discarding objective fact in favor of religious tradition I think that stands in the way of growth and progress. I also do not advocate discarding any element of value or possible reality within the spiritual journey. Objective data should serve to help us refine the details of our belief. In areas where the data is inconclusive we use our subjective experience to form an opinion that works for now. Concerning, as best it is understood. An education grounded in objective facts is a beautiful thing. I’m all for it. Unfortunately people accept much as fact without doing personal research. Not everyone has the resources we take for granted. Emotional attachment has a lot to do with it as well. Once someone has accepted “facts” from a trusted source it can be difficult to insert corrected facts over those. It’s not enough to simply provide evidence. We must also understand the reality of the emotional attachment and strive to overcome that as well. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2007, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-your-main-beefs-with-christianity/408372/206 "2007-07-01T21:51:54Z")
[QUOTE=Kalhoun] I’ll ask one more question with regard to what christians believe as far as the bible goes: It’s obvious that everyone picks and chooses what feels right to them as far as what christ was really saying throughout the text. Some people boil it down to one or two statements as gospel and write the rest off as window dressing. Others take every word at face value. But at what point are you no longer considered a “christian”, but merely a fan of christ? How much of the guiding text can you blow off before you can no longer count yourself as one of the “In Crowd?” Surely, sooner or later you have thinned the text to the point where you and the masses no longer have much in common. Would that be at the “don’t have sex outside of marriage” point? Can you believe that there’s no way in hell a dead guy rose three days later and teleported up to heaven? Where do you cross the line that says, “Sorry, Rogah…you Non-christian now!”? [/QUOTE] Like most things in such a widespread religion I’m certain this varies as well. Some Christian groups are ordaining gay ministers while others refer to homosexuality as an abomination. The Course in Miracles teaches some things that many mainstream Christians would consider blasphemy but it claims to be founded on a clarification and more current revelation from Jesus’ teachings. As I mentioned earlier. Many denominations have guidelines. Members who blatantly and repeatedly violate their principles will be ousted from the group. I would consider myself a fan of Christ and his teachings. I decided a few years ago to answer “Are you a Christian?” with No, because my beliefs were so far from mainstream Christianity. Because I still believe many within Christianity as sincere spiritual seekers I’m interested in exchanging ideas with them. I think it’s possible for someone to believe the resurrection of Jesus was spiritual one rather than a physical one and still be a Christian. I believe someone can believe that Jesus as the divine son of God, and so was Buddha, Mohamed, and so are you and I, and still be a Christian. Webster says 1 a : one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ I note that professing belief in the teachings of JC doesn’t have to mean adherence. For me personally, a sincere effort to follow the teachings of Christ is requisite. We don’t have to agree on every point, and people do slip up occasionally , but if you consistently demonstrate you have no intention of following the basic teachings of love and compassion, then don’t claim the label. If you use religion to line your pockets you can claim the label with the added adjective of phony. ---
**Author:** ![Find\_Friends](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c37758/32.png) [@Find\_Friends](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Find_Friends)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2007, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-your-main-beefs-with-christianity/408372/207 "2007-07-01T22:39:57Z")
[QUOTE=Anne Neville] There’s a lot of variance within both Christianity and Judaism. It’s hard to say what “Christianity” or “Judaism” says on a particular topic, because different denominations and different people within denominations interpret things differently. [/QUOTE] Yup. I know a Jewish woman who brought up in discussion something I had come across once in print. She said that if you ask a question about religion to three Jews you will get … [del]three[/del] - _ **FOUR** _ different answers! 😃 * * * True Blue Jack ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2007, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-your-main-beefs-with-christianity/408372/208 "2007-07-01T23:38:24Z")
[QUOTE=cosmosdan] Like most things in such a widespread religion I’m certain this varies as well. Some Christian groups are ordaining gay ministers while others refer to homosexuality as an abomination. The Course in Miracles teaches some things that many mainstream Christians would consider blasphemy but it claims to be founded on a clarification and more current revelation from Jesus’ teachings. As I mentioned earlier. Many denominations have guidelines. Members who blatantly and repeatedly violate their principles will be ousted from the group. I would consider myself a fan of Christ and his teachings. I decided a few years ago to answer “Are you a Christian?” with No, because my beliefs were so far from mainstream Christianity. Because I still believe many within Christianity as sincere spiritual seekers I’m interested in exchanging ideas with them. I think it’s possible for someone to believe the resurrection of Jesus was spiritual one rather than a physical one and still be a Christian. I believe someone can believe that Jesus as the divine son of God, and so was Buddha, Mohamed, and so are you and I, and still be a Christian. Webster says 1 a : one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ I note that professing belief in the teachings of JC doesn’t have to mean adherence. For me personally, a sincere effort to follow the teachings of Christ is requisite. We don’t have to agree on every point, and people do slip up occasionally , but if you consistently demonstrate you have no intention of following the basic teachings of love and compassion, then don’t claim the label. If you use religion to line your pockets you can claim the label with the added adjective of phony. [/QUOTE] Can you be an atheist and be a christian? ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2007, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-your-main-beefs-with-christianity/408372/209 "2007-07-02T00:06:44Z")
[QUOTE=Kalhoun] Can you be an atheist and be a christian? [/QUOTE] I’d consider that too far outside the norm 😃 Of course there’s always [atheists for Jesus](http://www.atheists-for-jesus.com/) ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2007, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-your-main-beefs-with-christianity/408372/210 "2007-07-02T01:28:54Z")
[QUOTE=Solution below right] The big problem with Christianity is that it sucks up the lives of millions of people, wasting it on fairy tales. Far worse than all the idiot shoot-em-up video games combined. [/QUOTE] So they never do anything positive? The millions of Christians make no positive contributions to society? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2007, 4:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-your-main-beefs-with-christianity/408372/211 "2007-07-02T04:10:49Z")
[QUOTE=cosmosdan] So they never do anything positive? The millions of Christians make no positive contributions to society? [/QUOTE] I believe the question is, would all those Christians who have done something positive for Mankind _not_ done so if they were something other than Christian? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2007, 5:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-your-main-beefs-with-christianity/408372/212 "2007-07-02T05:59:46Z")
[QUOTE=Czarcasm] I believe the question is, would all those Christians who have done something positive for Mankind _not_ done so if they were something other than Christian? [/QUOTE] And, is it a net benefit ? Does the good they do in the name of Christianity outweigh the evil done in it’s name, or even just the useless things done in it’s name ? My answer, of course, is not even close. I find it hard to imagine what Christianity could do to outweigh even one of it’s evils; the Catholic opposition to condoms in Africa comes to mind. What **could** Christianity do that would outweigh all the evils it has committed ? ---
**Author:** ![Incensed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/eb8c5e/32.png) [@Incensed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Incensed)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2007, 7:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-your-main-beefs-with-christianity/408372/213 "2007-07-02T07:51:48Z")
**Cosmosdan** -I feel that this debate has devolved to a matter of semantics, and doubt whether pursuing it any further would benefit either of us. I think we have come to that inevitable wall of fundamental disagreement that will always stand between Theists and Atheists, but have done so mostly in a mature fashion. I do think that you have become evasive in recent posts (words have definitions), but am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that you are having difficulty expressing your thoughts rather than are purposefully attempting to inhibit communication. Feel free to reply-I will read what your post, but doubt that I will respond. [QUOTE=cosmosdan] I’ll assume we both acknowledge that things can be true whether we admit them or not. We are talking about opinion and perception here. In answer to your question, many people would consider asking God for help to be taking action toward solving problems. I think I’ve addressed how in my response to **Kalhoun** [/QUOTE] Yes, I know things can be true without an admission from me (or anyone else) but it seems to me that you have dodged the my original question about the necessity of prayer from the outset. Words are constructs of man, so their definitions and nuances are perpetually open to interpretation and dissection. However, I believe if you ask the average American to define ‘prayer’ or what it means ‘to pray’ you will get something along these lines-“To ask ‘God’ for something.”(presumably help or guidance, possibly a Mercedes or game winning field goal.) Maybe that definition doesn’t suit your idea of prayer, but I believe it is the most common understanding of the word. > [@](#): > > Quoting the Bible is not going me one better since it is absolutely unavoidable for people to interpret the Bible. Add to that the fact that Christians don’t all agree on the extent the Bible should be seen as God’s will for man or how literally it should be interpreted. > > I did not claim that no Christians believe in angry judgment God. I claimed it is not a central and unifying theme. {your words} Your quotes here do nothing to support that argument. I would say the quotes I cited support the idea that judgment and punishment are common themes of the _Bible_. Since Christians derive their faith from that book, I thought it logically followed that the themes of the book would be themes of their ideas. Yes, I know people interpret things differently, but when ‘God’ promises to judge or punish, it escapes me how someone takes that to mean anything besides that ‘God’ intends to judge or punish. Call me a inflexible literalist, but I sincerely have no idea how someone could read a sentence like-(‘God’ speaking) “I will put you to death because I am angry and jealous.” and arrive at any conclusion other than that ‘God’ is angry and jealous- or at least can be at times-and intends to put to death those who rile him . Chalk this whole exchange on our part up to my ignorance-not of the Bible-but of the freedom the title ‘Christian’ allows one to ‘interpret’, contort, distort and otherwise dismiss the text of the book which they claim as justification for their beliefs. > [@](#): > > Is that because they’re not capable of discerning it’s meaning without your help or approval? I admit I have no talent for abstract interpretation or teasing hidden meanings from what I consider unequivocal statements. But seriously, words mean something (if only by common agreement), and any attempt to alter the meanings of words beyond their reasonable definitions is an attempt to obfuscate communication. Some people take words in their lightest sense, some in their heaviest-that I can understand; I understand that someone can read the word ‘angry’ and think ‘upset’, while someone else can read it and think ‘enraged’; what I cannot understand is how people seem to choose tenuous synonyms for each word and then synonyms for the synonyms and so on, ad nauseum, until they can view the statement “God is angry” and understand it as “God is not angry.” I sincerely have no idea how to go about the process of ‘interpretting’ something until you have construed antonyms as synonyms, and I also did not know that calling yourself a Christian afforded you the right to do so. > [@](#): > > Once more, I’m not denying that your descriptions fit no Christians. They do. My objection is that all to often atheists tend to categorize all of Christianity as if they were fundamentalists. I realize that makes it much easier to dismiss them as superstitious dolts but that characterization is uninformed at best. You are right, equating Christians with Fundamentalist Christians does make the faith as a whole easier to dismiss, and I will not pretend not to (occasionally) be guilty of this (mostly because the Fundamentalists are the most vocal). However, even when I step back and realize that not all Christians want to create a Christian nation or believe that every word in the Bible is inviolate truth, I still dismiss all Christians as superstitious (not necessarily dolts). Why? Because they believe in God, a being for which their is no evidence. For the record, **superstition-** –noun 1. a **belief** or notion, **not based** on reason or **knowledge** , in or of the ominous significance of a particular thing, circumstance, occurrence, proceeding, or the like. 2. a system or collection of such **beliefs**. 3. a custom or act based on such a **belief**. 4. **irrational** fear of what is unknown or mysterious, esp. in connection with **religion.** 5. **any blindly accepted belief or notion.** (Emphasis added) I believe all meanings apply. > [@](#): > > Yes they are. They are at times asserting as fact, things they can’t prove are factual. At other times they are simply sharing beliefs that they feel are valuable and helpful to others. Sometimes they speak passionately about things that are contrary to their beliefs. In other words. Humans being human. > I’ve noticed an atheist or two doing those very things here on the SDMB. That’s not a numerical comparison, just an observation about human nature. The part about people speaking contrary to their beliefs notwithstanding (not sure if that happens, can’t understand why it would), I agree with this statement. Humans of all stripes can be irrational or state things as fact despite lack of evidence. > [@](#): > > I agree. A portion of Christianity seems to be threatened by our changing society and feels the need to assert dibbs on the USA. I think there is room for discussion when dealing with the 1st amendment but I support a separation of church and state. Perhaps the goal of those folks is a well intentioned effort to keep God and Jesus in the public consciousness. I find that superficial with time and energy misspent. Better to spend time on the introspective portion of the spiritual journey and teach by example. I find this post commendable, but would like to remind you that ‘well intentioned’ is not equal to ‘harmless’. > [@](#): > > No argument from me on this. I’ve seen plenty myself. I’d only remind you that your concept of what a Christian “ought to be” may be flawed. Since there are so many Christians it’s hard to say if _many_ translates into _most_ or not. I purposefully used the word ‘many’. > [@](#): > > Inappropriate and inaccurate comparison. Possibly; That statement was never quite as I intended it and I did not take the time and effort to make it more accurate. I’ll retract it. The idea I was attempting to express was that the consequences of disregarding the laws of man are widely believed to be much less severe than the consequence of disobeying ‘God’. It seems that this idea is one of the main reasons people profess faith, and, accordingly, they should attempt to follow the tenets of their faith more fervently. > [@](#): > > Objective data should serve to help us refine the details of our belief. In areas where the data is inconclusive we use our subjective experience to form an opinion that works for now. The second sentence (to me) implies that people come up with their own explanations for things they do not understand. This is not necessarily the truth, since reliance on religion is not creating your own ideology or conjecture from scratch, as it were, but defering to a well entrenched ideology for which their is no evidence other than it’s continued existence. Doing so strikes me as cop out nearly on the level of Pascal’s Gambit. > [@](#): > > Concerning, as best it is understood. An education grounded in objective facts is a beautiful thing. I’m all for it. Unfortunately people accept much as fact without doing personal research. Not everyone has the resources we take for granted. Emotional attachment has a lot to do with it as well. Once someone has accepted “facts” from a trusted source it can be difficult to insert corrected facts over those. It’s not enough to simply provide evidence. We must also understand the reality of the emotional attachment and strive to overcome that as well. I agree with this entirely, but wish to point out that I believe adherence to Christianity is failure to overcome the emotional attachment one feels to the ideology of their parents and peers. People seem to believe that dismissing an idea someone taught you is to dismiss the person; such is not the case, and, I feel, that as more people come to understand this, we will see a trend to renounciations of faith. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2007, 11:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-your-main-beefs-with-christianity/408372/214 "2007-07-02T11:17:47Z")
[QUOTE=Czarcasm] I believe the question is, would all those Christians who have done something positive for Mankind _not_ done so if they were something other than Christian? [/QUOTE] Is it? Too bad, because that seems like a question we can’t answer. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2007, 11:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-your-main-beefs-with-christianity/408372/215 "2007-07-02T11:25:45Z")
[QUOTE=cosmosdan] Is it? Too bad, because that seems like a question we can’t answer. [/QUOTE] Not directly, but perhaps indirectly. How do nations that declare themselves to be Christian compare to nations that are pretty much neutral in regards to Christianity in the matters of charity, law and order, and diplomacy? Is a nation that is predominantly Christian better in regards to some or all of these? ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2007, 1:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-your-main-beefs-with-christianity/408372/216 "2007-07-02T13:18:29Z")
[QUOTE=Incensed] **Cosmosdan** -I feel that this debate has devolved to a matter of semantics, and doubt whether pursuing it any further would benefit either of us. I think we have come to that inevitable wall of fundamental disagreement that will always stand between Theists and Atheists, but have done so mostly in a mature fashion. I do think that you have become evasive in recent posts (words have definitions), but am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that you are having difficulty expressing your thoughts rather than are purposefully attempting to inhibit communication. Feel free to reply-I will read what your post, but doubt that I will respond. [/QUOTE] Fair enough. I appreciate the time you’ve taken to share your thoughts. It is not my intention to be evasive and I will try to explain that further in this post. > [@](#): > > Yes, I know things can be true without an admission from me (or anyone else) but it seems to me that you have dodged the my original question about the necessity of prayer from the outset. Words are constructs of man, so their definitions and nuances are perpetually open to interpretation and dissection. However, I believe if you ask the average American to define ‘prayer’ or what it means ‘to pray’ you will get something along these lines-“To ask ‘God’ for something.”(presumably help or guidance, possibly a Mercedes or game winning field goal.) Maybe that definition doesn’t suit your idea of prayer, but I believe it is the most common understanding of the word. I could agree with that definition but I’m not convinced it accurately reflects the depth of prayer and what is going on inside those who pray. If the goal is to promote understanding that doesn’t seem to serve the purpose. I could agree with **Kalhoun** ’s suggestion that prayer , and concentration and focus are all going on at the same time but are different things. If they are so closely tied within the individual as to be inseparable, what does that acknowledgment gain. To clarify my position. Do I think that prayer to God as a separate supernatural entity is necessary? No. Buddhist seem to do fine with meditation and don’t believe in a omnipotent God in the way other religions do. I believe there is a oneness and/or connection that ties us all together and teachers like Buddha and Jesus spoke of it. Call it Universal consciousness , or the Divine Matrix or whatever. Whatever God may or may not be there is no ego present. Jehovah, Allah, Great Spirit, it doesn’t matter. It is the condition of the inner person that matters. If an atheist experiences a sense of wonder and awe about the universe and experiences a moment of real inspiration I want that to be something that we have in common rather than letting the word God separate us. I think personifying this universal consciousness and praying to God is a legitimate tool for focusing our thoughts on certain issues. I think meditation, concentration , and focus can be contained within prayer so I am reluctant to dismiss prayer as a whole. > [@](#): > > I would say the quotes I cited support the idea that judgment and punishment are common themes of the _Bible_. Since Christians derive their faith from that book, I thought it logically followed that the themes of the book would be themes of their ideas. Yes, I know people interpret things differently, but when ‘God’ promises to judge or punish, it escapes me how someone takes that to mean anything besides that ‘God’ intends to judge or punish. Call me a inflexible literalist, but I sincerely have no idea how someone could read a sentence like-(‘God’ speaking) “I will put you to death because I am angry and jealous.” and arrive at any conclusion other than that ‘God’ is angry and jealous- or at least can be at times-and intends to put to death those who rile him . Chalk this whole exchange on our part up to my ignorance-not of the Bible-but of the freedom the title ‘Christian’ allows one to ‘interpret’, contort, distort and otherwise dismiss the text of the book which they claim as justification for their beliefs. I’m not sure how many Christians see the Bible as the justification for their beliefs. Some IMO see it as an instructional guide to their beliefs, but that’s another matter. I understand your point and I’ve already expressed my concerns about Christianities reliance on the Bible. I find it understandable for people to claim that as we mature spiritually we can refine our understanding about the nature of God. So, while angry jealous God was a useful tool for certain people in their time, it doesn’t have to remain. I see a lot of that language as a metaphor for “You cannot deny the true nature of the world we share without dealing with the consequences” > [@](#): > > I admit I have no talent for abstract interpretation or teasing hidden meanings from what I consider unequivocal statements. But seriously, words mean something (if only by common agreement), and any attempt to alter the meanings of words beyond their reasonable definitions is an attempt to obfuscate communication. Some people take words in their lightest sense, some in their heaviest-that I can understand; I understand that someone can read the word ‘angry’ and think ‘upset’, while someone else can read it and think ‘enraged’; what I cannot understand is how people seem to choose tenuous synonyms for each word and then synonyms for the synonyms and so on, ad nauseum, until they can view the statement “God is angry” and understand it as “God is not angry.” I sincerely have no idea how to go about the process of ‘interpretting’ something until you have construed antonyms as synonyms, and I also did not know that calling yourself a Christian afforded you the right to do so. I have been amazed and appalled at the incredible justification and twisting of logic and semantics by some portions of Christianity. My preference would be that they acknowledge the Bible as just one useful tool rather than any authoritative guide. > [@](#): > > You are right, equating Christians with Fundamentalist Christians does make the faith as a whole easier to dismiss, and I will not pretend not to (occasionally) be guilty of this (mostly because the Fundamentalists are the most vocal). However, even when I step back and realize that not all Christians want to create a Christian nation or believe that every word in the Bible is inviolate truth, I still dismiss all Christians as superstitious (not necessarily dolts). Why? Because they believe in God, a being for which their is no evidence. For the record, > > **superstition-** > –noun 1. a **belief** or notion, **not based** on reason or **knowledge** , in or of the ominous significance of a particular thing, circumstance, occurrence, proceeding, or the like. > 2. a system or collection of such **beliefs**. > 3. a custom or act based on such a **belief**. > 4. **irrational** fear of what is unknown or mysterious, esp. in connection with **religion.** > 5. **any blindly accepted belief or notion.** > > (Emphasis added) I believe all meanings apply. I don’t deny the superstitious aspect of religion. I think every human does a bit of number 5. That’s why I have trouble the manner in which some atheists deride religion. IMHO I don’t think we could have had the Wright brothers without the myth of Icarus. Don’t dismiss the reality of people’s spiritual experiences to eagerly. Whatever they are, and I’m not pretending to know, I think they do serve a essential function for mankind and for the individual. Our striving to understand those experiences and to clarify our notion of God, is part of what moves us forward. > [@](#): > > The part about people speaking contrary to their beliefs notwithstanding (not sure if that happens, can’t understand why it would), I agree with this statement. Humans of all stripes can be irrational or state things as fact despite lack of evidence. Sorry that wasn’t clear. Their beliefs may prompt them to speak out against things that are contrary to their beliefs. example; They may protest the Adult book store in town and make efforts to close it. > [@](#): > > I find this post commendable, but would like to remind you that ‘well intentioned’ is not equal to ‘harmless’. Acknowledged. IMO that’s an essential part of the human process of growth. Interaction, and even confrontation. A clash of ideas will hopefully force us to examine our own if the goal is understanding and growth rather than “winning” > [@](#): > > The second sentence (to me) implies that people come up with their own explanations for things they do not understand. This is not necessarily the truth, since reliance on religion is not creating your own ideology or conjecture from scratch, as it were, but defering to a well entrenched ideology for which their is no evidence other than it’s continued existence. Doing so strikes me as cop out nearly on the level of Pascal’s Gambit. I agree and did not intend to imply otherwise. We interpret our experiences through the filter of our immediate society and what others are telling us. I’m an example of that. Years ago I interpreted a powerful experience with the influence of those around me at the time. I see it quite differently now. > [@](#): > > I agree with this entirely, but wish to point out that I believe adherence to Christianity is failure to overcome the emotional attachment one feels to the ideology of their parents and peers. People seem to believe that dismissing an idea someone taught you is to dismiss the person; such is not the case, and, I feel, that as more people come to understand this, we will see a trend to renounciations of faith. I agree. When a church group and the people in it becomes an important part of your emotional security and support system it can be scary to risk rejection by questioning beliefs. I actually think that’s what Jesus was talking about when he taught people to not assume religious leaders were superior and correct, and even to reject family if necessary in the pursuit of truth. In a similar way when I discuss beliefs with Christians I try to get them to understand that questioning particular doctrines of their church is not attacking God belief . It’s hard to overcome the “how could all those nice smart people be wrong for so many years” thing. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2007, 1:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-your-main-beefs-with-christianity/408372/217 "2007-07-02T13:22:12Z")
[QUOTE=Czarcasm] Not directly, but perhaps indirectly. How do nations that declare themselves to be Christian compare to nations that are pretty much neutral in regards to Christianity in the matters of charity, law and order, and diplomacy? Is a nation that is predominantly Christian better in regards to some or all of these? [/QUOTE] That might be legitimate and I’d be interested in seeing such data. OTOH there are so many factors other than Christianity that would affect the data it would be hard to draw any realistic conclusions. Christianity is just one religion among many. I have no problem acknowledging that societies have done just fine without it. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2007, 1:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-your-main-beefs-with-christianity/408372/218 "2007-07-02T13:26:29Z")
[QUOTE=cosmosdan] That might be legitimate and I’d be interested in seeing such data. OTOH there are so many factors other than Christianity that would affect the data it would be hard to draw any realistic conclusions. Christianity is just one religion among many. I have no problem acknowledging that societies have done just fine without it. [/QUOTE] Do we have any cites for what happens when societies that have done just fine without Christianity have had Christianity introduced in a major way? Has it helped or hindered? ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2007, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-your-main-beefs-with-christianity/408372/219 "2007-07-02T13:52:14Z")
[QUOTE=cosmosdan] I don’t deny the superstitious aspect of religion. I think every human does a bit of number 5. That’s why I have trouble the manner in which some atheists deride religion. IMHO I don’t think we could have had the Wright brothers without the myth of Icarus. Don’t dismiss the reality of people’s spiritual experiences to eagerly. Whatever they are, and I’m not pretending to know, I think they do serve a essential function for mankind and for the individual. Our striving to understand those experiences and to clarify our notion of God, is part of what moves us forward. [/QUOTE] Hmmm…I don’t think superstition is a universal human trait. There’s a difference between believing something and then learning it isn’t true, and believing something despite all evidence to the contrary. I also think people can (and have) imagine(d) flight without ever having heard the myth of Icarus. That story isn’t what planted the seed; it is the result of the seed having been planted via observation of the natural world. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2007, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-your-main-beefs-with-christianity/408372/220 "2007-07-02T17:16:07Z")
[QUOTE=Czarcasm] Do we have any cites for what happens when societies that have done just fine without Christianity have had Christianity introduced in a major way? Has it helped or hindered? [/QUOTE] I suppose we could look at our native Americans or Hawaiians but once again we’re dealing with other factors. Did you have an example in mind? Have you read the thread about black Christians? I haven’t been reading all of it but found a few posts interesting. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-your-main-beefs-with-christianity/408372.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-your-main-beefs-with-christianity/408372.md?page=12)