I’m a conservative Christian and I don’t mind having athiests as friends at all. I would welcome them as friends. I wouldn’t try to convert them either. Oh, sure, I’d discuss the Bible with them, and ask them how on earth they could believe that there’s no higher power outside the universe, but that’d be about the end of it before we went back to more trivial conversation.
My wife has an interest in astrology and tarot, and that’s a big no-no in the OT. She’s been to psychics before we met, which is also taboo, but I really have never said anything negatively about it, other than my own disbelief in such practices.
My opinion is that I am a poor person to evangelize, so I’m not going to attempt it. I see myself as someone who’s not very good at preaching, and I actually hate people who push their religion down other’s throats. If someone came to me and asked me about Jesus, I’d tell them, but I’d never confront anyone else. If God wants to save someone, He will save them, even if I don’t help. Consider me a Calvinist in that regard.
This is my basic feeling, setting aside the fact that I’m not coming from a background in evangelising religion at all and thus have no even theoretical need for it.
Beliefs have no effect on me. I only know what people’s are to the extent that I’m willing to take their word on it. When they take it into actions, that can affect me – but I can’t tell if a would-be evangeliser is operating from a belief that I can be converted from my own faith or a belief that if I get annoyed by pushers enough I’ll go atheist.
Wow, it’s been a long time since I heard about “smells and bells.” I still get goose bumps when I remember the opening Eucharist at St. John’s Cathedral in Denver for the 1994 Diocesean Convention. The procession alone lasted 20 minutes; I was one of two dozen chalisters … the incense hung in the air for almost an hour. Ah, good times, good times.
Next time someone tells you you’re going to hell, quote this to 'em:
Whereas I’ve run into my fair share of religious bigots who refuse to accept that moral compasses don’t always have to point to Jesus, I’ve also had extremely staunch friends who espoused very strict religions who have been capable of understanding that my lack of belief in a Supreme Being does not mean I’m devoid of the ability to distinguish right from wrong and practice moral behavior.
In fact, one of my friends took a fellow church member to task who was making an impolite statement to me along the lines that no one who didn’t follow God could possibly be a truly good person. My friend explained to him that on the contrary, my adherence to right action is even more impressive because I do it only for myself and my own reasons, not from fear of hell or of worldly reprisals by coreligionists. I also pointed out to him that atheists don’t have the safety net of “being forgiven.” If I do something I know is wrong I can’t go have the Invisible Pink Unicorn take me off the hook–I have to answer to myself every day thereafter and I don’t make excuses for my derelictions.
I’ve found that moral people can learn to get along no matter their flavor of religion or lack thereof, the same way the intelligent and thoughtful people of the SD can learn to understand and respect each other’s divergent opinions. I may not agree with everything another person thinks or expresses, but with tolerance, humility and a willingness to understand I figure people can learn to get along regardless of differences.
The trick here is that there needs to be the requisite levels of intelligence, humor, tolerance and a mellow attitude in order to make it all work. Most people are stupid, bigoted, narrowminded and militant about rearranging the world to suit themselves, so we have problems making it all work out. Where’s the plague that targets stupid people when you really need it, anyway?
We have regular Sunday night Compline services here. I tend to attend because my mother likes choral liturgical music (she’s not a Christian, but she appreciates the aesthetic) and it’s a good excuse to get her out of the house and spend time with her. The incense gets so thick sometimes that the clouds go right up to the ceiling and the four lights lit up there (there has to be SOME light apart from the candles, since we’d either go through a lot of wax or the singers wouldn’t be able to see their songsheets) made visible shafts of light through the smoke.
Um… happy Episcopal hijack.
And though I was in fact confirmed yesterday* I still believe that, while Christ is my way to commune with the eternal and to appreciate the interconnectedness of all things and to remind myself how Good People ought to behave**, it is not thus for everyone. I believe firmly in “Do not say ‘Thou shalt not’, say ‘I will not’.” I don’t give up my responsibility for my own actions, and I don’t do good and moral things just because someone told me to. I’m further along in my moral development than that.
For the most part (and I say this because there’s jerks everywhere), atheists are decent folk who have no trouble teaching their children right from wrong without using the crutch of parables or books or Messiahs. And that’s cool and fine, because I think that if there is an afterlife, our conduct toward our fellow man in this one is more important than anything else. Christians who choose hate over love are not living up to what they should be.
And regardless of any beef you might have with the history of any one church, it is downright inappropriate to blame Joe Random Christian for the Crusades, just as it’s inappropriate to blame me because five generations back I have a slave-owning ancestor***. I’m sorry about it and there’s nothing I can do about it and I don’t own slaves, and I think the issue should end there.
Just live and let live, dude. And if assholes come up to you and tell you that you’re doing it all wrong, that you should stand and sit and kneel and sing like this and believe like that… well, they’re assholes, of the subset Christian asshole. Hate on the assholes, because they deserve it. Leave everyone else out of it.
[size=1]* And it was a marvelous ceremony. The thunderous 500 or so people shouting “WE WILL!” when asked to accept us into the fold was really, really powerful, and walking up the aisle with flowers all around and a smiling bishop up front flanked by the rector (who is marvelous at ministry, really tops) and the newcomers’ priest (a lovely young woman who never seems to have an impatient moment) and my teacher (annoying as his conservatism can be, he’s a remarkably kind fellow) and others I knew and didn’t know, and walking up there with my father behind me and feeling their hands rest on my shoulders as the bishop welcomed me… it was a truly wonderful moment.
** Just this: treat other people as you would be treated, and love unconditionally. Even people who don’t “deserve” love should receive it; especially those, in fact.
*** Amusing but true. In his will he left all his clothing to one of his slaves – we believe the young man was his illegitimate son. I think he freed him on his death as well.
Atheists do not attack religion ,they reject it.We do not threaten them ,they threaten us.Wev are in a war that has been described as a war of religion.How can that be jusified.Our freedoms are being killed by the religeous right.I think atheism should be looking pretty good right now.
Being an atheist is a lot like being homosexual, you know. The majority of ‘normal’ people will claim they don’t have a thing against you, and of course you should be free to do ‘whatever you want to do in the privacy of your own home’. But bring it out in public and see what you get. Try to point to the religious that they are allowed to put up signs about their belief everywhere. They are allowed to get in your face with it, constantly blessing you and trying to give you literature or invite you to church or sending you religious themed Christmas cards, or better yet, try to say something about them running amock and trying to get religion taught in school or carved in stone on the public building where you might someday go to seek justice of some kind. See what kind of reaction you get. Oh yeah, they’ll tolerate us as long as we keep quiet while they try to restructure society to suit them. They don’t mind us at all as long as we don’t ask for the same rights as they do, to declare our beliefs(or lack thereof) in public. But while we are told to shut up and respect their beliefs, they are allowed to call us dreadful, hurtful names and shout about how we are going to Hell, blah, blah, blah.
I have no respect for anyone who believes something utterly illogical just because it makes them feel better, and I honestly believe we would all be better off without religion. Give up the idea of being ‘one of the chosen’ and maybe you’ll see other human beings as your brothers and sisters, or at least cousins. Give up the idea of an afterlife and tell me why you wouldn’t work a little harder to fix the world you are living in now. Give up the idea of God or Karma or whatever assigning people to the place where they are as a ‘test’ or a ‘judgment’ and how do you feel about watching them starve to death, or die of an easily preventable disease?
Forgive me for trying to convert you. You see what it’s like? :dubious:
Pretty much exactly like any other conversion attempt I’ve ever encountered. One of these days, I’d like to see someone try to convert me on the basis of my actual beliefs rather than what-they’d-like-to-think-I-believe, just for the novelty of it. (The fact that this would require the would-be conversion artists to go to some actual effort leaves me with some doubt that it will ever happen, though. Sad.)
I think “atheists seldom attack religion” is more accurate. There are a few militant atheist activists just as there are extremist from the religious sector.
The first amendment has the establishment clause but also contains the freedom to worship clause. It isn’t easy finding the right balance of the two.
Right. Since coming to the SDMB I’ve never seen anyone call believers hateful names.
Religion or just Christianity is not a one size fits all proposition. Unfortunately the extremists have been getting a lot of attention these past few years, The good news is that this has prompted other Christians to stand up to say “They don’t speak for me”
I tend to agree with your idea that Christians prefer atheists to be silent. One thing I got out of “The End of Faith” is that religious beliefs that spill over into the lives of all citizens are not off limits. They need to be challenged.
For many people their religion is about seeing others as their brothers and sisters, being of service making the world and the lives of the people in it, better.
Different people use different vehicles to pursue what they value. If what a person values is making a contribution to the lives of those around them then that’s what they’ll do atheist, believer, or agnostic. What we should respect is their right to choose their own vehicle, even if we don’t understand it.
I agree with the OP. I’ve noticed that people of different faiths (especially the different flavors of christianity) get along OK, at least on an individual basis, and don’t get tripped up too much by the details. Or they’re curious and want to compare their churches, rituals, etc.
I rarely talk about my nonbeliever status because 1) it’s really no one’s business, and 2) I’ve been hassled about it enough that I don’t care to discuss it.
And I think people feel it’s OK to say nasty things about you if you’re an atheist. I’ve been told more times than I can count that I’ll go to hell. I’ve been told, “but you’re such a nice person!” when I said that I was an atheist. I’ve been sneered at and argued with, had my morals questioned, been excluded by “friends,” and have been told that I’m likely to end up in a cult. If I did any of those things based on someone’s beliefs, I would be called bigoted and intolerant.
I have to admit that I’ve occasionally wondered how someone can ignore the obvious contradictions in their beliefs and how they can take moral guidance from someone who may not have even existed and whose own words aren’t anywhere in their guidebook. But, not wanting to be like the unkind people I described above, I choose to keep my mouth shut. If I believed in god, I’d pray for everyone else to do the same so we could all be a lot happier.
That kind of behavior is unacceptable. Honest confusion or couriosity is one thing telling someone they’re going to hell, or some of the others. Not very Christian. If it happens again ask them what the Bible says about judging others.
Most Christians absolutely believe the story of Christ in the NT to be a fact. I’m unclear what you mean about his words not being in the guidebook. There are plenty of words attributed to Jesus in the NT. Believers take them pretty seriously.
My understanding is that none of the bible was actually written by Jesus, that it’s based on oral history that was eventually (generations later) written down, and is susceptible to changes in meaning, misinterpretation, etc. So the original meaning of his words could have been very different and any actual quotes are unlikely to be there.
The (infamous?) Jesus Seminar, a group of scholars who met in the 80’s-90’s, tried to work out (and vote on) which of the sayings attributed to Jesus in the Bible were things that he actually said. According to them, some stuff he was pretty likely to have said; other stuff, not so likely. At least some of the scholars involved were fairly liberal, and the project has been criticized by more conservative Christians. For more details, see the link.
You may also want to read the Straight Dope Staff Report on who wrote the New Testament: Who wrote the Bible? (Part 4).
I see your point. That’s a fairly accurate assesment of where the Bible came from. Of course many Christians would be deeply offended by that idea. Having studied where the Bible came from I can’t refer to it as the “Word of God” seriously. Even though we can be fairly sure the words have been altered the spiritual teaching is still there and can be meaningful.
We have no work that claims to have been written by Jesus. On the other hand, “generations later” is simply not true. The latest any work in Scripture appears to have been completed was within 90 years of the life of Jesus. There may have been interpolations or changes–that argument can be made–but we are not talking about works that were created hundreds of years (“generations”) after the events.
Isn’t 90 years generations later? Add to that the fact that we don’t know what the original authors wrote. Changes have been made. I think that was the point.
I suppose that you can make a claim for three generations, (for revisions to one Gospel and the writing of a couple of Epistles), but that is clearly not what is conveyed by the phrase “generations later.” I did not dispute the possibility of changes. (For that matter, even the earliest writings are subject to charges of being “created” works.) However, the implication that the New Testament, in toto, was a loose collection of oral tales that were only written down by people who could not have had any contact with the participants in any events in which Jesus played a part is simply not true. I do not think that moonstarssun intended (or believed) any deliberate distortion of events; I just figured that in the interest of the Straight Dope® I ought to throw some perspective on the statement.
