The Christian Bashing thred.

[OhhMy]

There seems to be a lot of Christian bashing going on at the moment, well it seems a little spread out so say it all in here. Personally I am a christian but I cant stand other christians. Oh and dont get me started on the CU ill leave that to you. Oh and as to some threds I have seen where chistians compare them selves to other minorities and say 'you wouldn't dare say that about minority x'. Well im fed up of other Christians calling me evil/sinful for being gay. They would not dare say that about black people now would they and quite rightly so. Im sure others are fed up of being told they are damned if they dont believe exactly what a certain group of christians belive (CU.. oh no I said I was going to leave that to you).

Enjoy

[flarewearer]

It's not just Christians, don't get me wrong, it's all religious groups who seek to persecute those that do not hold to their ideals or practice their ways.

*Bashes all religions zealots simultaneously*

[hr]..Abstract concepts are notoriously difficult to bomb...

[Gubbins]

On the whole, religion seems to me to be the cause of an awful lot of suffering in this world (the Crusades, the Holocaust, Jihads, etc.). In fact, it just seems to me that, to paraphrase Red Dwarf, people seem to use religion as an excuse to be shitty to one another. The same can be said about the colour of people´s skin, or their political stance or whatever. I think the problem lies in man´s seemingly inate need to feel that "I am right an you are wrong". It´s sad, really...

[Rob Hearn]

One can try to calculate the sum worth of a religion in terms of good and bad; say, that is, religion contributes such and such, but hinders this and harms that. Myself, I prefer not to get into such debates, because it's impossible to come to a reasonable conclusion. Personally, I hate religion to the core of my being. Much of the foul things that happen in the news these days - in Iraq, and NI, for example - are unarguably related to religion. Moreover, issues of censorship, discrimination against homosexuals, and so on regularly emerge and boil my piss. And historically - well, we're all aware of the numerous moral and intellectual follies of religion in history. I know, however, that my hatred of religion makes me focus on these - of course significant - things and ignore the less quantifiable positive contributions that religion has made.

No, I prefer not to get drawn into that debate. I'm happy to say, however, that religion is quite simply stupid. If nothing else, that anyone can believe in the assertions of any religion in this day and age is mystifying. God is no more plausible than astrology, and ghosts, and santa, and prior to the moral questions it strikes me that those who believe in god and engage in all the ritual and pomp are making fools of themselves before a growing audience of rational athiests.

[exnihilo]

Excuse me, Gubbins? The Holocaust was caused by religion? Whose? Certainly not that of the Nazis, they eschewed religion - are you saying that the Holocaust was the Jews fault for going and being all Jewish at people?

Perhaps the problems "caused" by religion are more accurately the problems caused by human stupidity, which doesn't confine itself to any one area of human life.

[LonelyPilgrim]

Rob Hearn,

Gee... I love being called a fool. Really 'makes my piss boil' actually.

Perhaps YOU can finally be the person who explains to me why believing that this amazingly ordered universe that we live in just came about randomly from nothing is any less irrational than believe in a divine Creator.

You see, atheism is no less a 'religion' than religion is, in that it makes certain unprovable assumptions about reality. I'm not saying that religion is capable of answering questions about why the universe is the way it is or where it came from to any higher scientific or rational degree.

It simply annoys the living hell out of me when athiests come along and claim that they are somehow rationally superior when their own worldview and belief system is just as incapable of providing a comprehensive answer to the great mysteries of life when actually put to the test.

[exnihilo]

Indeed! There is a deeply irritating assumption that if one has faith one is somehow automatically mentally retarded. Many of the greatest minds in the world believe in a Creator, many of them converted to a religion after long consideration.

We live in a world where we are told that science explains everything. Yet it does no such thing. It explains more than it did in the middle ages, of that there is no doubt, but it still is no more able to answer the fundamental questions than it ever was. In that respect, those who think about religion are increasingly finding solace in what I have heard described as "the God of the gaps".

[niall]

also.. society would not be where it is today if it wasnt for religion

[Marco Biagi]

In my experience religion, like moral philosophical reasoning, is a way of justifying beliefs already held - in religion's case especially over such issues as homosexuality. There's a letter in the Herald newspaper today (2nd on http://www.theherald.co.uk/features/30371.html ) from a Glasgow based churchwoman that is refreshingly objective in its perspective on biblical references, from homosexuality to shellfish (see http://www.godhatesshrimp.com ) and argues the point. It's in response to Cardinal O'Brien coming to the Scottish Parliament and lamenting in a sermon that so many people are "prisoners of sexual aberration", which was later made clear in a statement as a reference to homosexuality.

Oh, and the thing that I've never quite understood about Christians is that yes, there's an argument for theism (in my opinion one weak at a rational level), but why is that an argument for Christianity and all that goes with it? If the ontological argument convinces you that there is a god or gods, then how does it follow that Jesus Christ is your one true saviour? And not to spare exnihilo here, that such and such a people are God's chosen? I used to study ancient history, and I would fear for the rationality of anyone who took, say, Herodotus at face value. Medieval sources are the same. So why are ancient religious texts canonical - is it just because of faith?

[LonelyPilgrim]

[s]Marco Biagi wrote on 09:55, 24th Dec 2004:
Oh, and the thing that I've never quite understood about Christians is that yes, there's an argument for theism (in my opinion one weak at a rational level), but why is that an argument for [i]Christianity and all that goes with it? If the ontological argument convinces you that there is a god or gods, then how does it follow that Jesus Christ is your one true saviour? And not to spare exnihilo here, that such and such a people are God's chosen? I used to study ancient history, and I would fear for the rationality of anyone who took, say, Herodotus at face value. Medieval sources are the same. So why are ancient religious texts canonical - is it just because of faith?
[/i]

Marco,

So good to hear from you, especially since I just suggested on another thread that you be shot. It's not personal, just political. *ahem* Well, anyway... I would not consider an argument for theism to be synonymous with an argument for Christianity. The reason why Christians always seem to be arguing for theism rather than their particular brand of it is because, generally, we only find ourselves on the defensive against athiests.

When was the last time you saw a Jew and a Christian, or a Hindu and Christian arguing over their beliefs? It's always those who believe in nothing that are challenging us. Therefore, in disputing with them, we need to start at the basics. If they can't believe in the possibility of a god or gods, then what's the point in making a Christianity specific argument? Once someone accepts the feasibility of religion as a whole, then a true discussion can occur over the merits of which religion to believe. Before that, it would be pointless.

As for the Bible itself... well, you studied history. Analyse the text. New Testament only, the Old is a whole 'nother can of worms. If you can, read it in the original Hebrew and Greek. If not... try to find a good and recent translation. Check it's historical validity, not about Christ, but about the peripherals. Roman governors, way of life, place names, that sort of thing. Note the differing writting styles of the four gospels, but the same central message. Note the details that appear in the gospels that would likely only appear in memoirs: colors of objects, what people are doing when they are met, the names of insignificant people, what was consumed for lunch. Things like these are what make it possible to look at the gospels not as religious tracts but as honest memoirs of their authors. Whether they were insane or imaging things or telling the truth, the authors of the gospels believed what they wrote and wrote what they remembered. There were four seperate accounts... well, there were more, but the Church chose not to include all of them, just because they are so redundant... three from eye-witnesses, and one, Luke, from someone who took the time to interview eyewitnesses.

On the whole then, each book of the gospels is certainly no less reliable than any other historical document. And the fact that there are four of them, more if you include Acts and the other books and letters, mean that you have multiple sources of normal or better general reliability all saying the same thing. What they say is pretty incredible, true, but that should not automatically make us doubt their validity.

If you really want to read a better account of all this than I can give, I'd direct you to some apologetics or even biblical scholars. There's plenty of books out there that seek to defend the faith through reason and analysis. At the end of the day, though, you do need faith, but it's not quite as large a leap as most people think. The evidence is certainly there, albeit it circumstancial, but the move from that to belief is a lot easier than from no evidence to belief.

[exnihilo]

Marco, some of what you say is right, but you know certainly in my case I don't need religion to be sure I'm right about something. However, to address a couple of points...

Certainly Jews think they are the chosen people - but nowhere is it suggested that other people's will be excluded from the presence of God. In fact, it's easier for other people because they haven't signed up to 613 mitzvot in the way we have and therefore have not opened themselves to the possibility of breaking them all.

As for the canonical status of various texts, you should also know that not all of Jewish law is in the Torah, there's a lot in the Talmud and a lot more since that is custom and precedent. Bear in mind that there is no central authority for Judaism and each Temple is it's own authority.

[Greebo]

[s]LonelyPilgrim wrote on 09:22, 24th Dec 2004:
You see, atheism is no less a 'religion' than religion is, in that it makes certain unprovable assumptions about reality. I'm not saying that religion is capable of answering questions about why the universe is the way it is or where it came from to any higher scientific or rational degree.

It simply annoys the living hell out of me when athiests come along and claim that they are somehow rationally superior when their own worldview and belief system is just as incapable of providing a comprehensive answer to the great mysteries of life when actually put to the test.


Surely it's more rational to say 'I don't know' when you don't know than to assume a form of creator that can't be proven or unproven?

And atheism, at a base level, ain't a religion, it means lacking in belief, nothing more. (Yes I know we've been over this a thousand times but it's always worth correcting people who mis-represent one's viewpoint, in my opinion)

[Greebo]

[s]LonelyPilgrim wrote on 10:24, 24th Dec 2004:
When was the last time you saw a Jew and a Christian, or a Hindu and Christian arguing over their beliefs? It's always those who believe in nothing that are challenging us.

When was the last time you saw atheists preaching on street corners? When was the last time you saw atheists handing out leaflets condemning you to some unknown torture once you die unless you convert?

When was the last time you heard of atheists picketing at a gay person's funeral? (admittedly that's a rather extreme case) When was the last time you heard an atheist telling you how to live your life?

While I admit sometimes it is an atheist who sparks an argument/debate/discussion, the majority of the time it's a christian who starts it - normally in the above form. (in my experience at any rate)

[LonelyPilgrim]

Greebo,

If you are saying "I don't know" then you aren't espousing an atheist viewpoint. You are an agnostic. An atheist is one who believes that there is no God/gods/creator/divine-whatchamacallit. I don't mind agnostics. Heck, I don't mind atheists, as long as they don't go out of their way to belittle me or my beliefs.

Frankly, in my experiance, it is quite often atheists who start these arguments. Just look around this message board for proof. I will admit that the antaganism does run both ways. I for one, speaking as a Christian, am also very annoyed at people who stand on street corners and tell other people they are damned and whatnot. In fact it pisses me off, probably more than it does any atheist out there, because that is my faith that is being hijacked and misrepresented and in the end it gives me and all other run of the mill Christians a bad name.

[Marco Biagi]

Ok, let me withdraw my use of the word "canonical", since it has doctrinal overtones. Instead, let me say 'literal and authoritative'. For good or bad, too many religious adherents do take their holy books to be such, and in any case, the issue of every different temple (or presbytery...) having different interpretations I think just vindicates my earlier point that religious interpretation is too often the expression of views held independently of religion.

And LonelyPilgrim, historically studying the bible is something that's been on my general vague 'to do' list for some time, but since I'm not desperate to challenge the religion by screaming from the rooftops (or the corner of Church square), it's never been of pressing urgency. My passing acquaintance with the content already suggests a broad support for a lot of the New Testament morality, but that is quite separate from the history or the metaphysics. Oh, and I think you'll find Christianity had about fifteen hundred years of being the viewpoint and value system in charge and therefore not being in a position to mount challenges since it obviously didn't need to. It's only been since the Enlightenment that the challenges have been there. While it's fair to say that secularism debates with religion in many different guises across the world, I'm a bit surprised by you saying that there are not inter-religious challenges. In global terms the struggles between Christianity and Islam, and Islam and Judaism are as important as any between Christianity and secularism.

[fainpathe]

[s]exnihilo wrote on 09:04, 24th Dec 2004:
Excuse me, Gubbins? The Holocaust was caused by religion? Whose? Certainly not that of the Nazis, they eschewed religion - are you saying that the Holocaust was the Jews fault for going and being all Jewish at people?



No, he's saying that religion - and the Nazi's hatred of it - caused the Holocaust. We're not saying 'it's the Jews' fault for being all Jewish', as you so eloquently said. The Nazi's hated religion, and this, along with their idea of a 'pure' race, drove them towards their actions against the Jews.

[fainpathe]

[s]LonelyPilgrim wrote on 10:24, 24th Dec 2004:

When was the last time you saw a Jew and a Christian, or a Hindu and Christian arguing over their beliefs?


i like how you didn't mention Muslims here...or could that be because that would tear apart your arguement?

[harmless loony]

lol...I thought that too!

Anyhow, why does it matter to an atheist/agnostic if one chooses to believe in a creator?

And as someone said earlier it's people's stupidity (and inability to interpret their faith) that causes problems.

Religion was not the cause of the Nazi's issues - it was their interpretation of what Judaism preached. Slight difference there!! It's not religion that causes problems - it's people.

Even if we didn't have religion, we'd still have wars, we'd still have fights - why? Because it's human nature - people always want to have a reason to be suprior to others and if religion isn't being used as an excuse then something else will.

[exnihilo]

Actually, kids, religion had bugger all to do with what the Nazis did to the Jews. Their hatred of Judasim had nothing to do with the beliefs and practices of the Jews and was entirely an ethnic hatred. Hence my post, there is no sense in which the Holocaust can be said to be religiously motivated except through an egregious misrepresentation in which you could claim that it was the fault of the Jewish faith for provoking the Nazis. Hence my, satirical, post.

Oh, and also for the record, as far as preaching on street corners, it's against Jewish law to try to convert people - or indeed to lecture them on how to live their lives. I'm not surprised that people's knowledge of the tenets of Judaism is as weak as it is, but I'd have hoped that some tiny grain of humility in people who know little or nothing about the tenets of any faith would prevent them lecturing to those who actually do. Apparently not. This may be why we see atheism as a form of belief, the way you ignorantly, zealously and - dare I say - religiously push your non-belief at others smacks somewhat of hypocrisy.

[harmless loony]

On a similar note to the above post....in Islam you are not allowed to try to convert people....it comes from the line in the Qur'an that "there is compulsion in religion."

Muslims have a duty to respect people of the Book (Jews and Christians) plus allow people to believe what they do.