Near the final scene of the 1993 Joel Schumacher film, Falling Down, Robert Duvall has cornered Michael Douglas, who plays a laid-off defense-contracting engineer who has gone on a murderous rampage. Douglas looks at Duvall and asks incredulously, “I’m the bad guy? How did that happen?” And he really doesn’t know.
I’ve been corresponding with a Christian minister who asks a similar question. He’s genuinely puzzled as to why humanists in general or gays in particular would associate Christianity with bigotry and prejudice. A few excerpts:
Who should I hate? In the end, it seems that I must either hate them all or none of them. The word of God and the inward testimony of God both tell me that I must hate none of them – even when it is necessary for me to oppose them…
And I think you have correctly perceived that I do not hate you. And, I find that the ability – the necessity – to love my opponents and to wish always for their best good, is tied directly to having placed my ultimate hopes beyond the present reality. If I thought this was all there was or ever would be, I think I would be decidedly more capable of hate. If I thought it was all about evolution – which,it seems to me, hinges on the quest for momentary advantage – I believe I could hate – that being after all, only a chemical phenomenon that is either useful or not at the moment and virtually immune to concepts like virtue or morality…
In the meantime, I hear from folks on your side of some issues that I do hate. I am prolife and therefore, ipsofacto, I hate women. If what they mean is that if I had my complete way, I would restrict certain freedoms even though it places certain barriers and limitations before individuals and classes of people who would like to operate without that restriction, then we don’t have the same definition of hate. I could introduce you to several women who have had abortions, who either previously were or currently are pro-choice, who yet would sign any affidavit you cared to craft swearing that I love them. (Emphasis mine)
And,
Please believe, it is not a matter of hurt feelings. I don’t have any particular desire to be obnoxious to you or your compatriots. I am not afraid of spirited debate. But part of my agenda is both to understand and confront the (to me totally upsidedown seeming) notion that Christianity breeds hate, contempt, and ignorance. If I am not yet skilled enough to communicate across this great divide without fostering the impression of ignorance and hatred despite my own clear conviction that I hate none of you (whether or not I’m ignorant may be more in question), then it is probably best to keep my mouth shut a while longer. (Emphasis mine)
And,
I feel that homosexuality is a moral problem. I do not, for what it’s worth, feel the need to take that issue to law and regulation. I don’t think the moral problem of homosexuality is worse than my own moral problems. I am not – at heart – a legalist. And I’m not trying to start a new issue between us on either abortion or homosexuality. And I know that presenting a similar list of homosexual people who would sign the ‘He does not hate me’ affidavit wouldn’t make any real difference. The assertion seems to be that I hate a class of people regardless of my relationship to any particular individuals.
I suggested throwing his agenda open to the community at SEB for response and he replied:
I don’t mind if you post the paragraph. I would be interested to see what would happen. I don’t really think you misundestood this – only a product of a quick communication – but to clarify, I’m only partly worried about offending anyone. I’m more worried about the cultural divide. I have seen missionaries do harm because they were eager to impart the gospel before they understood the target culture. This is not what you would call a missionary venture, but the same principle applies.
Really, Christians are the bad guys? How did that happen? Aren’t Christians, by definition, the good guys? Can anyone explain?
He’s all yours, folks. He wants to know. Can you help him understand?
To paraphrase, “Bad is as bad does.” If Xtians in general have been doing bad, they are bad. Is that not simple enough? Perhaps it’s only Xtian leaders doing the bad. But, again, the only thing necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing to stop it. So, yes, if you are a good man in the Xtian faith and do nothing to stop the bad things your leaders are doing, you are bad.
@Tyler. No, you don’t need to be Christian to define Christianity. Outsider’s and insider’s perspectives are blinding in different ways. But your experience of Christianity is very specific.
It doesn’t. I hoped you’d fill in that little gap but I guess not.
Christianity is a cultural phenomenon bridging many cultures and has many variations even within cultures. The more people, the more variation. Two billion people, LOTS of variation. We can define a meter as some many angstroms length – it isn’t cultural. A religion, not so easy. You can call up the National Institute of Standards and they don’t have a standard for that.
Sit down, Tyler. Put your cup down, take a deep breath. Calm? OK, here we go: There is none. There is no central, final authority on what is a Christian. When you’re talking about a cultural phenomenon that bridges many cultures, sometimes you just have to live with ambiguity.
In American culture – another ambiguity – Christians certainly don’t agree on it. That’s why we have umpty-zillion denominations. They’re packed full of contradictions and spend most of their time and energy pissing on the boundaries of their territory to keep each other out.
And yet they all use the same label. Barack Obama says he’s a Christian, and so does Pat Robertson. Obama would agree that Robertson is a Christian, but Robertson may not concede the same thing about Obama. The only ultimately common thread may BE the label, and an attachment to a highly plastic image of what they conceive Jesus to be. That plasticity is a characteristic of the religion. So is the tendency to deny that it exists.
For the purposes of this discussion, meaning the one whose boundaries are contained in the title, a Christian is a person who is a member of an organized Christian denomination. Which is in turn defined by the paperwork on their 501(c)(3) nonprofit filings with the IRS. Some of them are pretty easy-going, and others are total jerks. Sorry to disappoint you but that’s all the more precise we need to get. I am not inviting more hair-splitting from you.
Chevvy makes many different models of both cars and trucks. But the brand is under some duress right now. Same thing for Christianity.
By “our discussion” I didn’t mean “you and me”, I meant everyone in this thread.
Exactly. I’d like to see Christians get out a broom and clean house.
DOF wrote…
What DOF says above is very true. Oddly enough the same is true for Atheists. Beyond not believing in God(s) there’s all sorts of variation in beliefs among atheists. And recent polls have shown that even the issue of belief in God is up for grabs with some people who call themselves atheists.
According to the Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary there are, as of 2009, some 40,000 Christian denominations in the world. That’s a lot of nitpicking on what it means to be a Christian.
Interestingly, they’re predicting that by 2025 that number will grow to 55,000.
So Tyler, by your reasoning, when i click “white” or “Caucasian” on a survey, i am aligning myself with Hitler, Ted Bundy, and those who shot MLK?
Let alone identifying myself as American, i’m saying that I agree with the Vietnam war, the way we treated Vets afterward, Reganomics, Universal Healthcare, and the war in Iraq pt. 1 & 2?
Can you see how stupid your argument is?
(Playing very late catch-up.)
The Christian orthodox position is that humanity is imperfect because of a “fall” from innocence. The alternative position is that humanity is imperfect because we are continuing to evolve socially, and because there is nothing “perfect” in this world (and the question of what “perfect” means in terms of humanity is, itself, far from settled.
My temptation is to say that there’s a lot of common ground here (“Can’t we all just get along?”), but the debate over the source of the “imperfection” itself influences how we try to deal with the problem. I suspect a world outwardly characterized by people treating each other with loving-kindness would be one that most “Christians” and non-Christians would find desirable—
—but the focus of too many within Christianity would seem to be on salvation in the afterlife through doctrinal conformity and personal confession, with improving life in this world sometimes seeming to be an afterthought or a hopeful (but not necessary) result of earning metaphysical gold stars. I’m not sure how they get there from the Greatest Commandments, but it does make it difficult to come up with a common approach to the solutions that face all of us.
So either I agree with, believe, support, and align myself with all Democrats, or I am not a Democrat.
Ditto for Americans.
Ditto for …
I think on that basis, I have to claim that I am a … um … Me-ist. Except I don’t always agree with myself.
I think that is more simplistic than simple.
Z,
Thanks again for your questions. I assume you are highlighting flaws in my thought sceme more than presenting your own view of God or fallen nature. If I’m incorrect about that, I’ll be glad to take another stab at it.
The Biblical view (hence, as per Tyler, the Christian view) of the omnipresence of God asserts not that God is present in every ‘thing’ but that God is present in every ‘place’ or ‘circumstance’. See for instance, Psalm 139. God knows all about us and we cannot go to any
place or enter any circumstance in which we have removed ourselves from His knowledge or reach but this is not to say that God is present in every tree or grain of sand or whatever.
That idea fits more in the thought of the religions the Old Testament opposed, religions
in which the god inherent in a particular river had to be appeased so that seasonal floods could be counted on, etc. Even given monotheism, the Biblical view is contrary to the notion of the cosmos as the body of God. God is independent and created something ‘other’ than Himself.
Man particularly, is seen to be ‘other’ than God. ‘Otherness’ is the prerequisite for a true relationship. To this extent, to say that man is created in the image of God is not at all to say that God is inherently present in the man. God made us ‘other’ – moral free agents capable of choosing either to be in a loving relationship with Him – or not. The point, from the Biblical point of view, is that we chose – not.
As to animals, (and all nature) the Biblical view is that the entire estate fell with us. The ground is cursed so that making a living becomes
difficult. See also Romans 8:18-22. The point is that the chimps are also subjected to the fall. Our present experience of nature or relationship to it, is not the created ideal. You might remember such promises as Lions and calves, leopards and lambs, lying down side by side and little children safely playing with scorpions or cobras.
I don’t expect this to make you any fonder of the idea. I’m only trying to show you the difference in view represented by your questions.
Then, as to our being a pretty good reflection of God: Wrath is not productive withour righteousness. (Self righteousness doesn’t count!) See as just one for instance, James 1:19-20. In our grand departure from righteousness, our wrath becomes counterproductive.
Again, I am not throwing Scripture references at you as athorities, that is to correct your own view. They are authorities for me and explain the Christian persepective relevant to your observations and questions.
Neither does the Christian view of fallenness assert that man can do ‘no good’. Obviously, we do show mercy, compassion, and kindness. But it isn’t a balancing act. I do not overcome fallenness by doing as many kind things as cruel. I do not overcome fallenness even by doing more kind things than cruel. When I feed a hungry person, I fight the fallen system, but I still know what lurks all too close to the surface in me. That is what needs changed.
In earlier discussions with Bachalon, the difference between behavior and nature was
stressed. It’s never enough for me to exhibit one set of behaviors or refrain from exhibiting another. My nature needs changed.
As this discussion represnet a large systematic body of thought, I realize I am leaving out many related aspects; the foreknowledge of God, the terms under which ‘the curse’ is revoked, etc. But I don’t want to make this thread into a Bible lesson. I hope that what I have already said will shed some light on the concerns you raised.
In the meantime, I am learning more and more why and how the doctrine of fallenness is offensive to the humanist community. I also perceive much more clearly the difference between the view some of you hold vis a vis the ‘flawed’ nature of man and the Christian view of fallenness and how it applies to my original question about Christians being perceived as hateful.. It is instructive and I will be chewing on it for a while. Thank you very much.
Just so everyone knows what to expect, I will next turn to the next last by Les and a few others, like Webs, who commented on it. Probably
tomorrow.
Terry
It doesn’t strike me as worth the effort, Tyler. The game isn’t entertaining (or useful) enough to backtrack at this point.
Then, by “perfect” we mean no violence? No predators? No carnivores? So the balance in nature is not really perfect, either? Hmmmmmm.
Terry,
The question wasn’t “is wrath good for us” it was more to the point of “If god is wrathful, who is he to condemn us for it?” It sounds a lot like Nixon saying “When the president does it, it’s not illegal”.
As to nature, i wasn’t referring to lions killing lambs, after all, to them that’s food (and i don’t know what promises you’re referring to). I was referring to chimps murdering each other. Organized wars in primate land. You see war and murder as signs that clearly we are fallen. I don’t remember reading anything in Genesis about Clyde (“Any Which Way But Loose” reference; and yes, i know he was an orangutan) eating the apple. Snake now slithers on it’s belly, women have pain in childbirth, and soil is hard for man to till; got all that. But if sin is something that infects our soul, ummm evil monkeys?
I’m making two opposite points.
#1 We are clearly no worse than your god.
#2 Monkeys apparently have the knowledge of good and evil (minus the fig leaf). I don’t see the difference between us and the rest of nature (i.e. we’re no better/worse than chimps)
On a seperate note, i’m not a humanist. I don’t think there is anything intrinsically noble about us. I think we are animals, we grew brains that let our bodies atrophy. Afterall, you don’t have to run so fast once you invent the net. The philosophy i most closely identify with is Objectivism. Which does clearly oppose the idea that we are fallen.
z
Some humanists believe humans are intrinsically noble. Others believe we can be, if we try.
Wouldn’t it be wonderful if we tried more often?
We’re not about to start a debate on what is and isn’t humanist, now are we? (tongue firmly in cheek)
I’ll be the first to admit, i was going off of Terry’s description (definition?).
I haven’t really ever explored it. Though now having read the introduction to the entry on Wikipedia i may have to accept the label dependent on a little more research into the subject. (is Objectivism widely considered a humanist philosophy?)
That’s pretty much my philosophy in nine words. Or in four words; “It’s up to us.”
Well, since “It’s up to us,” maybe there is some hope for the human race. I’m not too thrilled with the “changes” that various gods have supposedly made. That’s the reason for this thread.
“Something wrong with humanity” really is the crux, isn’t it? Yeah there’s something wrong with humanity: we need to get up off our asses and stop expecting whatever god our culture says is the real one to come swooping in and fix everything. But the religious solution seems to be; “Anything less than perfection isn’t worth pursuing.”
I frequently hear a corollary in Christian broadcasts (usually accompanied with a request for money). “Worldly” things, including the Earth itself, are temporary. Something has to outlast the universe to have any value at all. Pitiful human efforts! You are wrong and bad no matter what you do, because Adam and Eve didn’t OBEY.
There’s something just a little condescending in having a religion that treats it’s followers like children.
And also something scary about welcoming the thought that people are sheep (or lambs, which are just tasty sheep children) though it’s clearly a metaphor that’s held meaning for a long time.
Les,
First, thanks for agreeing to host this thread. It has, as noted before, been very helpful to me.
I may need you to clarify one point. You stated that you wholly disagree that there is something wrong with humanity. Yet you acknowledge that we have baser instincts and (as you say, evolutionary) causes for difficulty in overcoming those baser instincts. I don’t think you’re arguing that there is no need to overcome them and thus that we are fine as we are. To that extent it seems that we agree, there is something wrong with humanity.
If I’m correct in that, then the disagreement concerns 1. the cause of what’s wrong. 2. the solution.
The humanist finds the lizard brain explanation more credible and seemingly more palatable. At least I think the level of offense I see at the
idea of a fallen humanity goes beyond simply thinking that idea less credible than the lizard brain. It’s not just that you see it as untrue but as an affront to human dignity/autonomy. Or, maybe as evidence of the cruelty of the alleged God. Maybe there isn’t much difference between those two propositions.
Completely off topic. Though I don’t think it’s what DOF was positing, there have been those who see the ‘triune brain’ and the specific denomination of the ‘lizard brain’ as the explanation for the ‘myth’ of both the Christian version of the triune nature of God – at least the presence of a higher ‘other’ who speaks to us and wants to lead us beyond our lower selves – and the story of the snake as tempter/antagonist. I don’t buy into that myself. I’m pretty much a literalist. Also, the theory requires someone with knowledge of comparative anatomy, psychology, etc. to plant the seeds of the ‘myth’ among primitive man. Barring God, this usually involves either panspermia (more Crick than Dawkins – perhaps more Indian Jones!) or time travel (the aliens are us – just future us – Bova as a fictional appraoch or scientology as a less but strangely more fictional approach.)
At any rate, the humanist believes policy and perhaps learning are the solution. The Christian sees the value of both, but as stop gaps. We
view Christ and the work He wants to do in us as the solution. This again, seems not only to be viewed by humanists as untrue, but offensive. It’s the nuts and bolts of the ‘offensive’ part that eluded me. I’m getting it now.
You contend that if Adam were created perfect, it is illogical to think that he could rebel. That contention itself seems totally illogical to
me. Nevermind that ‘perfect’ is not really the concept the Bible uses to describe the idyllic state of Genesis 1. Perfect, good, pure, or whatever other adjective we choose is not the same as incorruptible. As long as Adam was created ‘other’ than God, that is, a moral free agent, then rebellion is possible. Freedom is freedom. The foreknowledge and kindness of God are yet other arguments but I’ll try to stick to the subject at hand.
You contend that it is unfair to hold Adam responsible because he was ignorant. He was not ignorant. He was given one simple rule and
warned of at least the most immediate specific consequence.
You contend that you would expect to see increasing evil as the consequence of fallenness. I’d have to see your reasons for that
expectation. The Bible clearly speaks of a static state of evil being the consequence of the fall. And if it seems to you, as I think you
indicated, that the fall ought ultimately to result in our self eradication, well, as posited by Leguru, reproduction only has to stay ahead of
the rate of death by whatever means to stave off extinction. Are we evil enough to overcome that differential? Think global warming, nuclear holocaust, germ warfare disaster, etc. Even a static state of evil (fall or lizard brain) becomes riskier as technological competence
increases.
Then, you question whether we are so evil that we deserve everlasting punishment. The Christian generally asks the question the other way. Are we good enough to be acceptable to God? If not, and the house that God built is understood to be well, just about the whole of our perceived reality, and if we truly have an immortal component, what is to become of it? If, as the Christian would assert, there is another being out there – Satan – who is less than God but still considerably greater than us and to whom God assigns that smallish outside, the options are limited.
Thanks again,
Terry
@Terry – I can’t speak for Les but here are my reactions to the points you just made.
That we have a base nature – whatever you call it – cannot be disputed. Christianity proposes that it is a fatal flaw and that only an external force can fix it. Maybe it is not something that needs to be fixed, but certainly it needs to be balanced. We also have a more socially constructive nature, which we can work on developing. Throwing up our hands and letting all hope fall to a nonexistent being is indeed an affront to human dignity.
Of course, that is the very complaint that some Christians make against evolution. They prefer a legend that separates us from animals. I have no problem being associated with animals. Every one of my ancestors, going back a billion years, lived long enough to reproduce. But the truth or falsity of a matter hinges not a whit on our dignity.
Yes, some Christians who accept scientific evidence, then frame it in terms of the legend of the Fall. To me this seems like “hang on to whatever bits of the legend you can”, but whatever. Maybe there is a god who hides himself so well that there is no evidence of his existence. Perhaps he’ll then punish me for not believing in him. Such a god would be monstrous, but if monstrosity were a barrier to existence, there would be no ichneumon wasps.
Are policy and learning “the solution”? There may not be one. There’s no guarantee we won’t destroy ourselves, or just be destroyed by an intersecting asteroid. Perhaps that has been the fate of many technological races. But damn it, we will try. That is the essence of our dignity.
Actually, Christian orthodoxy would generally assert the answer to that question is “No.” Or, rather, not so much “good” as “aligned toward God.”
The Great Divorce aside (which is long on alienation, short on brimstone), I’ve never quite understood this. Why God would take creatures of clearly flawed judgment (“fallen” or not) and have their eternal disposition based on a relatively short period of temptations, distractions, and imperfect understanding, is unclear to me.
Terry,
I’m confused by what fallen means then, if Adam had the choice to do bad things all along, doesn’t that mean he could have slain Eve at any point?
It’s just a matter of choice, afterall.
Or is it your contention that because God hadn’t told him not to, it wouldn’t have been a sin yet?
This.
And what stops people from killing each other in the christian heaven anyway? What prevents them from disobeying god? Do they lose their free-will after they get to heaven?
Most Christians view heaven and hell as depicted by the 13th century poet, Dante Alighieri, in his Divine Comedy. From mentions in the Bible, his vision appears to be about right. How sad! Neither his heaven nor his hell are places I would aspire to inhabit in the afterlife.
Reincarnation makes a whole lot more sense – we get to make some repairs on our character each existence. But, since no one has ever returned and told us what to expect (Not even Jesus described what those places look like with any clarity.), I certainly do NOT want to go to any place that remotely resembles the descriptions of heaven I have seen. So, I think doing the best you can with what you have is our only choice, if we expect to survive as a race. We can make this life a heaven or a hell, as we choose.
DOF wrote:
So, what does my status as a nonchristian have to do with anything? Why did you bring it up?
Meaning what, exactly?
Are you psychic too? What is my experience of christianity, exactly, and how does it relate to this discussion?
It’s your gap of a claim. You fill it up. I have no idea what you’re talking about when you suggest I’m a “final authority” on christianity.
In other words, nothing.
Uhm… I’m already sitting; my cup’s already been washed; respiration’s normal; heart rate’s about 65…
Hence, the thread title is meaningless. Perhaps you/he didn’t construct the question you/he actually meant to ask. Perhaps a more accurate phrasing of the OP would read something like:
Much better.
I don’t have a problem living with ambiguity.
Of course, I’m not talking about a cultural phenomenon that bridges many cultures (whatever that actually means). I’m talking about why a particular individual is seen as a bad guy, presumably due to his alignment with christianity. If calling him a christian is so ambiguous an identification as to be rendered a virtually irrelevant factor in forming answers to the question in the thread title, why then is he identified as a christian? It’s misleading at best.
They can’t all be right.
Little Johnny says he’s Superman, and so does little Timmy.
They can’t both be right. But they can both be wrong.
So what.
The plasticity is a characteristic of people who claim to follow the religion, not the religion.
The tendency here seems to be a denial that the term “christian” actually means something and was hence worth mentioning in this discussion.
In other words, for the purposes of this discussion, meaning the one whose boundaries are contained in the title, whether or not he belongs to one of tens of thousands of offshoots of a 2000 year old religion is irrelevant, since not all of those denominations believe as he does, and not all of those within their respective denominations actually believe everything their denomination stands for, hence the perpetual sprouting of new denominations…
I’m not disappointed at all. I’m genuinely curious about watching play out the rationale involved in basing a question on a pretext which, by the inquisitor’s own reckoning, is substantially indefinable, then having the inquisitor turn around and take issue with valid arguments based on his own pretext which he can’t or refuses to define in any way that makes it a relevant factor in the discussion, leading one to at the least wonder why the pretext was included in the first place.
I’m taking/arguing christianity at face value. The whole brush, as it were. I’m being told I can’t do that because 2 billion people have hair split christianity into tens of thousands of denominations.
I’m splitting hairs?
Comical.
They are all, by definition, Chevrolets. You’re giving people with Chevrolets free reign to slap a Nissan badge on them and call their Chevrolet a Nissan. That’s not denial, no sir!
Meaning what, exactly?
Then my query stands: Please explain how the thread title makes any sense whatsoever if there is no definitive definition for horse apples.
DOF wrote:
Help me out here, DOF. In several breaths you say, in so many words, there is no one christian house. A few breaths later you say you’d like to see christians clean house. What am I missing?
Les wrote:
But they’re all, by definition, atheists, which does not dictate anything beyond their lack of belief in deities.
Being a christian (or a muslim, or a jew), on the other hand, dictates far more than simply believing in a deity. It dictates belief in one specific deity, which demands very specific behavior of people who (claim to) believe in said deity. If these behavioral proscriptions are not obeyed, the person in question isn’t a christian (or a muslim, or a jew) – he’s a poseur.
That’s kind of interesting. What does it mean “belief in god is up for grabs with some people who call themselves atheists”?
z wrote:
Is “white” or “Caucasian” defined as someone who aligns hims himself with Hitler, Bundy, and MLK’s murderer?
No?
It was a cute try though.
What does it mean to be amerikan? I’ve yet to receive a solid answer to that question after countless tries over the years, so I’m not in a position to decide whether or not calling yourself amerikan requires that you agree with the things you mentioned.
Of course, this is a red herring anyway. We’re not talking about what it means to be amerikan. We’re talking about why christians are seen as bad guys. At least that’s what the thread title might lead one to assume…
Uhm, no?
Dave wrote:
You either align yourself with the definition of democrat or you’re not a democrat, regardless of whether or not you call yourself a democrat. Whether or not all people who label themselves christian live up to that label is, for the umpteenth time, irrelevant.
Simple.
Tyler, whatever. Congratulations: you win the Internets today.
Dave wrote:
Interesting. Wasn’t it you who said, “… it’s up to Christians to demonstrate that the stereotypes are unfounded”?
And here you are, living up to one of the stereotypes people who call themselves christians are often guilty of living up to – running away when the hardball questions come out.
You’re right. It’s no use.
Webbs
Thanks again,
I meant to address your post along with Les but ran out of time.
As to the sharp decline in violence. I’m not much of an expert on those reports – assuming we read essentially the same ones (the Human Security Report Project – Simon Frazer U., Human Security Brief – U. of British Columbia, etc). I read that violence is on the decline from about 1968. Down again from 1989. Something on the order of 66 wars down to 56 and a general reduction of terrorist attacks on civilians.
In reading the nuts and bolts of those reports I note some problems like not balancing the results of the war in Iraq against the decline of terrorist attacks on civilians. Also some concerns like those expressed within the reports that brokered peace comes at a greater human price and is twice as likely to re-erupt within five years as peace through victory. (Note: the reports expressed the hope that these tendencies are changing – i.e. that things won’t go that way this time.)
But those are practical concerns about the reports and political realities. Nothing in my faith leads me to desire more war or less peace. As explained to Les, I see the Biblical picture as a static state of evil (violence, oppression, etc.) rather than a steadily increasing rate. So, if violence is indeed reduced – I’m for it. If it can continue to reduce, I’m for that too. I’m not one who believes human beings can (or should try to) bring about the apocalypse.
But I think you are mistaken on the second point. I probably can’t claim expert status on this front either but I pay a lot of attention and read everything I can find. My best take is that religion is not on the decline world wide. Christianity is losing steam in the west and church attendance is generally down in America (though not in my particular branch of Christianity – for whatever that’s worth). While those things are somewhat sad for me, they are nonetheless true.
Religion in general and world wide however- Islam is growing in the west. Christianity is growing in China. What may very well be a resurgence of old pagan religions is afoot in many parts of Europe. Even in England, the present generation is twice as likely to be religious as their parents.
Everything I can find from religious and secular sources, including a cooperative study between Oxford and Cambridge (Investigating Atheism) indicates that atheism is on the decline. Part of that result is tied up in the fact that societies with the highest rates of atheism tend to have the lowest birth rates. Part of it is in a statistic mentioned by Les, that many who call themselves atheists are putting the question of the existence of God (god) back up for grabs.
These are generally second generation atheists. Some of us like to call them ‘transitional atheists’. However, so far, they tend not to become Christian or gravitate toward the Bible. Think perhaps Anthony Flew or Alister McGrath though neither of them is really recent enough to be in this bunch.
Anyway, I don’t mean to be contentious about that. I just want to be accurate as to the inference that there would be a possible correlation between the simultaneous declines in religion and violence. I think you may have listed a hypertext for your source. I will have to look back later as I am in something of a hurry right now. But if you listed a source, I’ll check it out. If not, I’d appreciate any information you send my way.
Got to run for now. I owe DOF a few and after that Z, Julian, & Leguru made very interesting points on a common theme. I don’t mind addressing these points at all but before I do, DOF or Les please advise me. I think I can treat the doctrinal material in a way that applies to the subject of the thread but I really didn’t come here to foist my doctrinal tenets on anyone. If it isn’t wanted or appreciated, I’ll forego.
Terry
DOF wrote:
Can’t argue with that logic.
No. Really.
You can have it. I get more than enough milk as it is. I don’t need the whole herd of cows.
Tyler,
For the last time, if you replace every time you say “Christian” with “Baptist” you’d be closer to accurate. The system of beliefs you attribute to the one are not accurate of the other.
Beyond that, i will continue with the “democrat” argument… but i’ll switch it up.
I’m registered to vote republican. I believe in a limited Federal government, I believe in keeping the government out of our lives as much as possible. That said, i’m a minority in my own party, because i don’t care if you want to terminate a pregnancy, don’t care if gays marry, and don’t particularly care that we balance the budget. I want stem cell research, legal euthanasia, and prayer kept out of schools.
I find all these things to be consistent with the core ideal of the party. Keep the government out of my business. Just make it safe for me to live my life and pursue happiness.
The majority of my party would disagree with me at the moment, but that doesn’t make me a democrat. I belong to the party that ended slavery. I’m fighting to get my party to align itself with it’s own principles.
This is the way it is when you have an essentially two party system, you’re not going to fit perfectly. You have subsets. Mine could be termed “socially liberal republican”. (I might be more properly aligned with the Libertarians, but that’s not really a viable choice, is it?)
“Christian” is a broad term that defines a plurality of subsets, with different interpretations of the beliefs they may or may not share in common. “Christianity” is not a religion, it’s a category of religions (Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Episcopalian, CoE, Lutheran, Baptist, Evangelical, etc.). Same for Islam (Shi’a, Sunni), Judaism (Orthodox, Hacidic, reform), and Paganism (Wicca, Hinduism). Each has a common root, different branches (aside from many of the Pagan systems.)
When someone says “I’m a Christian” and i ask, “What denomination?” and they say “Christian” They’re usually Baptist or evangelical, with no knowledge of what that means. They don’t believe that Catholics are Christian (let alone that their religion is the result of a break from Catholicism), and they’re usually very bad at making sense of what they’re talking about. In short they sound a lot like you.
We get it, we get you, Tyler. When you hear someone ask “Why are Christians the bad guys?” what you hear is “Why are baptists the bad guys?” Sorry, but they don’t hold the trademark on the term.
Terry, I’m disagreeing with your point that we are fallen people who are all born as sinners. Say there where 3 billion people in the world 50 years ago. If everyone is a sinner than there are 3 billion sinners. If today there are 6 billion people in the world, then under that same thought there would be 6 billion sinners. Using this logic, one would think this would lead to there being more sins committed as there are now twice as many sinners available to commit a sin. But violence and crime (2 types of sin) are still on a decline. Over time, and averaged across the globe.
So to me the idea we are all born sinners doesn’t make much sense. I think some people are predisposed to doing bad things and others are generally good. There are many factors that seem to influence bad behavior such as genetics, brain wiring, personality, ability to reason and logic, education, learned experiences and behavior, etc. To me it makes more sense that all of this will help shape bad behavior/decision making, then a story about Adam and Eve from the Bible.
z wrote:
Closer to accurate regarding what idea, exactly?
Huh? What system of beliefs did I attribute to “the one,” much less “the other”?
You can continue with that red herring all you want. I’ll be skipping over it.
Quite apparently not.
Who’s “we”?
Not even close.
Gee, it’s almost like you don’t realize I’ve been saying that very thing in so many words the entire thread…
z: If the definition of “Christian” is so slippery, can we come to some conclusion as to a definition of “bad guy?” Lao Tzu, over 600 years before Christ, found a good explanation for “bad guy.” Please read my signature.
“He’s not a Christian”
“He is if he says he is.”
“He’s not.
“Don’t try to tell him what he is.”
“I’m not. He’s just not what he says he is.”
“So you’re trying to tell him what he is.”
“No, that’s what I’ve been saying all along.”
“What the fuck?”
“Obviously I’ve won the debate, of course.”
“By saying he’s not a Christian or not saying he’s not?”
“Exactly.”
“I give up. You’re crazy.”
“I reject that notion. My logic is sound.”
My four year old niece would slap the shit out of you for this sort of nonsense.
That presumes (1) there is a commonly accepted definition of what it means to be a Democrat, and (2) being a Democrat requires adhering to that definition.
So I am a Democrat because I am (by one definition) registered as such. That doesn’t mean I necessarily vote the party line, or agree with everything that the Chairman of the Party proposes, or that the Democratic Speaker of the House or Democratic Senate Majority Leader or the Democratic President puts forward. Or, for that matter, that’s in the Democratic Party Platform. There are moonbat Democrats and blue dog Democrats, and there’s Arlen Specter whose first official vote since ostensibly becoming a Democrat was against the Obama budget.
Certainly if you disagree with enough things that the Democratic party structure stands for, it’s likely that you would find a greater comfort factor in a different party. And, to bring it to the OP’s question, if you self-identify as a Democrat, you’re going to take some heat from those who are of another party or who feel that Democrats are (insert negative characterizations here).
It’s the responsibility of Democrats who feel that their party is swinging too far in one direction or another to either choose a different party or attempt to influence their party in the direction they think it should go. But that’s not an instantaneous or trivial thing to do, and there remains a huge breadth of political, social, and economic beliefs encompassed within the term “Democratic.”
And so it is (in at least some ways) with “Christian,” save that the legal identification as one or the other is even less rigid.
I agree, though some Christians wouldn’t (arguing that folks who don’t live up to the label are, in fact, not true Christians).
Probably.
Sorry—is this a “game” or is it “hardball questions”? I’m confused.
Regardless, declining to go to the effort may be “running away,” or it may be judging that the effort is not all that important, especially if the specific effort doesn’t seem to serve any particularly valuable purpose.
Or, put another way, I think there are more effective ways to “demonstrate the stereotypes are unfounded” (to my personal responsibility) than reparse all the questions you’ve thrown out there.
That’s actually got some interesting nuggets in it. Back in the founding era of this country (when we were ostensibly a “Christian Nation”) there was fierce, even violent inter-denominational contention. Christian was perhaps true as an overarching definition, but the rivalry, in society and law, between Baptists and Anglicans and Methodists and Congregationalists and Quakers, not to mention Catholics, was as fierce, if not moreso, than the tension between “Christians” and non-Christians today. Part of what drove the Constitutional debates against religious tests and religious establishment was fear of any one denomination gaining ascendency nationally.
The evolution of the debate into being between “Christians” and “non-Christians” renders this into a two-party system, and paints with the same broad strokes as the conflict between “Democrats” and “Republicans.”
Having grown up Catholic, I was astonished to discover the number of people who considered Catholicism not to be Christian (we worshiped idols, we had popes and priests and saints as intercessors, we believed in works in addition to faith, we worshiped Mary, etc.). It was a valuable lesson in how people assume bright-line differences that others don’t recognize.
And let me say (a few hundred comments later) that was a great movie and an excellent frame for this discussion.
MisterMook wrote…
Good job. :applause:
Your family reunions must be quite entertaining.
leguru,
I didn’t say the definition is slippery, i said that it’s an umbrella term.
The question is the same as saying “I’m Muslim, why am i the bad guy?” Just because you’re Muslim, means you want to behead a reporter? No, but if you do in fact want to kill in the name of Allah, then i’d say yes you are a bad guy. (i understand that this is a simplified version of what we’re being asked here). So perhaps the question should be limited to “i’m Taliban, does that mean i’m a bad guy?” In which case the answer is more easily stated. “Yes”.
As to the question at hand. I think Forrest said it best… “Stupid is as stupid does.” Evil is as Evil does. So if your kindness and generosity does not extend to those who live different lifestyles than you…. you’re breaking your own commandments.
Tyler,
MisterMook’s synopsis was on the nose (and the funniest thing i’ve read all week). If you think we’re misunderstanding you, why don’t you provide your own synopsis so that we can see where we’re misunderstanding you?
Dave,
Years ago, when i was still calling myself an agnostic leaning toward atheism, one of my favorite games was pushing buttons of a “christian” of the sort i was referring to here. I’d question her about her beliefs on everything… and i invited her to question me regarding Catholic beliefs (having been raised Catholic). She asked why “we” worshiped Mary. I explained that they don’t worship Mary, that they ask for her to intercede when they think that she will be sympathetic to their plight. Since she is his mother, and he is the one that made the rule about Honoring thy mother (and father), if she asks him to do something it carries more weight. I mentioned the “fact” that his first miracle was performed on her behest.
She didn’t know what i was talking about. I said “At the wedding, he turned water into wine” She said “I’ve read the bible, that didn’t happen, What chapter/verse?” I said i don’t know, i’ve read it too, but never worried about chapter and verse. It’s in there, read it again, it’s his first miracle, so it’s probably not that far into the Gospels.
The same miracle came up when i was asking her about the grape juice they served at communion. “Alcohol is evil” “then why did he choose to make it as his first miracle, and why did he drink it at his last meal?” Let’s just say she was dense.
Ten quotes she knew chapter and verse, but the stories around the quotes, not so much.
It’s one of the giant issues i have with people who “speak in tongues”, they don’t understand that when the holy spirit gave the apostles the ability to speak in tongues, it meant that what ever language the listener spoke, was what they heard when the Apostle spoke (kind of like the babel fish in “The Hitchhikers Guide…”, or the Star Trek Universal Translator). Not that the apostles ran around speaking gibberish. How in the name of god would that help spread his word?
If you’re going to base your life around a bunch of stories, at least understand the stories.
It’s like reading Hansel and Gretel and taking away the lesson that you shouldn’t stick your head in ovens. Rather than the lesson that you should let your parents know where you are at all times. Not go into strangers houses, and if you’re going to go into the forest, make sure that you mark your trail with something that you will actually be able to follow back.
Sorry if i rambled.
PS, “Falling Down” is awesome, and it totally holds up 15 years later. (Just watched it a couple months ago on cable.)
Not sure why it reminded me of this, but I heard somewhere that you can tell a lot about a guy by how he treats the waitress when he’s on a date. (Lots of gender specificity in that example, of course.) Also reminded me of this quote:
that’s a good quote.
He shouldn’t be so hard on himself, so what he’s wrong, I have yet to see a Christian who wasn’t. Hell they all wear the Mark of the Beast, and considering the Six pointed star leads toward Saturn and the 666 of Saturn links up to the basic number system it’s really hard not to wear it. Unless of course you can actually live without needing basic units of measure, good luck with that. But just the same he couldn’t help it, he was probably tricked into it.
1+2+3=6
4+5+6=15 1+5=6
7+8+9=24 2+4=6
Keys of Death and Hell.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sacred_geometry/3467171642/
It’s been awhile since we had a truly crazy internet loon here on SEB. It was only a matter of time before this guy showed up.
As Scooby would say.
Too true, and the examples you give are ones I’ve encountered, too.
Heck, I know more about Bible stuff that I *don’t* believe in than some folks who profess to believe in it do.
“A person who is nice to you, but rude to the waiter, is not a nice person.”
—Dave Barry, Dave Barry Turns 50, “Sixteen Things That it Took Me 50 Years to Learn” (1998)
Dave Barry -> added to quotes file. Thanks!