why do so many ILXors (including myself) have so much hostility to religious people?

This is maybe the unintentionally funniest thing I've read today.

what about the ilxors who are of a particular faith(protestant, jewish, catholic, etc)?

part of it has to do with the fact that the folks most overly vocal about their beliefs in the last 30 years here in America tend to be reactionary fuckheads who are claiming God's Righteousness in trying to enact really conservative and usually otherwise unjustifiable policies.

Again, folks, the Moral Majority was never a religious groups; it's a political one.

also, part of it could involve with folks who were burned by their religous experience in the past, and becuase they can't believe, no one can believe.

in both cases, religion(or spirituality or anything like that) becomes a club to beat over the heads of others who don't necessarily think exactly the way you do.

Tender love is blind
It requires a dedication
All this love we feel
Needs no conversation
We ride it together, ah-ah
Makin' love with each other, ah-ah

Chorus:

Islands in the stream
That is what we are
No one in-between
How can we be wrong
Sail away with me to another world
And we rely on each other, ah-ah
From one lover to another, ah-ah

I can't live without you if the love was gone
Everything is nothin' if you got no one
And you did walk in tonight
Slowly loosen' sight of the real thing

But that won't happen to us and we got no doubt
Too deep in love and we got no way out
And the message is clear
This could be the year for the real thing

No more will you cry
Baby, I will hurt you never
We start and end as one, in love forever
We can ride it together, ah-ah
Makin' love with each other, ah-ah

I find it amusing that I have found myself in the position of being the Defender Of The Religious on ILE and the only reason I'm in church every Sunday for nine months out of the year is because I'm being paid to be there.

i have deep respect for religious people, i just don't think many "religious" people are as religious as they think they are.

w3rd

Um, so what? I don't understand what point you're trying to make here. That people who try to measure up to certain standards and fail are worthy of derision?

his point (i think) is that thinking being religious is about ramming obscure parts of Dueteronomy into the law books is massively wrong-headed

how would a non-religious person know how to be "properly religious" anyway?

how do religious people know how to be religious?

That's your answer for everything!

While I do occasionally fly off the handle about this, I don't think that holding such a view makes me childish, or "bigoted."

But that's because they're stupid, not because they're religious.

all your saying (to my ears) is that because i have been denied any special revelation i cannot say in any capacity what being "religious" is?

that's fair enough i guess. but it's really the end of all discussion isnt it?

well yeah that's exactly my point, Dan! doesn't there come a point at which one says "look, this doctrine is x years old and people keep saying it's eventually gonna effect some great global good at some point, but instead, for whatever great effort it admittedly undertakes from time to time, it displaces whole cultures, interferes with people's personal rights, backs outrageously backwards political positions, and generally messes with people's shit!" Every communist I know used to pull the "Communism's never really been put into play" line, but if every country ever to begin with the idea of practicing real communism has failed utterly, isn't it fair (or at least: not "bigoted") to ask whether there might not be something fundamentally wrong with the doctrine?

But that's because they're stupid, not because they're religious.

i know plenty of nice, reasonable people who are christians (including my parents. though they're catholic so they're "papist mary worshippers"). certainly i dont hate them for having beliefs i disagree violently with. but i like these people in spite of their beliefs.

I don't have any problem with christianity, i'm a member of the methodist church, but i'm agnostic.. and i don't feel like reading the bible.

xposed yeah kf as I pointed out, I don't hate religion generally speaking. I do think that Christianity, philosophically speaking, can (fairly! not unfairly, not "that's not real Christianity!) be used as the basis for much wretchedness, and that history tells us that's generally exactly what happens.

I have my own interpretation of christianity, and it may not be there's. if their version tells them to hate gay people and rape the earth then all i can do is disagree with them. i would STILL argue, however, that it's ok for me to say "i think there's a better version of christianity"--and they can take that however they want. and i can think they are a stupid asshole, or whatever. im not under the illusion that there is some standard to which we can all strive and viola utopia.

x-post n/a I think the above answers your question. Buddhists haven't had the opportunity to fuck up the world like Christianity has; I don't doubt that they'd bring their own stuff to bear on the situation if they held the sceptre like the Christians presently do. And I also think that, at that point, it'd be fair to ask if something within Buddhism didn't account for the way the world looks under Buddhist orthodoxy.

But the root of the religions don't teach that... It's the leaders who manipulate people through religion that are to blame for that, not the religion itself.

It doesn't help that TV and the media provide plenty of stereotypes: overweight Bible thumpers, Tom Delay, Bill Frist, Pat Robertson, Sean Hannitty's Crusades-worthy Catholicism, etc.

A relationship with a genuinely religious person might scare the shit out of them.

And fuck me, it's not bigoted to ask that.

And fuck me, it's not bigoted to ask that."

A very fair question....but you're confusing the political with the spiritual again. It was Christ who said, "Give unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar" – advice the Bush administration seems to have forgotten.

yeah the tautology is the trouble, but i think it's worth embracing it. i mean, someone only bases their life on reason because it's reasonable right? why else?

I think people (some religious people especially) that religion is about the mythology, like The Resurrection ... and not eating pig hooves...

The central tenenats of Christianity are: It is not your place to judge another person -and- You are not going to a fiery hell for the things you may have done wrong.

If you think this is hard, try talking to ILXors about religion.

most sermons i have heard have just been soul-crushingly banal.

better last part of my post.

you could also argue that ideas in Christianity also lead to the concepts of democracy, woman's rights, equality, etc.

pretty much, yeah! most especially the social constructs that've had two thousand years to refine their ideology but still can't actually get around to following their own most basic teachings!

stence, I've been to pretty much every kinda Xian service you care to name. My favorites were COGIC but I freaked out when they asked me to join.

n/a, take your effin' pick. As I pointed out, any religion given the bully-club Xity's got would probably do plenty of harm. The fact is, though, that Xity has done the most harm, and its apologists conveniently attribute none of this harm to actual Xity, which is where I call "bullshit."

I have been to all of these... And the messages therein are sometimes maddening - although at the core, the sentiment is often good. The problem is when too much is made out of symbolism, and stating it as fact. Religion isn't a problem if it is accompanied by education.

yes! or that other factors brought out the elements in Christianity that justifies these developments!

I do try not to judge faiths by their most violent, extreme members. *Most* Christians don't want to bomb abortion clinics even if they don't that abortions should occur. *Most* Muslims do not fly airplanes into buildings. Very, very few Jews belong to the JDL.

I do try not to judge faiths by their most violent, extreme members. *Most* Christians don't want to bomb abortion clinics even if they don't believe that abortions should occur. *Most* Muslims do not fly airplanes into buildings. Very, very few Jews belong to the JDL.

Also, how old are you?

(These siblings were older than the minister chastising them, BTW.)

This reminds me of when Jim Wallis(progressive christian evangelical) talks about meeting the Preznit. He said that he had no doubts that Dubya was doing what Dubya sincerely thought was best(sometimes) and in God's name. As Wallis puts is, "I don't question his piety; i question his theology."

some of these people really want to help and think that they are helping, except that their view of "helping" is way the fuck askew and damaging. For example, beating their kids as a sign of love, since they feel a loving parent would not neglect the child by not correcting it when it went astray. That kinda thing.

But then I started reading a lot on religion and philosophy, not just Islam, but Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism... and what I got from all of it is that people focus too much on differences rather than similarities. It doesn't matter what faith you subscribe to or even if you're an atheist or not - people are people. "Thou shalt not judge" and the first thing anyone does is judge other people because they're gay, because they're women, because they're atheists, because they're poor, because they're black, because they're fucking religious. It's a human flaw, that's all there is to it.

I don't know why I believe in God. Although it seems unreasonable, I just do. I don't know, maybe it's because human reason has failed just as much as religion has. Hello communism.

And I'm sticking to my faith, you know why? Do you know what the very first sentence of the Koran that was passed to Muhammad is? "Read." That's it. Just one word. Not read the Koran, not read the Bible, just read. Everything. If that's not a call to use reason and knowledge as a means to temper religious fervour, I don't know what is.

yup. the Narcissism of Small Differences has played quite a sizable role in human history.

no, I'm not Shakey Mo, I'm in my 30s. Lemme guess: nobody could be angry with Christianity unless they were "adolescent," right? 'Cause it's clearly "unreasonable" to wanna take it to task for anything at all, right?

Personally I don't give a shit if you're religious or not. Actually if anything, I'm probably jealous in some way.

I go along with the latter part of the is comment (I also go along with the first, but only if you aren't offensively religious - that's offensive to me btw, so please don't question what I mean by it, it's a me-relevant definition only). Having a genuine belief in a deity must give SUCH succour, confidence and hope, knowing you have someone who's always watching your back.

As for Christians, I wish more of them would consider the teachings of Jesus rather than fucking Deuteronomy. How is that so difficult?

I think it's more "I would like to hope against all available evidence that people would outgrow this type of thinking by the time they left college."

You said it, not me.

I do dislike certain religious views, though. It makes me angry when people cast issues they have problems with as ones of religious war, like Christians against Muslims or Christians against "liberals" (because one can't be both!) or Christians against gays. That's not the way to take care of each other.

Dan, you and I have been over this before, and I'm always as mystified by your position as I gather you are by mine. "This type of thinking" - so, is it your position that anybody who thinks that Christianity, as a philosphical school, is a failure - that person's stuck in some collegiate mindset? Do all other philosophical schools get the same benefit of the doubt? Communism only got 100 years before everybody said "look, lotta people died, let's chuck that one." How come?

I think it's fair to judge Christianity as a school of thought. That people are sensitive about it, fine, y'know: I'm not calling Christians assholes or anything. But I think it's fair to interrogate it as a school of thought, and to do so with the same vigor with which one would interrogate any school of thought, especially one that wields the power to influence countless people's lives.

n/a, I'm not an atheist, and I remember how totally deaf you are to arguments around this stuff from previous threads, so ixnay on your aitbay

Yeah, I don't want to play the same sort of sneering game, but I remember talking to people when I was a senior in college, who were all "religion is stupid, maaan" and I thought, that's cute, that's how I thought when I was a freshman, too. Much of my opinion was changed by many theological conversations with fellow classmates who identified themselves as religious and yet were some of the most intelligent, thoughtful people I'd ever met.

yeah but I am not guilty of the latter proposition! "I hate Christianity" is fair, not even particularly mean-spirited; if I said "I hate communism" nobody'd blink. I do think Christianity's pernicious, that it does almost immeasurably more harm than good & I am keenly aware of the good it's done both for individuals & occasionally for society at large. It's not "bigotry" to have come to that conclusion, any more than it's "bigotry" to conclude that communism doesn't work in practice even if it seems like a nice idea.

Right, you only hate them. Big difference.

(just thought I'd jump in here)
x-x-x-x-x-x-post

I did. I remember making that choice when I was pretty young. I sat in class thinking: "Well, here I am, does this make sense? Do I follow or not?" Later on it didn't really feel as though it was a choice. This doesn't make sense... But I do believe being religious is a choice you make, every day, every hour, every minute. You may not consciously think so, but you are.

But honestly, I hate talking about it, it always ends in fights. Always. I hate that.

Hi!

Also, I wasn't trying to offend by calling you an atheist, I have no idea what word you use to describe your beliefs. But I think it's fair to ask whether you chose your religious orientation (or lack thereof, whatever), because I'm not sure anyone does "choose" their beliefs, at least not in a scientific, reasonable sense.

Different for other people, etc.

But, jaymc, as an ex-Christian I have read the Bible plenty, plenty times, and the whole of Leviticus & Deuteronomy strike me as noxious, and the explanations I've both been given & given to others strike me as post-facto crap. "Jesus came to fulfill the law, therefore we don't have to follow those ridiculous Deutero-Levitical things": really? Doesn't Jesus specifically caution against that type of thinking: "not one letter of the law will pass away 'til all things be fulfilled"? Doesn't Paul exhort slaves to love their masters, and preach all manner of icksville sexism besides? And isn't it convenient to attribute those parts of Paul (i.e., the parts we recognize as foul) to historical trends, etc., while embracing the ones that suit our purposes?

Yes yes: when I find an ideology that's perfect, I'll join it, only then it won't be perfect; I'm familiar with Lewis's great line on that. But I'm not looking to ally myself with any particular ideology, just looking at this particular Big Man On Campus ideology. Christian doctrine, per the Bible anyhow: 1) keeps women down 2) tells workers to stick it out 'cause their bosses will get theirs in the end and 3) thinks mankind has "dominion" over the world, which I think is the worst bit, personally. I am well aware of Liberation Theology & many other attempts to force Xity to fit into a more palatable ideological box, but I think if you look at 1) the core and 2) the general historical effects of the thing, you have to do a fair amount of bob-n-weave to find the non-oppressive version of the ideology. And I think it's entirely fair to ask about how it's played out in vivo.

Yes and no. It was the logical conclusion of a lot of thought and the result of a lot of acquired knowledge. In a way it is a choice but it feels like the only one.

So in essence you think being atheist is an easy choice?!?

I don't really understand atheism, to be honest.

There is no god. That simple. It's not something I *believe*, it's something I *know*. Something I chose to accept.

xpost - yeah, being afraid that there is no life after death, and that life is meaningless is probably the thing that keeps people believing.

Hey, I'm agnostic myself. My thoughts on religion are pretty much this -- there's much motivated in part by religious thought that have social and other reactions (I hesitate to saying the word 'consequences') which I find terribly troubling. But since it's easily demonstrable that belief does not automatically determine or clarify a person's worth -- rather, it is the experience of dealing with someone which matters -- then I am not going to judge immediately.

I would much rather be the friend of a well-meaning, kind, committed Christian than an obnoxious, horrifying awful atheist, for all that my beliefs tend much more to the latter's philosophy than the former. At the same time I strongly believe in ethics that exist outside of a religious framework, and which do not require belief or associated ritual in order to put into practice. And in this world I am glad to be friends with Nath and Roz both, as both have demonstrated they are thoughtful and kind souls. :-)

love thy neighbor. do unto others as you would have them do unto you. easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into heaven. give to the poor, etc.

that was easy.

you are focusing on a very specific (albeit also predominant) interpretation of Christianity - one that has emphasized the sexism, the oppressive "slave" ideology, the loathing of the physical, etc. BUT THAT IS NOT THE BIBLE. The Bible is a codex, a mirror, it reflects whatever people want it to reflect. If someone wants to use it as the basis for an ideology of devotion and service to others, that is easily done. If someone wants to do the opposite, that's easily done too (obviously).

OH LOVE!!! Love should be a religion.

xpost

x-post

The Bible was written by about 8 million different people so it shouldn't be a big surprise that it's an incoherent mess when it comes to consistent narrative.

What good do you think will result from destroying Christianity? You've never actually articulated that and "This isn't working so let's kill it without offering an alternative" is also an extremely adolescent way of thinking.

(xpost We are veering very close to Stranger In A Strange Land territory now.)

Just because Communism claims to be scientific socialism doesn't make it so. Marx and lenin are working on a variety of assumptions about human behavior which have since been largely proved wrong. If anything I would say that communism as an ideology became a kind of religion for many people during the 20th century. It provided an all encompassing world view. Ideological orthodoxy became more important than actual science (i.e. Lysenko).

I don't grok you, dude. *reactivates the Matrix and kills Keanu*

Haha - you know, you sound exactly like a Christian when you say this! That you "know" something that you cannot in any demonstrable way shape or form prove.

HUGGELZ! Just don't bring any Christian Rock in my house! (joke!! sort of!)

not that there's anything wrong with being there for the afterlife... different accents is all. some would say, "oh i love god and want to be with him for eternity!" that's admirable. i guess there are times i feel like i've got a dad i never met. i know he's looking out for me, and i know there are times when he carried me, but... is he more of a beatles guy or an elvis dude?

it's a journey tho. these things ebb and flow.
m.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0670033855/ref=pd_sxp_f/002-1508273-7412021?v=glance&s=books

Hence: I don't really understand atheism, to be honest.

Dan, obviously one can't "kill Christianity." One can hope that fewer and fewer people feel the need to place their natural inclination to be kind, and to do right by others, in the Christianity basket, because once you're in that basket, there are a fair number other ideas that even perfectly intelligent people - tens of thousands of them, over the years: not "monsters," but thinking people - become drawn to (largely because the religion itself encourages you to let it govern your every decision, and I don't think anyone can find me a doctrinal or scriptural encouragement for the sort of pick-and-choose spirituality that we postmodern types enjoy so much). And one can then imagine a world free of the Christian shackles, recognizing that the good in Christianity didn't come from this half-insane God, Who memorably killed all the newborns in Egypt once just to prove a point, and Who has this idea about how somebody's gotta die to free us all from our sin (which strikes me as totally out-there), but from within themselves. People might realize that they're not good because God chose not to make them evil: they're good because that's their nature. Again, Lewis does some very interesting things with this, arguing that we become evil or good based on our choices, but I don't find much biblical support for that idea; it's, again, a way of trying to make Christianity jibe with some obviously sane teachings that we'd like it to have, because we have a lot of sentimental attachments to Christianity.

I think it's fair to judge Christianity as a school of thought.

No it's not. If only for the very, very simple reason that there IS NO Christian "school of thought." The Bible is so sprawling and ghost-written that it's actually possible to, you know, protest abortion while advocating the death penalty for rapists. Christianity's appeal has, imho, been in all the different flavors it offers (at least since the Proddies showed up). You can actually do almost anything you want and STILL be a Christian. Think about that. Technically speaking, there are no irredeemable sins as long as you repent. Forget about coralling all the actual Christians and condemning them; you can't even lump all the different sects together. Catholics are not Methodists are not Mormons.

Fwiw, ILx's anti-religion bent has always smacked of a bit classism to me (but I'm probably just looking for it).

But what I'm saying, Roz, is that, despite Communism's claims, it isn't actually fully reason-able. It too turns out to be belief-based.

xpost I'll say it again giboyeux: what you say is why it's fair to say "by their fruits shall ye know them" and then say whether it's on the whole a good tree or a bad'n

It's messianic, believes in redemption, avoiding sin...has quite a few of the trappings.

Good point.

xpost to m. white.

SOOOOO OTFM. thx giboyeux.

in which case it becomes a "is this glass half empty or is the glass half full" debate? Because if you want to weigh the positive vs. negative historical effects of Christianity, you have quite a slog ahead of you, and NO ONE is going to agree on anything. (I, for one, would not really be happy to live in a world without the Staple Singers, the Louvin Brothers, Philip K. Dick, or Roger Williams - none of whom would have been quite what they were without their Christianity)

OTM. Absolute consistency isn't the Bible's strong point.

I think it's a lot like literature in that there are parts that are pretty specific to the material, social, and philosophical environment of the time and place of its writing, but there are also parts that make it still worth reading even when the environment is incredibly different. You can read Dostoevsky and think "Okay, his ideas about hating Jews and Germans and believing The People of Russia are going to save the world are clearly not universally valid, but that bit there about humanity being irrational is what makes his writing still matter to us." It can be hard to separate the socially specific parts from the universal parts in the Bible, and I think my own personal ideals have as much to do with how I separate those as historical accuracy...but at least in theory, attempting to do should not lead to an invalid postmodernist reading. And it shouldn't cause any more problems than literalist readings (which must have lots of fun with the contradictions if they pretend they aren't there).

St Francis of Assisi
Martin Luther King
Antonio Gaudi
Johnny Cash

the list goes on and on and on and on....

My argument is that a few of the core ideas in Christianity are very useful & noble, but that these ideas did not originate with Christianity and are not specific to it; that they don't need it, even, because they're helpful ideas even without God behind them.

the consistency of our reading it doesn't help either.
m.

yeah I don't think they would have and I have no problem arguing for Christianity as a central focus/force in all those people's lives, in most cases from a very young age. Their Christianity was at the core of their personalities, and informed and illuminates all of their work. Without it, all of them would have been completely different people.

the one place on which I will 'fess to "hating Christians" is when they try to ask like they're in any way persecuted. Sure: early Church, persuction city. Today? No, resoundingly no! You guys run the whole show! No big decision gets made without your say-so! My kid can't grow up anywhere without knowing all about how great you all are! You have the whole room on lockdown! You cannot think of yourselves as persecuted any more and it's intellectually dishonest to do so!

except for ILX, apparently. (heh heh)

Also, like religion, there is no such thing as a "capitalist ideology." Capitalism ("taken too far") doesn't necessarily mean market-based, no govt. Particularly in the developing world, It's usually government involvement in capitalism that causes much distress and inequality, and govt involvement isn't capitalism "taken too far."

No. My position is that Christianity is a social construct which, like any other long-lasting social construct, has been used for good and ill. The core ideas of love and tolerance at its base is a worthy one, however, and if people are only willing to swallow it when presented in the form of Christianity, then I don't have a problem with it.

Much of Bach's music was written specifically for church services. He was in a position to write music because of his job as a church organist. It is very, very likely that no one would have any clue who Bach was if it hadn't been for Christianity.

Also: can we all just agree that Sikhism is secretly the best? I mean, shit, the only reason I haven't converted is because I like to drink and keep my hair short. Also, the funny underpants thing is a little weird.

But conversely, wouldn't the argument be that we'll never know about hundreds of possible-Bachs who were unable to become Bach due to the Christianity's power and influence over Europe (in the guise of the Church)?

OTM

C'mon milo and Banana, speculating about counter-factuals is fun but it leads nowhere.

har har. don't tip your hand so much.

You cannot think of yourselves as persecuted any more and it's intellectually dishonest to do so!

well, no shit. it's not like anybody here is claiming that.

remember, there IS no one single monolithic "Christian doctrine." Differnt people claim different things from them, and a lot of what they claim depends on the kinda people they are.

Are they really REALLY conservative, and placing too much on the whole Divine Punishment/Absolute Authority/Literalism aspect? That would result in a certain set of actions, which they could claim were Biblically-based and thus Righteous.

OR! do they lean on the whole Divine Grace/feed the hungry/heal the sick part? This would ALSO result in a set of actions, which they could claim were Biblically-based and thus Righteous.

the kicker is that until the last few hundred years, humanity has tended to be ruled by the more conservative, authoritarian elements.

so just decrying a set of unlikeable traits to the whole of "Christians" or "religious people" is terribly inaccurate.

Tell what to do w/ it? Just stay away, right ? Ned, Kenan? Heh

a demand for freedom which can rather clearly be traced back to ideas first developed in Enlightenment-era Christianity. So is Christianity both the liberator AND the oppressor in this case? (hint: the correct answer is "yes")

It's not counter-factual to argue that Christianity denied as much or more great art than it created any more than it's counter-factual to argue that maybe we missed out on womens' input sometime over the past two thousand years.

Does that sound *ahem* familiar as a rhetorical tactic?

"it is true that sexism pervades other cultures, too, but Christianity rather explicitly condones it,"

this can also be said of Islam, Hinduism, def. Buddhism as well. Not to mention countless tribal societies. The proper conclusion here is that sexism's pervasiveness is independent of any specific religious doctrine.

"an enlightened world has to work very hard to find any biblical support for thinking of women as anything but "help-meets"

Hellloooo - THE VIRGIN MARY?!? Symbol of divine empathy, endurance, grace, transcendence, a major focal point for many Christian women (specifically Catholics) and the source of inspiration for countless female Christian "do-gooders". Barring that, if you wanna get into the theology, you personally, in your "enlightened world", don't have to go any farther than a copy of the Nag Hammadi found at your local library.

Seeya later!

I never said this Shakey Mo! I said the bad outweighs the good! I still say so!

The Virgin Mary, yes. A couple of others in there, too. I used to teach catechism. I know all about her. She is one of a small handful of women called up as counterexample to NINETEEN CENTURIES OF NOT BEING ALLOWED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE GENERAL DIALOGUE, and to cite her as a remedy is real neat.

haha I was gonna say the same thing but didn't wanna be mean

Experience.

well, yeah, totally, and this is where you & I (and Dan & me) agree about a reality but differ on what makes it the way it is. I view the Christian theology that aided & abetted women's liberations as conveniently Christian; I don't think its ideology springs from Christianity, but rather arises from plain old reason (it doesn't take a complex ideology to note that men & women ought to have the same rights) and is then sort of welded to an existing philosophy whose power is pretty much necessary to get any ideas advanced. (This is not to impugn the sincerity of, say, Elizabeth Cady's faith, just a description of a not-uncommon syncretic philosophical occurrance.) I think that the Bible, and the practice of Christianity throughout the ages stemming from it, is sexist; one Virgin Mary, a Rachel here or there - these are bones tossed out compared to twelve male disciples, Paul's totally hateful attitude toward women in general (vide him addressing the possibility of women being involved in church services), etc. I would argue that the Christian West (btw that's my new band name) has the most liberated women in the world precisely because the Christian West isn't as Christian as it used to be, and I hardly think of that as a particularly radical or even surprising position to hold.

(it's also not hard to see christianity as what created post-modernism, see vattimo, nietzsche, heidegger)

so isn't figuring out God's fundamentals a constant process, something you have to keep aspiring too, and not make the sinful mistake of pride by thinking you completely understand God's plan? (and isn't this just basically Heidegger and his notion of Being? yes, yes it is.)

ryan I gotta warn you, man, A Nairn does not get tired. Until you believe with your heart and confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, he ain't gonna have nothin. And he has got answers to all your questions. They're in the same bible that says you should kill a prostitute by throwing rocks at her, only then Jesus was killed and that "fulfilled" that law. See? So that is all your questions right there.

How do you define God's fundamentals?

By asking for the Holy Spirit's life long guidance.

And I tell you, ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks it will be opened. What father among you, if his son asks for a fish, will instead of a fish give him a serpent; or if he asks for an egg, will give him a scorpion? If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!"

dood my dad pulled that trick on me last Christmas. Fuckin wiseass.

I was brought up "christian" and gave up on it, because it didnt explain a thing. Taoism on the other hand, gets a lot closer to what I was after - no deity asks you to worship it, because there isn't one; only the Universe itself, which deserves our respect and awe. Look at science. Get into quantum physics and its all theory. But not because a "god" who we must worship made it - because the universe it just the amazing thing we will never fully know, so all we can do is try to understand how our life can best fit in with the indefatigable movement of life and being. Fight it, and you are miserable. Understand its flow, move with it, relax - and you will be much happier. That to me is truly understanding. Why waste your life being told there is "a god", "he" is angry, selfish, disapointed in his flock and regards everyone as fallen? What a sad, silly waste of this wonderful go-round in the amazing universe we get!

Christians can waste it in guilt and misery and opression and fear all they like - me, I want to wonder and marvel and work out this mysterious, neverending, incredibly complex chaos we live inside, thanks.

Heaven and Earth are impartial;
they treat all of creation as straw dogs.
The Master doesn't take sides;
she treats everyone like a straw dog.

The space between Heaven and Earth is like a bellows;
it is empty, yet has not lost its power.
The more it is used, the more it produces;
the more you talk of it, the less you comprehend.

It is better not to speak of things you do not understand.

I don't begrudge believers their beliefs as long as they leave me alone. The only religious people I'm actively hostile toward are blood-relation hypocrites (my useless Pentecostal relatives) and people who get in my face about it.
Other than that, I just don't see a reason to respect spiritual religious belief any more than I respect belief in haunted houses or banshees.

GET ONE HAIR SHIRT

this is my other new band name

(And nobody bring up the ID thread, this is NOT the ID thread, and he hasn't said anything terribly "damaging" here so far.)

And also, maybe the Bible isn't the foundation because he says so, maybe it is because he has faith in it and that's why he says so. It's not like he's trying to forcibly convert you or anything by having and stating a belief that isn't logically transmittable.

(300 more posts by morning, all centering around trying to make sense of Nairn's gibberish)

totally absolutely 101% OTM

And try to get away from having postmodern realtivistic individualistic tendencies so deeply ingrained in your thought.

I do and have done all these things, and will continue to do so. Thanks for being patronizing and not actually grasping any of the substance of what I've said though.

This is a running theme, assuming that since something is both old and popular it has validity.

Onward, Moderate Christian Soldiers
By JOHN C. DANFORTH
Published: June 17, 2005

IT would be an oversimplification to say that America's culture wars are now between people of faith and nonbelievers. People of faith are not of one mind, whether on specific issues like stem cell research and government intervention in the case of Terri Schiavo, or the more general issue of how religion relates to politics. In recent years, conservative Christians have presented themselves as representing the one authentic Christian perspective on politics. With due respect for our conservative friends, equally devout Christians come to very different conclusions.

It is important for those of us who are sometimes called moderates to make the case that we, too, have strongly held Christian convictions, that we speak from the depths of our beliefs, and that our approach to politics is at least as faithful as that of those who are more conservative. Our difference concerns the extent to which government should, or even can, translate religious beliefs into the laws of the state.

People of faith have the right, and perhaps the obligation, to bring their values to bear in politics. Many conservative Christians approach politics with a certainty that they know God's truth, and that they can advance the kingdom of God through governmental action. So they have developed a political agenda that they believe advances God's kingdom, one that includes efforts to "put God back" into the public square and to pass a constitutional amendment intended to protect marriage from the perceived threat of homosexuality.

Moderate Christians are less certain about when and how our beliefs can be translated into statutory form, not because of a lack of faith in God but because of a healthy acknowledgement of the limitations of human beings. Like conservative Christians, we attend church, read the Bible and say our prayers.

But for us, the only absolute standard of behavior is the commandment to love our neighbors as ourselves. Repeatedly in the Gospels, we find that the Love Commandment takes precedence when it conflicts with laws. We struggle to follow that commandment as we face the realities of everyday living, and we do not agree that our responsibility to live as Christians can be codified by legislators.

When, on television, we see a person in a persistent vegetative state, one who will never recover, we believe that allowing the natural and merciful end to her ordeal is more loving than imposing government power to keep her hooked up to a feeding tube.

When we see an opportunity to save our neighbors' lives through stem cell research, we believe that it is our duty to pursue that research, and to oppose legislation that would impede us from doing so.

We think that efforts to haul references of God into the public square, into schools and courthouses, are far more apt to divide Americans than to advance faith.

Following a Lord who reached out in compassion to all human beings, we oppose amending the Constitution in a way that would humiliate homosexuals.

For us, living the Love Commandment may be at odds with efforts to encapsulate Christianity in a political agenda. We strongly support the separation of church and state, both because that principle is essential to holding together a diverse country, and because the policies of the state always fall short of the demands of faith. Aware that even our most passionate ventures into politics are efforts to carry the treasure of religion in the earthen vessel of government, we proceed in a spirit of humility lacking in our conservative colleagues.

In the decade since I left the Senate, American politics has been characterized by two phenomena: the increased activism of the Christian right, especially in the Republican Party, and the collapse of bipartisan collegiality. I do not think it is a stretch to suggest a relationship between the two. To assert that I am on God's side and you are not, that I know God's will and you do not, and that I will use the power of government to advance my understanding of God's kingdom is certain to produce hostility.

By contrast, moderate Christians see ourselves, literally, as moderators. Far from claiming to possess God's truth, we claim only to be imperfect seekers of the truth. We reject the notion that religion should present a series of wedge issues useful at election time for energizing a political base. We believe it is God's work to practice humility, to wear tolerance on our sleeves, to reach out to those with whom we disagree, and to overcome the meanness we see in today's politics.

For us, religion should be inclusive, and it should seek to bridge the differences that separate people. We do not exclude from worship those whose opinions differ from ours. Following a Lord who sat at the table with tax collectors and sinners, we welcome to the Lord's table all who would come. Following a Lord who cited love of God and love of neighbor as encompassing all the commandments, we reject a political agenda that displaces that love. Christians who hold these convictions ought to add their clear voice of moderation to the debate on religion in politics.

John C. Danforth is an Episcopal minister and former Republican senator from Missouri.