Bad things about Christianity

[gnomon]

Christians cannot escape responsibility for the violence done in the name of their God and their religion, merely by saying that they "aren't real Christians". The same is true of Heathens who have to deal with the racist, white-power groups that spring up in their ranks, or for Satanists who have to deal with their more fascist and vicious members, or for Islam with their many extremist schools, terrorists, "strongmen", and theocrats. Christians appear quick to point out that Wicca is an evil religion, because one time there was this one "Wiccan" who did some evil thing. Catholics and Protestants do this to Mormons too. Nearly every non-Christian has felt the intolerance of Christianity throughout their lives, and if you think that ignoring the pain that has been caused is going to make anyone feel better about Christianity, you are mistaken.

I wholeheartedly disagree.

 

[Radio Frequency X]

I wholeheartedly disagree.

With anything in particular, or are we just disagreeable today?

 

[Sunstone]

Before you can blame a religion for the behavior of its followers, I think you need to establish (at the least):

1) That the religion advocates or encourages that behavior

2) That the followers are adhering to the religion.

3) That other explanations for the behavior of the followers do not wholely account for their behavior, or better account for their behavior.

 

[doppelganger]

Before you can blame a religion for the behavior of its followers, I think you need to establish (at the least):

1) That the religion advocates or encourages that behavior

2) That the followers are adhering to the religion.

3) That other explanations for the behavior of the followers do not wholely account for their behavior, or better account for their behavior.

How about the "but for" causation test we use in the law? "But for" religion, would the atrocities have been committed (or would they have been as severe)?

 

[Sunstone]

How about the "but for" causation test we use in the law? "But for" religion, would the atrocities have been committed (or would they have been as severe)?

Sounds like a good test to me. I wonder if you could sue a religion for negligence?

 

[Radio Frequency X]

Before you can blame a religion for the behavior of its followers, I think you need to establish (at the least):

1) That the religion advocates or encourages that behavior

2) That the followers are adhering to the religion.

3) That other explanations for the behavior of the followers do not wholely account for their behavior, or better account for their behavior.

1. I would add, passively ignores to that list. While some religions do not advocate or encourage violence, they do passively ignore it when it happens.

2. It is impossible to tell who is "truly adhering" to any particular religion. Maybe they have a slightly different interpretation, or maybe they simply aren't as legalistic as others. How to we make that judgment? Self-Report is the only way to judge who is what, when it comes to religion.

3. Psychological and sociological explanations will near-always account for violent and disturbing acts. It is the justification of violence with religion, or (with regard to point 1) if a religion advocates, encourages, or passively ignores a particular behavior that must be paid attention to.

Furthermore, we must consider whether or not psychological and sociological/cultural conditions have been shaped by the dogmas of a particular religion (Christianity in America; Islam in the Middle East; The Maple Leafs in Canada). I understand what you are trying to get at with your questions here, but I think the issue is more complex than that.

 

[gnomon]

With anything in particular, or are we just disagreeable today?

The latter.

Later in the day after I've had more coffee I'll get to the specifics.

 

[Sunstone]

I'm not sure about the passivity test you recommend. It seems to me that leads to absurdity. For instance, is the US Constitution responsible for Darfur because the US Constitution nowhere condemns genocide? Why should we expect and demand that a religion take an active role in opposing some evil or be damned as having contributed to that evil?

 

[Radio Frequency X]

I'm not sure about the passivity test you recommend. It seems to me that leads to absurdity. For instance, is the US Constitution responsible for Darfur because the US Constitution nowhere condemns genocide? Why should we expect and demand that a religion take an active role in opposing some evil or be damned as having contributed to that evil?

Because Americans aren't causing the suffering in Darfur. However, Christians are being intolerant, Muslims are waging a religious war on "non-believers", and Heathens are advocating white-power over the "inferior" races. In these three examples, passivity is a kind of support. Though, what we usually see is people ignoring the problem all together, pretending as if these problems didn't exist. It is always encouraging to see organizations like Heathens Against Hate, or to see Muslims speak out against Terrorism, or Christians speak out against intolerance.

 

[doppelganger]

Sounds like a good test to me. I wonder if you could sue a religion for negligence?

Wouldn't the Judge just throw the case out?

 

[adilrockstar]

Christians appear quick to point out that Wicca is an evil religion, because one time there was this one "Wiccan" who did some evil thing.

You are stereotyping. You are doing the exact same thing that you are against.

 

[Nullifidian]

I don't really care much if people want to believe things that I myself consider to be patently untrue, but I do very much dislike a group trying to legislate their religion and institute their holy book as the law of the land. I refuse to live in a Christian theocracy, and yet it seems that we're getting closer to that state of affairs with every passing day. Christianity has, in my opinion, way too much influence on what we can watch on TV and in movies, what we can do in the privacy of our own bedrooms with consenting adults, what we can read, and what we can say. And the Christian Right is trying as hard as it can to worm it's insidious way ever further into our government. I think this is a very dangerous trend, and is totally against the Constitution of our great nation.

 

[Nullifidian]

I personally do not like Christianity (or any religion that stems from the Old Testament) because, to quote Richard Dawkins,

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

Well, sure, but besides all that he's really a pretty nice guy, huh? :sarcastic

 

[Nullifidian]

I beg to differ. Christians have, at different times and places, been quite intolerant of other religions. I see Christianity, or the gospel of Jesus Christ, as being very inclusive, but many of His professed followers to be quite exclusive. He taught us to love our enemies; that is true Christianity and that will never change.

Jesus also said that in order to be his disciple we must hate our father, mother, brothers and sisters and children, and our own lives. I know that apologists claim he meant to "love them less than him" but that's not what the book says in black and white, at Luke 14:26. Some of the newer versions, other than the KJV, read differently, so what are we supposed to think?

 

[Katzpur]

Jesus also said that in order to be his disciple we must hate our father, mother, brothers and sisters and children, and our own lives. I know that apologists claim he meant to "love them less than him" but that's not what the book says in black and white, at Luke 14:26. Some of the newer versions, other than the KJV, read differently, so what are we supposed to think?

I suppose that anyone who interprets the Bible literally ought to start hating his parents. I realize that, as a non-Christian, this may very well be a moot point, but is this what you think He meant?

 

[Radio Frequency X]

You are stereotyping. You are doing the exact same thing that you are against.

No, I am not. I'm not taking a few Christians as examples of a specific behavior and saying that it is true of the entire group. I'm saying that it is, in my broad experience, true of a majority of the group. It has been true of the majority of Christians at every church I've attended, from large nondenominational churches to small Baptist, Lutheran, Four Square, and Nazerane churches, and it has been true of the majority of my family and my family's friends. Every once in a while I meet a Christian who is tolerant of people of other religions and lifestyles/cultures/moral codes and so forth. I understand that this may not apply to the majority of Christians in Europe, but I've only been there once, so I don't know. I'm not stereotyping, because I'm not implying that this behavior applies to all Christians. Now, maybe you really haven't had the same experience, or maybe your just aren't paying attention. I don't know which.

Please understand, that I'm not bashing Christianity here. I have serious concerns about modern and historical expressions and dogmas within the Christian church, and that doesn't pertain to Christians in general.

 

[adilrockstar]

Jesus also said that in order to be his disciple we must hate our father, mother, brothers and sisters and children, and our own lives. I know that apologists claim he meant to "love them less than him" but that's not what the book says in black and white, at Luke 14:26. Some of the newer versions, other than the KJV, read differently, so what are we supposed to think?

This is slander. God never told us to Hate our loved ones.

 

[adilrockstar]

No, I am not. I'm not taking a few Christians as examples of a specific behavior and saying that it is true of the entire group. I'm saying that it is, in my broad experience, true of a majority of the group. It has been true of the majority of Christians at every church I've attended, from large nondenominational churches to small Baptist, Lutheran, Four Square, and Nazerane churches, and it has been true of the majority of my family and my family's friends. Every once in a while I meet a Christian who is tolerant of people of other religions and lifestyles/cultures/moral codes and so forth. I understand that this may not apply to the majority of Christians in Europe, but I've only been there once, so I don't know. I'm not stereotyping, because I'm not implying that this behavior applies to all Christians. Now, maybe you really haven't had the same experience, or maybe your just aren't paying attention. I don't know which.

Please understand, that I'm not bashing Christianity here. I have serious concerns about modern and historical expressions and dogmas within the Christian church, and that doesn't pertain to Christians in general.

Sorry you feel that way.:sad4:

God Bless


Adil

 

[Nullifidian]

I suppose that anyone who interprets the Bible literally ought to start hating his parents. I realize that, as a non-Christian, this may very well be a moot point, but is this what you think He meant?

I'm not qualified to interpret the sayings of the biblical Jesus, all I can do is read what it says in black and white. It says "hate", which in Greek is the word "miseo" and, as far as I know, always means "hate".

 

[doppelganger]

I'm not qualified to interpret the sayings of the biblical Jesus

Nobody is.