Is Christianity a Negative Religion?

[Runlikethewind]

But I don't quite agree with your distinction between religion and politics. I think you can distinguish theology from politics (to some extent, tho not completely) but you cannot separate religion from politics. Religion is theology AND politics. Separation of church and state simply means that no religion can be favored by or exert undue influence on the state. It does not meant that religion is not political. When preachers are talking about abortion and homosexuality in the pulpits, regardless of which side they come down on, it's political. The traditional Catholic stand of caring for the poor (something that I admire greatly) is a political stand. When those of us who are people of faith try to live our faith in day to day life, it's political. The only question is whether our politics is on the side of the poor and oppressed or serves to bolster those with power and wealth.

I agree with your assessment. It is one thing for religion to influence politics. The point I was trying to get across is that it is quite another issue when the Pope has an army at his disposal to destroy anyone who disagrees with his message, as he did during the days of the crusade (or at least he had the power and influence to raise an army). And the conquest of the Holy Land had less to do with promoting religious values and more to do with the economic and political benefits of controlling that area of the world. Religion can and should influence politics but church leaders given both religious and secular power tends to be very corruptive since they can easily justify their every public policy decision as being the will of God....I think we see some of that in the more radical Islamic countries today maybe.

And I ADORE your sig! :yes:

Thanks!

 

[gnostic]

I understand we should dwell on the past failures (in history, eg. Crusades and Inquisitions) of Christians and Christianity, but there is still resonating here today from that pasts.

There are still Christians today who like to accuse other non-Christian people as being "evil", because their belief are different to their. And there are still Christians with black-and-white image of the world, "where you are either for us or against us" attitude.

George Bush is one example who like to use this motto (in fact he did say this in front of the media, in regarding to the French and UN opposition to the war), and he is not alone in thinking this way. Think about the time when France don't want an invasion in Iraq in the UN security council, there were many self-righteous angry Protestant-Baptists Americans and wanted to ban all French products, some even pathetically renaming the French Fries as "Freedom Fries". Since Iraq was listed as "evil" country, so the war-drums were pounding among the pro-war and pro-Bush movement. It didn't matter at that time to ordinary Americans that ordinary Iraqi would suffer more from the war than Saddam, because they were fresh from the success of Afghanistan.

I know that the war in Iraq is political more than religion, but is not that far different from the First Crusade, when Pope Urban II spoke of the "peace" and "freedom", and the "evil Muslims", to that of Bush's repeated speeches of "freedom", "peace" and "democracy".

 

[!Fluffy!]

excuse me, but what the bloody hell are you talking about? none of this rant has anything to do with Christ.

seems to me some people will jump at any opportunity to broad brush Americans and Christians as eeeeevil...

 

[gnostic]

seems to me some people will jump at any opportunity to broad brush Americans and Christians as eeeeevil...

No, I'm not saying Americans or Christians as evil, Moon Woman. *sigh*

I'm saying that Christians frequently like throwing the word "evil" at other people, who are not Christians. By designating the word "evil" at group of people, Christians have demonised those people. You may not have done it, but some have.

Do you remember the [SIZE=-1]Terri Schiavo incidence? A bunch of Christians have called her husband, "evil", as well as the doctors and the courts. To me, some Christians are too fond of that word, "evil" and sticking this label on people who don't follow their religion.
[/SIZE]

 

[lilithu]

excuse me, but what the bloody hell are you talking about? none of this rant has anything to do with Christ.

That's the basis of the dispute. Is Christianity to be judged by the teachings of Jesus? Or is Christianity to be judged by the actions of its followers? If the latter, then it's undeniable that there have been and continue to be negative actions. And of course positive actions too.

It seems to me that what non-Christians are saying is that it's not entirely faith or truthful to point only to the teachings of Jesus and say that Christianity is all good and ignore the actions of some of its followers.

 

[lilithu]

Christianity seems to be a "heart" religion- a devotional one requiring surrender of the armament of the heart in open vulnerability. A welcoming receptivity to Christ. It's not it seems to me a "head" thing-and its the head trip of certain theologies that unfortunately leads folks astray from that very path. I've practiced Buddhism of the zen variety for years and despite much "book learning"/sutra study one can do, the emphasis is on meditative understandings or realization beyond mere words. It was when I happened upon contemplaive or hesychastic Christian practice and approached it in the same light as I did Buddhism, that I then embraced the nominal Christianity of my childhood in a more profound and meaningful way. When the prayer of the heart reaches a depth of "silence" beyond words, theologies drop away and the Christ message can naturally be lived out in our realizations. Many would say I'm not Christian. Many would say I'm not Buddhist. But that's OK. take care, earl

Earl, namaste.

I agree that Christianity at its best is a heart religion. Love God and love they neighbor (which includes thy enemy) is the sum of it. From my experience Buddhism is a head religion. The emphasis is not on love but on cultivating wisdom. "Mind precedes all things." Ultimately, the two approaches lead to the same place (imo). Love leads to wisdom and wisdom leads to love. Like you, I see beauty in both and would not be willing to give up either one.

One thing that I do like about Christianity more so than Buddhism is that it is more easily accessible to all. A heart religion does not require a lot of time or teaching to practice. Methinks that it was no accident that the son of a journeyman (un-skilled carpenter) taught a religion of love, whereas the son of a tribal king taught a religion of wisdom.

Of course, the negative thing about a heart religion (since this thread is on the negative) is that emotion can go either way. Love, when it is only love for some and not love for all, can easily turn to hate for those who are not loved. Methinks Luna will agree with me that if you're gonna be Christian you needs be a universalist.

 

[earl]

As you can tell from my self-described "Christo-Buddhism," I see no innate contradiction . But then what "theology" I have is very non-traditional. It's probably somewhat apt to consider Buddhism a "head-oriented" practice in that so many of its teachings deal with what we associate with the "head-" perceptual/interpretive matters. But as enlightenment is literally not about anything you think, cannot easily be put into that categorical box. I've rather liked the Buddhist notion of "bodhicitta" which translates into awakened "heart-mind" & as Trungpa used to say love without wisdom could degenerate into "idiot compassion." have a good one, earl

 

[The Seeker]

Christianity is only negative when it is not fully understood.

 

[gnostic]

There are positives in Christianity, such as Jesus' teaching of love thy neighbour, compassion, or not judging or persecuting others.

That's something I liked. And these lessons can universal and not restricted to just Christianity.

Some Christians follow these better than others, which is sad, but I'd guess Christians are human and not perfect.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

OK, obviously my answer is no.

But people who leave Christianity, either drifting off into a secular life or actually converting to a different religion, sometimes site a negative perspective toward humanity or too much emphasis on 'sin' in Christianity as the reason they were turned off from it.

Do you agree that Christianity has a more negative outlook on things? Please say whether you are or were a Christian, and if you left what made you do so. Was it the teachings, the people, a particular experience?

The last five years, particularly the most recent three years, have been a time where I've had to take a hard look at Christianity and what it stands for. Much as I willed it otherwise, it hasn't stood up to the acid tests very well.

Ultimately, it seems that much of what fundamentalist Christianity says (1) comes out looking like a foreign language, and (2) other religions or philosophies can do the job just as well, if not better. Combine that with the idea of Hell, the lack of evidence, and the power struggles that go on, and Christianity seems to reduce to just that--a power struggle.

From my own perspective, I think Christianity is a very (the most) hopeful and positive religion. I can understand however that the emphasis on sin, and especially the doctrine of Original Sin, is viewed by many as a negative aspect of Christianity, especially when combined with some Protestant teachings about predestination and hell. Personally I think that while some meditation on sin and hell (as separation from God) can deepen our faith, to only emphasize these aspects is a shallow, hollow approach to Christianity and yes, I consider that a very negative face of the religion. It can also be noted that not all Christian denominations, notably the Eastern Orthodox, have Original Sin as part of their doctrine, and the ideas of theosis and apacatastasis are not/have not always been viewed as heresies.

I used to think the very same thing about Christianity's hope. Then I began to realise that it doesn't necessarily apply to foreigners, GLBT's, people with different convictions, and people who have just plain never heard the story in the first place.

 

[lunamoth]

Then I began to realise that it doesn't necessarily apply to foreigners, GLBT's, people with different convictions, and people who have just plain never heard the story in the first place.

Why would it not apply? Not all flavors of Christianity are the same. 'course, I can certainly understand getting fed up with the loud message we hear that the good news does not apply to some or all of the groups above. Frankly I just don't buy that.

 

[des]

The UCC has argued that the view of Christianity that is primarily conservative and fundamentalist is backed by overwhelming media neglect. I have seen the evidence and a lot of times when there is some interview, there will be a token moderate (sometimes it is Jim Wallis). It does not give much of a view of what the "rest of Christianity" is doing. I think there have been high nos. of conservatives and also conservative Christian influence in politics of late. (Some of it funded by Abermoth, btw, who held all religion, including his backers, in total contempt.)

But yes, the loudest message is getting told, and afaic, it is not "good news". (BTW, not saying that fundamentalists can't be loving and fair minded either, but that isn't the message of them we are getting mostly either!)

--des

Why would it not apply? Not all flavors of Christianity are the same. 'course, I can certainly understand getting fed up with the loud message we hear that the good news does not apply to some or all of the groups above. Frankly I just don't buy that.

 

[Prometheus]

Religion isn't a question of is it negative or positive. It's not a question of whether or not it makes people happy. It's not a question of if it has a good moral code. It's not a question of if it gives people hope.

The only real question I need to ask of religion is if it is true or false. If it's false, then however "positive" or "hopeful" it is, it's not worth following.

 

[Makhsihed]

I don't think it's negative, but it's certainly an outlook that takes a lot of effort to follow. A lot of people equate effort with negativity, though, so maybe in that regard it's yes.

I adamantly disagree with this.

Most Christians of my experience (which is mostly the first 18 years of my life in southern baptist / supposedly-nondenominational-but-still-rather-s.baptist churches, and all of my life with a Southern Baptist, Southwest Seminary-trained pastor as a father) approach Christianity in what I consider a rather lazy way. So much emphasis is placed on forgiveness and "giving your troubles up to God". Got depression? Low self esteem? Social ineptitude? Your best friend just died? Give your troubles or grief or whatever-it-is to God, he'll help you.

There's next to no emphasis on personal growth, on thinking for yourself, on improving yourself. You're not "supposed" to fix yourself because that's too much like trying to save yourself and after all, only God can do that! You can't "get to Heaven" by being a good person or improving yourself or helping others or any of that, so while it's good to do, you don't need to do any of that. Just ask Christ into your heart, give all your problems over to God, and he'll take care of everything! You won't have to do anything beyond trusting God to take care of it all!

Sounds like the lazyman's religion to me. This depiction of God doesn't want people of strong will, he doesn't want people who think for themselves, he doesn't want anyone independent; he only wants sheep. That image is reinforced with the idea of "lambs of God" and "Christ is the Good Shepherd" and on and on.

Now, I'm not saying this is all 100% Biblically supported. I still greatly respect my dad for telling me to always think for myself, to never take what a pastor or religious "authority" says at face value, to always check it for myself. He quoted a Bible verse for this, something that Paul wrote; I can't find the exact verse at the moment. I credit my dad and that verse for teaching me to think for myself. (Of course, when my conclusions were different from my parents' conclusions or interpretations, I was then told that "I must not be praying hard enough" or "I must not be hearing God correctly" or "I must be interpreting that passage incorrectly". But I digress; that's about individual/group hypocrisy that I've observed among many Christians, not about Christianity as a religion on its own merit.)

And of course there's always the adage of "God helps those who help themselves", and various other parts of the Bible that encourage charity and self-growth and such. The problem is, too many Christians and too much of modern Christianity (which I still maintain as rather at odds with what Christianity began as and perhaps should have stayed - I think Christianity would be better off disregarding Paulian writings as a whole, or learning to take Paul's words as advice from a mortal teacher rather than Biblical Gospel That Shall Not Be Questioned and is Absolutely, Literally Correct) who take the lazy view of Christianity.

Any religion focusing more on self and rigorous self-transformation/self-growth, in my opinion, is more of a challenge and takes far more effort to follow than any religion that's almost completely "faith"-centric (such as the Abrahamic religions). YMMV.

There are some Christians who still preach hell and brimstone, but Jesus' teachings (as I and others have said) are about love and forgiveness. It is not fair to judge ALL Christians by what a few do.

Agreed - but it's not just "some" Christians preaching hell and brimstone. Or it is just some (heavily congregated in the southern USA), but then there are a ton of very hypocritical Christians, or Christians who preach a "soft" version of hell and brimstone, or of exclusion and intolerance... Sadly, the Christians who are all about love and forgiveness are few and far between, by my experience. I have great respect for the few I've met, but most fall very short of that mark.

No, it isn't fair to judge all Christians by what some Christians do. But when you've been burnt again and again and again and again by Christians... it's hard not to be bitter. I won't list all the hypocrisies and the pain I've seen friends put through in the name of God, I won't list all my personal wounds caused in the name of the Christian God. I don't want make this too personal, I don't want it to sound/feel like I'm attacking Christianity. But trust me, there are more than just "a few" Christians who do not practice the love and forgiveness that they preach.

The biggest problem, I think, is that the "hell and brimstone" Christians are LOUD. The fundamentalists and hate-mongerers with their "God Hates ****" signs are loud and visible and they speak often and angrily.

If you want to change the image of Christianity, if you think it's not fair for people to judge Christianity by the actions of "a few", then you're going to have to be as loud as the people who give your religion a bad name. The problem is, most of the Christians who practice love and forgiveness and follow the truth of Christ's message rather than the dogma built up over the centuries are quiet, they don't speak up loudly against the ones who pervert the message. They are passive, they allow the hate-messages and perversions of Christianity to continue undebated and unchallenged, they say nothing except where it can barely be heard.

The loudest ones are always the ones who get heard and who end up representing a group. Often they're an embarrassment to the rest of the group. Often they're representing that group inaccurately. But they're the ones who manage to draw the attention by their vividness and volume, so they're the ones people tend to get their impressions from. It sucks, it's not necessarily right, but that's how it is.

My understanding of 'overcoming nature' is not that we dominate our environment and other creatures, but that we overcome our natural self-centeredness and aggressive tendencies.

Isn't there something in the Bible about being stewards of this world? A good steward maintains, protects, and improves that which they are stewards over. I've always heard that verse (and I'd have to hunt to find it) given as a reason for Christians to help protect the environment.

from the beginning this has been true: there are only two fundamental responses to the Christ of the Gospel, offense or faith (negative, or positive). it is perfectly understandable that an unbeliever would be offended by Christ yesterday, today, and tomorrow, it is all the same now as it was then.

Bull. The "either/or" statement is misleading. It's not a this-or-that situation, not black-and-white.

I'm not offended by the Gospel. I'm not offended by Christ. I'm not offended by Christ's teachings. On the contrary - I think it's a beautiful story with a lot of very good messages. I appreciate what Christ and Christianity taught me during my time as a Christian. I like Jesus and have nothing against him.

I don't have "faith" in Christ or Jehovah either, though. The reason I left? Christianity simply doesn't fit me; it doesn't adequately explain my experiences; I feel called to a different path and I feel called by different gods. I feel that Christ fostered me, so to speak, during my childhood and teenage years - a fostering with the understanding that I belonged to another and would go to that other when the time came. I feel that I left Jesus' flock on good terms, and I don't think he's upset about that.

I think everyone has their path to walk and everyone belongs to particular gods (however abstract those gods are or aren't), and some belong to Christ and some some belong to Kali and some belong to Allah and I belong to Wepwawet, though I think Christ will accept anyone (whereas other gods will not). I don't think anyone can really be content or fulfilled on a path they were not meant for.

(I also think that you can be perfectly content/fulfilled as an athiest, or on a path that doesn't really involve gods, because I think some gods - such as those of knowledge - don't require direct conscious worship, and the pursuit of knowledge [or chaos, or questioning, or healing, or any number of other paths in life] is their worship.)

If I'm "offended" by anything about Christianity, it's the actions and hypocrisies of those who claim to follow Christ's teachings but pervert a message of love into a message of hate.

 

[Ðanisty]

That was a fantastic post! I agree with you on all of it.

 

[Quiddity]

Makhsihed, that was a well written post. Although I disagree that Christianity is anti-growth and other things you noted. I have my inklings of where the source of your perceptions come from but it would lead into a whole other myriad of topics.

 

[lunamoth]

Good post and I agree, nicely written. I've been fortunate in that I was raised in a rather progressive flavor of Christianity and the message of love and forgiveness has always been the absolute heartbeat of Christianity for me, and I share your dismay with the very loud and visible fire and brimstone crowd who seems to hate just about everyone. 'course, according to them I am also going to hell in a handbasket, ah well.

Isn't there something in the Bible about being stewards of this world? A good steward maintains, protects, and improves that which they are stewards over. I've always heard that verse (and I'd have to hunt to find it) given as a reason for Christians to help protect the environment.

I totally agree with you that we are called by our faith to be good stewards of this world. Maybe you are thinking of Genesis 1:

26 Then God said, "Let us make human beings in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, [a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground."
27 So God created human beings in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.
28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground." 29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food." And it was so.

One criticism of Christinaity I've heard and I'm not exactly sure what the basis of it is, is that we feel too apart from nature, and that Christians see themselves as dominating nature, rather than caring for it and being stweards of it. Perhaps it's based on theology that emphasisizes our superiority over animals in being made in the image of God or something like that. However, I feel very stongly that it is part of our faith that we are to care for the earth and all of its creatures, not just destroy and take from it as we so often do. That's why I feel attracted to Celtic Christianity because of the stronger connection to nature and the earth. My mom is more like a druid Christian in her love of nature...so I guess I get that from her.

 

[Sunstone]

I think it's pretty simplistic to say there are only two approaches to Christianity -- acceptance or offense. I'm neither a Christian nor am I offended by the vast majority of Christians I meet. In fact, I think most of the Christians I know are pretty cool. And the religion itself is inspiring in some ways: Such as with all that love your neighbor as yourself stuff.

 

[Booko]

Do you agree that Christianity has a more negative outlook on things?

I never thought the Gospel had a negative outlook, even as an atheist.

Please say whether you are or were a Christian, and if you left what made you do so. Was it the teachings, the people, a particular experience?

I was raised a Christian (Reformed to be precise). There were some problems I had with the denomination's teaching at the time. The biggies were:

1. The role of women in the church. OK -- I couldn't care if women were allowed to be ordained, but surely we're better for something than just minding the kids and ensuring the altar has flowers on it for Sunday? I assume God gave us brains too, so that we could use them -- hopefully to help understand what Christ said better. This problem, I later discovered, was not a denominational issue, but rather one of Dutch immigrant culture. Now that a few generations have passed, the problem is very much diluted. (yay!)

2. The racist views at the time. Our neighborhood was getting very African-American, but the church was very white. When I asked why if the Bible said "In Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek" didn't that mean there shouldn't be either black and white in Christ either? I was told that I should have more faith (the clear implication being that as I have boobs I should just do what the men told me...sigh). I still have this pamphlet around the house on the subject of interracial marriage. In usual Calvinist style, the pamphlet does a bang up job of explaining how the Bible contains all sorts of interracial marriages, and God is okay with that....BUT....! Seriously, if God hasn't nixed it -- why should I care if my fellow humans disapprove?

3. The false dichotomy of science vs. religion. Yeah, well I figured out what a "false dichotomy" that was, and got over it. I also figured out what "metaphorically challenged" meant.

4. OK, well I also thought it was a real rip that tons of humanity were going to rot eternally in hell because of an accident of birth that prevented them of ever hearing of Jesus. How "loving" can such a God be, if He'd do that?

Christianity as practiced is sometimes less than hopeful. But then, Christianity has not always been practiced entirely in concert with the Gospels either. So I would never blame either Christ or the Gospels for the mistakes mere people have made. It happens in every religion eventually.

And overall, the picture is still positive, from my view.

I can understand however that the emphasis on sin, and especially the doctrine of Original Sin, is viewed by many as a negative aspect of Christianity, especially when combined with some Protestant teachings about predestination and hell.

Sometimes the "thou shalt nots" are overemphasized and the part about "God loves you" gets forgotten. I was raised in the "hellfire and brimstone" tradition, but my church wasn't the only game in town either. It was just the one I was exposed to. Fortunately, the sermons were boring and long, so I read the pew Bible.

Personally I think that while some meditation on sin and hell (as separation from God) can deepen our faith, to only emphasize these aspects is a shallow, hollow approach to Christianity and yes, I consider that a very negative face of the religion.

My mother maintains that she finds it useful to have her "toes stepped on." I've observed over the years that, for her, there is some truth in this.

I've never found it works for me. I respond much better to the "thou shalt not" parts of religions if it's explained to me more like "this will be dangerous for you or is not in your best interest."

The "carrot" and the "stick" have their place in life, but it really pays to try and keep those in balance. Too much "stick" shuts people down.

It can also be noted that not all Christian denominations, notably the Eastern Orthodox, have Original Sin as part of their doctrine, and the ideas of theosis and apacatastasis are not/have not always been viewed as heresies.

I never bought Original Sin. Um, actually, that's probably the area of my Mom's most radical breakaway from her denomination's thinking. She takes a very dim view of Original Sin (an incredible understatement), and pretty much thinks it's something only some particularly dimwitted insensitive men could've come up with. For her, that's about as radical as blowing something up would be for me. She's very very traditional in pretty much every other way.

 

[Booko]

I don't think it's negative, but it's certainly an outlook that takes a lot of effort to follow. A lot of people equate effort with negativity, though, so maybe in that regard it's yes.

You raise an interesting point, Aqualung. I've always wondered why it's viewed as negative if a religion makes some demands on you, while there are all other sorts of areas of life that make demands on you and it's considered just part of accomplishing something.

Goodness knows running a successful business or getting a degree will require effort and sacrifice, but no one deems that "negative." It's just what you have to do to get where you want to go.



Oh sheesh, now I'm taking lunamoth's thread off track...it figures!

Sorry!