Poster- Christianity inherently abusive

[zcccrv]

I really don't know why that would necessarily be true though ? I'm trying to understand your thought process here - but I'm not seeing why it would be easier to gain religion than to lose religion. For one thing, if you are joining a church and have never been exposed to religion - wouldn't you feel awkward and out of place for not knowing the culture ? I know we talk all the time about how at least in the U.S. Christianity is everywhere and it is the expected thing to be - but if you've never been and don't understand the customs or anything I think it could be very awkward.

I think joking about religion with friends is probably not going to cause problems, or joking about religion with family members who follow your own general belief system - but if you throw in family dynamics and a newly religious person- there could be problems.

First you have to gain/loose faith to gain/loose religion. Gaining faith doesn't leave you with a void, loosing just might. Furthermore, religious people are in a big majority to non-religious. Young atheists (not by age but by atheist age) have a much bigger chance of feeling isolated and alone in their new found non-belief.

If a person that I know de/converts I would, more then anything, be extremely curious about the reasons. However, that doesn't seem to happen very often in my community. I guess tradition and upbringing play a huge role because you really don't hear about people de/converting much, if at all.

Edited to add: when a Catholic friend of mine cracked a joke about pedophile priests I knew we have reached the point of no return in the field of potentially offensive talk on either side. :lol:

[formergothardite]

*puts cranky pants on* Here's a quote from the book:

That's it. Not even a sentence. No discussion follows, except that aggression is "never condoned" (you know, apart from the fact that MOST OF THE VILLAGE MEN banded together to pack rape a girl. But they would never condone that thing that they almost all of them did!) I haven't read the book, but you can find discussions elsewhere about the fact that there isn't a discussion about the incident. And never mind the fact that a rape, itself, would directly contradict those claims. Even without those claims, the fact that MOST OF THE MEN did this should be anthropologically interesting, right? Like, why did it happen? How did she react? No? No discussion? Just "they're totally non-violent, non-oppressive and respectful". Okay.

And there are plenty of people who don't agree with universal grammar, both refuting its claims and postulating other possible causes for the similarities, so he wasn't the first. Perhaps what he says in his books is new in the sense that it's a new approach, but he wasn't the one who broke the ground of contradicting UG itself, at least.

I read this book several years ago when I was sitting with my daughter at the hospital, and I think that the combination of not having read it recently and reading it during a stressful time caused me to not remember the book correctly. When I googled it I saw that there were also stories of them allowing women to die in childbirth and abandoning small children in the woods to die.

So obviously they weren't as peace loving as I remember.

[formergothardite]

I think the trauma of leaving the faith depends on what sort you were raised in. If you are raised in the type of faith where no one is going to be punished for not believing, parents are going to be less likely to be upset if their kid decides not to believe because it is really no big deal. I guess if they believed like treehugger they could be upset that they won't get to spend eternity with their non-believing children, but at least hell isn't going to be eternal suffering.

But if you are raised in most of the churches around here where it is stick to this narrow path of belief or suffer an eternity of torture, parents are more likely to be upset if their children leave the faith.

[zcccrv]

:agree: I was raised in the Church of Christ. When I decided to leave the church for a more liberal one, it wasn't a huge trauma. My family didn't condemn me, shun me, or tell me I was going to Hell. That is partly due to the fact that in my family we stick by each other no matter what, and partly because what was preached in the church wasn't always practiced at home.

That's awesome but the examples here are specifically of de/conversion not changing churches or going from weak atheism to strong.

I wonder if there are statistics to be found- the self described level of trauma compared among the two groups. I will try to look it up.

[Arete]

There can be another factor if you are an atheist/agnostic parent and your child becomes more religiously observant. My father may have shrugged, even been a little disappointed that we all became believers in one degree or another, but we became believers within the tradition of our culture. If we had decided to become evangelical Protestants, Hari Krishnas, or devout Muslims, it would have been WAR.

[zcccrv]

Not exactly what I was looking for but a very interesting resource: http://www.clergyproject.org/. A website for the clergy who are (most anonymously) atheists and how they deal with it all. When something that ought to be a personal choice could influence a whole community in a negative way.

[ems]

In these other denominations is hell not the punishment for sin? Or is it more like a universal reconciliation thing where everybody goes to heaven so there is no punishment for not having a relationship with God?

There was also a ton of commandments more than just lying, stealing, cheating when I was growing up! Thinking bad things was just as bad as doing them. This is based off Jesus saying that anyone who looked at a woman with lust in his heart was committing adultery. So God could see your thoughts and just thinking angry thoughts was as bad as if you had acted on them.

It is amazing how people can read the Bible and walk away with completely different ideas on what it actually said.

I've also heard, as an Episcopalian, hell being described less as a literal "flaming pit of punishment" and more as eternal distance/separation from God. And also that it is our sin that pulls us away from God rather than God rejecting us because he just can't stand us in our sin. If that makes sense.

From what I recall, this was the theology that C.S. Lewis (an Anglican) expressed in Mere Christianity.

And plenty of mainline Christians do believe in universal salvation. Others, myself included, believe something close to this but really don't spend a lot of time thinking about one's "eternal destination" as that is something only God knows.

As far as the "looking upon a woman with lust=committing adultery"... well, Jesus was a big fan of using hyperbole in his teachings.

As a liberal believer, I have trouble understanding the literalists...

Edited to fix quote.

[Mama Mia]

I wonder if there are statistics to be found- the self described level of trauma compared among the two groups. I will try to look it up.

That seems like a topic that would be difficult to quantify with statistics. As a general rule only people who have been traumatized or are deeply invested in a topic are going to report on a reaction or be at a site where they are answering questions. It will leave out all the people who just go about their lives. I think this is true of most emotional /philosophical topics. You won't get a large enough sample pool on such a specific topic if it done through a larger random survey.

Sorry, I react to the use of statistics the same way many people react to bad spelling :)

[zcccrv]

That seems like a topic that would be difficult to quantify with statistics. As a general rule only people who have been traumatized or are deeply invested in a topic are going to report on a reaction or be at a site where they are answering questions. It will leave out all the people who just go about their lives. I think this is true of most emotional /philosophical topics. You won't get a large enough sample pool on such a specific topic if it done through a larger random survey.

Sorry, I react to the use of statistics the same way many people react to bad spelling :)

We do country population listings every 10ish years around here. You have to provide some basic information about yourself re education, job, transport... religious status is also required to fill in. They could just add a question for those who changed their position from the previous listing: what made you do it and how traumatic on a scale was it for you. Or something along those lines. Would be interesting.

[zcccrv]

I've also heard, as an Episcopalian, hell being described less as a literal "flaming pit of punishment" and more as eternal distance/separation from God. And also that it is our sin that pulls us away from God rather than God rejecting us because he just can't stand us in our sin. If that makes sense.

From what I recall, this was the theology that C.S. Lewis (an Anglican) expressed in Mere Christianity.

And plenty of mainline Christians do believe in universal salvation. Others, myself included, believe something close to this but really don't spend a lot of time thinking about one's "eternal destination" as that is something only God knows.

As far as the "looking upon a woman with lust=committing adultery"... well, Jesus was a big fan of using hyperbole in his teachings.

As a liberal believer, I have trouble understanding the literalists...

Edited to fix quote.

How do you know that God himself also isn't a metaphor or a hyperbola? How do you decide when something is to be taken literally and when not?

[ems]

I have a question for people who believe pretty much everyone, even if they don't believe in Jesus goes to heaven, what exactly was the point of Jesus dying on the cross then? Or do you not believe that actually happened? If everyone gets into heaven without Jesus, then God just sent his son to be tortured and killed for no reason.

My belief is that people get to heaven through the actions of Jesus on the cross, not through believing in Jesus.

And as far as what exactly Jesus died for, my "atonement theology" is pretty similar to what Yewchapel described earlier in the thread.

[France Nolan]

We do country population listings every 10ish years around here. You have to provide some basic information about yourself re education, job, transport... religious status is also required to fill in. They could just add a question for those who changed their position from the previous listing: what made you do it and how traumatic on a scale was it for you. Or something along those lines. Would be interesting.

I can't imagine that people would be willing to answer a question like that, especially asking about trauma. That's really none of the government's business.

[Rachel333]

I think athiest parents / relatives can have a tendency to look down upon a child who grows up to become religious or marries a religious person. There can be a sort of snotty, more intellectual than thou snarkiness that can be very discouraging for the religious person. Jokes made about religion, snide comments if the religious person wants to pray before eating, etc. etc....

Not all of course, but I have definitely seen it first hand.

It's not just religious/not religious. I don't know many atheists, but I have seen this happen with liberal Christian parents whose children become more religious. A lot of parents are going to have trouble with their children changing the beliefs they were raised with no matter what those beliefs were.

Personally, losing my faith was tremendously painful as it was really important to me and I had given it a lot of thought and study (which is why it's so hurtful when Christians say that people who leave Christianity were never really Christians to begin with). A lot about religious observance is still appealing to me, but I just cannot make it work intellectually, and I have certainly tried. I haven't told my family yet because I know they would be horrified. I think it would be more painful for them than for me because they would believe I was going to hell. Still, I'm lucky in that I don't fear my parents disowning me or anything like that; I know far too many people who couldn't say the same, and still that's nothing compared to all the people for whom admitting to atheism (or another religion, for that matter) would be actually dangerous.

[ems]

How do you know that God himself also isn't a metaphor or a hyperbola? How do you decide when something is to be taken literally and when not?

As a member of an established denomination, my Church says the pillars of their teaching are scripture, experience, tradition, AND reason. So it's interpreting scripture both through personal experience (gained through prayer) and tradition as passed through the church. I know it probably seems for someone more inclined to take the Bible literally as "making it up as we go along," but these are beliefs that are based on centuries of Biblical scholarship and prayerful dialogue among church members. Hence the similarities in theology among many here in similar denominations (Anglican/Episcopal, Orthodox, etc.)

But yes, God himself could be a metaphor. I'm pretty open to questioning...

[Arete]

I never considered God as a metaphor, just because a metaphor is taking a simple or more familiar concept to explain something more complicated. So for example there are biblical metaphors for God as a lover, a warrior, the Ancient of Days, a bridegroom, the Just Judge(and those are the ones I can currently remember). Ideals we have to describe the concept of the transcendental. I guess God could be a metaphor for something even more complicated than the transcendental? Sure, I would be open to someone taking that on and trying to explain it in a human framework.

I'm not sure if I made any sense, but those are the first thoughts I had when you mentioned God as a metaphor.

[2xx1xy1JD]

In Judaism, medieval philosopher Maimonaides made it clear in his work Guide to the Perplexed that the Biblical text uses metaphors, that God cannot have anthropomorphic characteristics, that G-d can only be accurately described in general negative attributes (ie. no body, no beginning, no end, etc.) and that the Biblical text cannot be read on a simple, literal level, but that this language was used to help the Israelites make the transition from worshipping many gods to monotheism.

Maimonaides is considered extremely influential, esp. in some Hasidic circles (such as Chabad). He lived from 1135-1204, as wrote in response to the literalism of Islam, and the reason of Aristotle.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/gfp/gfp008.htm#page_4

[zcccrv]

I can't imagine that people would be willing to answer a question like that, especially asking about trauma. That's really none of the government's business.

If you already have to define yourself as Catholic/Protestant/atheist... whatever you may be, it's really not a big step to ask why you define yourself as such.

[zcccrv]

In Judaism, medieval philosopher Maimonaides made it clear in his work Guide to the Perplexed that the Biblical text uses metaphors, that God cannot have anthropomorphic characteristics, that G-d can only be accurately described in general negative attributes (ie. no body, no beginning, no end, etc.) and that the Biblical text cannot be read on a simple, literal level, but that this language was used to help the Israelites make the transition from worshipping many gods to monotheism.

Maimonaides is considered extremely influential, esp. in some Hasidic circles (such as Chabad). He lived from 1135-1204, as wrote in response to the literalism of Islam, and the reason of Aristotle.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/gfp/gfp008.htm#page_4

Very interesting, thanks!

[zcccrv]

As a member of an established denomination, my Church says the pillars of their teaching are scripture, experience, tradition, AND reason. So it's interpreting scripture both through personal experience (gained through prayer) and tradition as passed through the church. I know it probably seems for someone more inclined to take the Bible literally as "making it up as we go along," but these are beliefs that are based on centuries of Biblical scholarship and prayerful dialogue among church members. Hence the similarities in theology among many here in similar denominations (Anglican/Episcopal, Orthodox, etc.)

But yes, God himself could be a metaphor. I'm pretty open to questioning...

Reason requires evidence. What you are describing is tradition- in simple terms: believing in something because many people over the centuries have said it was true.

[France Nolan]

If you already have to define yourself as Catholic/Protestant/atheist... whatever you may be, it's really not a big step to ask why you define yourself as such.

Who are you to decide that? In the United States we are not obligated to disclose our religious beliefs on census forms.

And yes, it is a big step. If you're one of the people who was traumatized by your faith, do you want to disclose that to the government? How are we developing the Likert scale for that one? If you're one of the people who isn't traumatized by your faith,

it's still none of the government's business.

As far as reason and religion being intertwined, there are lots of people who think that they don't have to be mutually exclusive. Deists for example contend that "God gave us reason, not religion".

[zcccrv]

Who are you to decide that? In the United States we are not obligated to disclose our religious beliefs on census forms.

And yes, it is a big step. If you're one of the people who was traumatized by your faith, do you want to disclose that to the government? How are we developing the Likert scale for that one? If you're one of the people who isn't traumatized by your faith,

it's still none of the government's business.

As far as reason and religion being intertwined, there are lots of people who think that they don't have to be mutually exclusive. Deists for example contend that "God gave us reason, not religion".

I'd say it's quite obvious we come from very different cultural backgrounds. I see no problem in government knowing your religious views and why you hold them. As I said, it is required to state them where I live and my best guess is that people would have no problem with disclosing the "why" in addition to "what". It's really a non-issue in my community. I do think it is useful to collect that kind of information if you live in a society where religion heavily affects social and political questions.

As far as reason goes- the requirement for evidence comes before anything, including God. You can say a lot of things about faith but it's called "faith" for a reason (pun intended :D). Faith comes in when evidence is lacking.

[OkToBeTakei]

I'd say it's quite obvious we come from very different cultural backgrounds. I see no problem in government knowing your religious views and why you hold them. As I said, it is required to state them where I live and my best guess is that people would have no problem with disclosing the "why" in addition to "what". It's really a non-issue in my community. I do think it is useful to collect that kind of information if you live in a society where religion heavily affects social and political questions.

As far as reason goes- the requirement for evidence comes before anything, including God. You can say a lot of things about faith but it's called "faith" for a reason (pun intended :D). Faith comes in when evidence is lacking.

Census is there to define a demographic. If it was a social questionnaire fair enough, but it is not. Tolerance. It's funny but I distinctly get the impression that you are far less tolerant of believers , than they are of you not believing. That to me is as bad as other people trying to stuff their religious views down my throat BECAUSE they believe themselves to be right :naughty: The government in my country I am sure is far too busy to dig through that shit. Thankfully.

Unfortunately nobody had an i-phone to capture the crucifixion. Instead we got a bunch of second hand, third hand accounts which probably IF true is akin to a child's game of chinese whispers.

I read an interesting article recently about the worrying trend of every part of our lives now being documented via social media, accidents. Boston aftermath comes to mind. The recent killing in London. The good and the bad. The commentator was asked how far an invasion of privacy or socially acceptable this was.

His response was that he felt it was an important marker of our time and would stand well historically when emotion was removed. He cited the photography of the British forces entering concentration camps and photo-documenting what they found. He asked 'Who would have believed what had happened?'

Well strangely enough, some still don't. EVEN with that overwhelming body of evidence.

It is simplistic and quite unintelligent to break faith down to just religious belief. Faith plays a huge part of everyday life, how we operate as humanity.

[zcccrv]

Census is there to define a demographic. If it was a social questionnaire fair enough, but it is not. Tolerance. It's funny but I distinctly get the impression that you are far less tolerant of believers , than they are of you not believing. That to me is as bad as other people trying to stuff their religious views down my throat BECAUSE they believe themselves to be right :naughty: The government in my country I am sure is far too busy to dig through that shit. Thankfully.

Unfortunately nobody had an i-phone to capture the crucifixion. Instead we got a bunch of second hand, third hand accounts which probably IF true is akin to a child's game of chinese whispers.

I read an interesting article recently about the worrying trend of every part of our lives now being documented via social media, accidents. Boston aftermath comes to mind. The recent killing in London. The good and the bad. The commentator was asked how far an invasion of privacy or socially acceptable this was.

His response was that he felt it was an important marker of our time and would stand well historically when emotion was removed. He cited the photography of the British forces entering concentration camps and photo-documenting what they found. He asked 'Who would have believed what had happened?'

Well strangely enough, some still don't. EVEN with that overwhelming body of evidence.

It is simplistic and quite unintelligent to break faith down to just religious belief. Faith plays a huge part of everyday life, how we operate as humanity.

You are free to think what you do about my level of tolerance. I am certainly not going to go down the path of comparing tolerance levels when it is something that is quite useless outside of a specific context (and maybe also in general, tolerance is supposed to be voluntary, not reciprocal). I am also not offended by your assessments of my intelligence. I can only speak for myself. I don't do things based on faith. I do them based on my calculation of probability for something to be true. I care what is true because "truth" means being the closest to reality as you can get. I fail everyday but I do try to base my calculations of probability based on evidence. I make mistakes, decide on stuff based on false or insufficient evidence but I also try to use as much good evidence as I can.

So maybe all of mankind does things on faith except for me. And others who declare their decision making to be like I define it. Those people do exist, just for the record.

The simple statement which is absolutely essential to atheism: it is not reasonable to believe in a God because the evidence is not sufficient, is obviously something that seems incredibly intolerant to some believers all by itself. I don't make the statement to asses your belief, I make it to assert my own.

[OkToBeTakei]

You are free to think what you do about my level of tolerance. I am certainly not going to go down the path of comparing tolerance levels when it is something that is quite useless outside of a specific context (and maybe also in general, tolerance is supposed to be voluntary, not reciprocal). I am also not offended by your assessments of my intelligence. I can only speak for myself. I don't do things based on faith. I do them based on my calculation of probability for something to be true. I care what is true because "truth" means being the closest to reality as you can get. I fail everyday but I do try to base my calculations of probability based on evidence. I make mistakes, decide on stuff based on false or insufficient evidence but I also try to use as much good evidence as I can.

So maybe all of mankind does things on faith except for me. And others who declare their decision making to be like I define it. Those people do exist, just for the record.

The simple statement which is absolutely essential to atheism: it is not reasonable to believe in a God because the evidence is not sufficient, is obviously something that seems incredibly intolerant to some believers all by itself. I don't make the statement to asses your belief, I make it to assert my own.

I believe the concept was that of religious believe. Quite specific really. Tolerance. Whilst indeed it is voluntary, would be I presume a better way to live life than that of a life of intolerance. Especially if you have kids :P

Whilst I do not share AreteJo's faith, I do not feel she is concerned with my lack of. Tolerance. Whilst I do not share 2xxy's faith, I find it fascinating. I also do not feel she is in any way concerned at my lack of. Tolerance.

Intolerance is all too easy to see, pick any thread here on our dear fundie beliefs, any unshakeable belief that is displayed, any extreme. They all demonstrate an intolerance. That is not a place I want to be.

My comment regarding intelligence was directed toward the statement.

I do not find it, in the least intolerable to say there is no reasonable evidence that God exists, what I find intolerant is to dismiss those that do believe.

I have faith my partner of 20 odd years will not 'cheat' on me. Statistics and evidence in relationships will point to mixed results on that. I have faith I'm doing a good job as a parent, I'm ticking all the right boxes, but human nature you know? I'll find out how that goes in 15 - 20 yrs.

I had faith this morning that the guy who was hurtling toward me at 60 mph on a very narrow road was not a suicidal maniac. (He was not, just a shit driver.) Every time I get in my car I have faith that everybody else on the road wants to live as much as I do and will drive accordingly. Evidence is to the contrary, but still I drive.

Faith/belief is a funny old thing. To live a life without some form of it must be quite exhausting. Just as exhausting as those who try to prove God's existence and those who equally try to prove the opposite. My view would be get on with living without the extremes of intolerant implacable beliefs humanity can display.

I'm going to teach the world to sing. Coke. Harmony etc. :dance:

[zcccrv]

I believe the concept was that of religious believe. Quite specific really. Tolerance. Whilst indeed it is voluntary, would be I presume a better way to live life than that of a life of intolerance. Especially if you have kids :P

Whilst I do not share AreteJo's faith, I do not feel she is concerned with my lack of. Tolerance. Whilst I do not share 2xxy's faith, I find it fascinating. I also do not feel she is in any way concerned at my lack of. Tolerance.

Intolerance is all too easy to see, pick any thread here on our dear fundie beliefs, any unshakeable belief that is displayed, any extreme. They all demonstrate an intolerance. That is not a place I want to be.

My comment regarding intelligence was directed toward the statement.

I do not find it, in the least intolerable to say there is no reasonable evidence that God exists, what I find intolerant is to dismiss those that do believe.

I have faith my partner of 20 odd years will not 'cheat' on me. Statistics and evidence in relationships will point to mixed results on that. I have faith I'm doing a good job as a parent, I'm ticking all the right boxes, but human nature you know? I'll find out how that goes in 15 - 20 yrs.

I had faith this morning that the guy who was hurtling toward me at 60 mph on a very narrow road was not a suicidal maniac. (He was not, just a shit driver.) Every time I get in my car I have faith that everybody else on the road wants to live as much as I do and will drive accordingly. Evidence is to the contrary, but still I drive.

Faith/belief is a funny old thing. To live a life without some form of it must be quite exhausting. Just as exhausting as those who try to prove God's existence and those who equally try to prove the opposite. My view would be get on with living without the extremes of intolerant implacable beliefs humanity can display.

I'm going to teach the world to sing. Coke. Harmony etc. :dance:

Do you think there is such a thing as judging by declaring the level of tolerance of another as insufficient? Tolerance doesn't go full circle, it stops at the door of another person.

How have I dismissed people who believe?

You are applying wrong evidence for your examples. The evidence that your husband will not cheat is not in the statistics of cheaters, it's in things like: what is his expressed view on cheating, how often does he go against his expressed views, what has he done in his life to make him into a trustworthy person...etc etc. There are no guarantees of course, but the probability depends on all things he does and shows as a person. That's the evidence to look into.

What you express as "faith" that the guy speeding isn't a maniac I would express as probability. Most people speeding are not maniacs but are having a temporary "dumb" or "in-a-hurry" moment. It is not faith that makes me go in a car, it is the assessment of: practicality versus the risk. I'm aware of the risk but the benefit outweighs it.