Buffet-Style Bible Believers

[Arete]

I just have discovered a "whatever floats your boat" branch of brownie recipes on Pinterest. This must be the "whatever floats your boat" kind of mix and match kind of belief system. Or Build-A-Religion, build-a-bear for adults. : )))))))))))))))

Oh FFS, are you actually telling people they have invalid belief systems because they don't interpret their scriptures literally? Congratulations, you now have something in common with religious fundementalists everywhere.

[DistantStar]

Yep, Baha'i could have a lot going for it but it's stuck in a literal 1950's view on gays due to circumstances around the leadership. I was involved with them for a couple of years in my early 20s. That's a major reason I left. There were some others, but I retain a certain appreciation of it, even though my Episcopal church carries out a lot of the same ideals more productively, IMO.

[MarthaMarcyMayMarlen]

Fitting that you joined in this thread since you are one of the biggest examples of buffet style Christians we have around here. :lol:

So?

[Savoring Samsara]

Again, really, one more time. No religion in the world DOES exist today that is based on The Iliad. It's like the Kalevala. It's ancient, it's time has passed, it's gone. No one accepts it as the "words of God" like Christians love to tout it.

As a pagan who worships the Greek and Egyptian gods and who views the Iliad in pretty much exactly the same way as AreteJo describes it (as a collection of legendary and mythological stories about some of my gods that is one of many texts and elements to form and inform my religious practice - and which I agree that, yeah, does have some extremely ugly parts), I, and the many Hellenic Reconstructionists and Hellenic Pagans of my acquaintance, beg to differ that "its time has passed." But thanks for the erasure.

[JesusFightClub]

Ha, chuck a stone into a pack of dogs and the one who yelps is the one you hit :lol:

I think both AVENues and her opponents have a point. AVENues is completely right to say no one can defend or explain away..bad things... in their belief system by saying "Hey....but I'm not like that! Look where it says we all love cute kittens and shower every day! HOW DARE YOU JUDGE US JUST BECAUSE IT SAYS WE HAVE TO KILL THE UNBELIEVERS AS WELL!!"

It doesn't matter if you don't kill unbelievers nowadays and would be shocked if anyone did. So it is written, and so have your ancestors done. It's kinda understandable if that makes unbelievers a wee bit wary.

I make the comparison constantly (ad nauseam, as some have remarked :embarrassed: ) between a political system I adhere to and the religions some on FJ follow. Sorry. It's as close as I can get. And I see a strong similarity here.

You don't ever get to a point where you say "All the bad things done in the name of [X]? NOT our bad things, and how dare you even bring them up? Don't you know we aren't like that nowadays?" You are required to keep explaining, to discuss and not dismiss anger about what your comrades or people who shared your fundamental belief did and said, and to explain how this will not happen again and what you are personally doing to make sure it won't. After all, it still says in the texts, doesn't it?

To AVENues' opponents, I'm feelin' you, bruv. (Or sis, I suppose ;)). It sounds like an attack on you and your personal and shared strong beliefs. I hate it when people invoke Kronstadt (nearly 100 years later) and I also hate arguments when I'm stood on a picket line by people going "Oooh, when the dead weren't buried" (before I was even born) or "Unions are for the weak" or "I never voted for the strike" or....Sadly, however, it doesn't mean I get absolved of having to explain or counter. If it's that important, we just have to, even if we know we aren't like that and feel like we're being insulted for what we aren't.

[formergothardite]

So?

I just thought that it was fitting the person who said she would pick and choose when to follow Jesus in her life joined in a thread about being a buffet Christian talking about having a covenant with Jesus. :lol:

[Arete]

You don't ever get to a point where you say "All the bad things done in the name of [X]? NOT our bad things, and how dare you even bring them up? Don't you know we aren't like that nowadays?" You are required to keep explaining, to discuss and not dismiss anger about what your comrades or people who shared your fundamental belief did and said, and to explain how this will not happen again and what you are personally doing to make sure it won't. After all, it still says in the texts, doesn't it?

JFC, there hasn't been a single person on this thread who has told AVENues "How dare you even bring them up?" People have made an effort to explain and to discuss. She does not seem interested in hearing how some things will never happen again and what believers personally do to make sure it won't. She is simultaneously pissed that the history of the world (not merely the history of an indivual people's ancestors or a movement) is full of ugly things that got recorded, and outraged that a lot of religious movements do not read their atrocity stories and say "yep, this is the way we need to act". Screaming at people that the answer to the world's problems is to ban disturbing theological books is not exactly advancing a discussion. I will explain and discuss Christian atrocities, but I will not share in the guilt of them as if I was there and participating, or as if I can't wait for my own opportunity to participate.

While there is validity to your comparison of religions and political systems, the analogy unravels at an important juncture. Any political party's written platform is meant to be taken word for word and literally. I have yet to hear anyone say they read their Party's written documents as metaphors, or ahistorical. Most religious systems do not read their scriptures as literal documents.

[MarthaMarcyMayMarlen]

I just thought that it was fitting the person who said she would pick and choose when to follow Jesus in her life joined in a thread about being a buffet Christian talking about having a covenant with Jesus. :lol:

Oh honey, you don't know how I really follow Jesus in my life. It's cute that you think so.

[JesusFightClub]

JFC, there hasn't been a single person on this thread who has told AVENues "How dare you even bring them up?" People have made an effort to explain and to discuss. She does not seem interested in hearing how some things will never happen again and what believers personally do to make sure it won't. She is simultaneously pissed that the history of the world (not merely the history of an indivual people's ancestors or a movement) is full of ugly things that got recorded, and outraged that a lot of religious movements do not read their atrocity stories and say "yep, this is the way we need to act". Screaming at people that the answer to the world's problems is to ban disturbing theological books is not exactly advancing a discussion. I will explain and discuss Christian atrocities, but I will not share in the guilt of them as if I was there and participating, or as if I can't wait for my own opportunity to participate.

While there is validity to your comparison of religions and political systems, the analogy unravels at an important juncture. Any political party's written platform is meant to be taken word for word and literally. I have yet to hear anyone say they read their Party's written documents as metaphors, or ahistorical. Most religious systems do not read their scriptures as literal documents.

But the ones that do get most of the press, and it becomes very difficult for a nonbeliever to sort one from the other. You're expecting a level of knowledge that not all of your believers have.

For example, I know from discussion that most Christian FJists, like you, are definitely not anti-gay, and indeed some of them are gay themselves. If I was a gay atheist confronted with the Bible, however, or with large and vocal parts of US Christianity, I wouldn't get that feeling in the slightest. I would get the feeling that I was regarded as irredeemably evil at worst, and as sick and contagious at the best. That cannot be skipped past or explained away. Imagine the confused gay person hearing 20 varieties of Christian shouting "We're the only right ones and we say you're evil!/We're the only right ones and we say you're sick!/We're the only right ones and God can cure you of your sinful desires!" and right at the end a few small voices saying "We're Christians and we're saying God loves you right here, right now, and doesn't care who you fancy". The loudest voices drown the rest.

The Bible's "ugly things which got recorded" also show God's clear approval of some of those ugly things and his encouragement to commit further ugly things. It has misogynistic metaphors, rape, infanticide and many other things which defy belief. If the Bible was a film, it wouldn't receive a rating in the UK (making it a banned film) and if it was in graphic form, would fall foul of UK customs if you tried to import it. It is violent to the extreme, misogynistic and generally nasty.

(Take it from someone whose life verse is Malachi 4:1. :twisted: )

For you and for me, we have the same thing. A major PR problem. I think you are a good, caring person and you will use Scripture the same way, and presumably you don't think I'm a total cunt *fingers crossed*. But however nice we know the other to be, we still have the same issue, which is convincing other people who don't believe as we do that we aren't automatically out to be nasty to them in various inventive ways.

[OkToBeTakei]

But the ones that do get most of the press, and it becomes very difficult for a nonbeliever to sort one from the other. You're expecting a level of knowledge that not all of your believers have.

For example, I know from discussion that most Christian FJists, like you, are definitely not anti-gay, and indeed some of them are gay themselves. If I was a gay atheist confronted with the Bible, however, or with large and vocal parts of US Christianity, I wouldn't get that feeling in the slightest. I would get the feeling that I was regarded as irredeemably evil at worst, and as sick and contagious at the best. That cannot be skipped past or explained away. Imagine the confused gay person hearing 20 varieties of Christian shouting "We're the only right ones and we say you're evil!/We're the only right ones and we say you're sick!/We're the only right ones and God can cure you of your sinful desires!" and right at the end a few small voices saying "We're Christians and we're saying God loves you right here, right now, and doesn't care who you fancy". The loudest voices drown the rest.

The Bible's "ugly things which got recorded" also show God's clear approval of some of those ugly things and his encouragement to commit further ugly things. It has misogynistic metaphors, rape, infanticide and many other things which defy belief. If the Bible was a film, it wouldn't receive a rating in the UK (making it a banned film) and if it was in graphic form, would fall foul of UK customs if you tried to import it. It is violent to the extreme, misogynistic and generally nasty.

(Take it from someone whose life verse is Malachi 4:1. :twisted: )

For you and for me, we have the same thing. A major PR problem. I think you are a good, caring person and you will use Scripture the same way, and presumably you don't think I'm a total cunt *fingers crossed*. But however nice we know the other to be, we still have the same issue, which is convincing other people who don't believe as we do that we aren't automatically out to be nasty to them in various inventive ways.

I think where I disagree with AVEnues is her generalisations and assertions that huge amounts of humanity are wrong. It is too personally based for me to take seriously. On this and the other thread. Also resorting to being offensive is never a good way to further any debate.

Any way carry on. Not going to even try the political comparisons. Those I absorb and try to learn from 8-)

[formergothardite]

Oh honey, you don't know how I really follow Jesus in my life. It's cute that you think so.

Aww, so you lied on here when you said you would put your children before the teachings of Jesus. You're a liar for Jesus. How cute. The world so needs more of those. There are just really not enough of them around.

And so you can't claim that you didn't actually say that you would choose your children over following God:

I would lie to my son because my children are more important than my God. I'm not apologising for that

viewtopic.php?f=16&t=14520&p=461160#p461160

Yeah, you are the poster child for Buffet Bible Believers and people who dump that covenant with Jesus the second it doesn't suit them. :lol:

[honeyinthesunshine]

I'm gonna jump in here and hope like heck I don't offend the people on this thread whom I've com to respect so much, here goes...

My husband felt much the same way as AVEnues does when we first began dating, he's an athiest, and had been for some time. His paternal grandparents are church of Christ, and it really contributed to seriously fucking up that whole side of his family. It's a pretty rough ride.

I'm also an athiest, and a cultural Catholic, my Dad's family are pretty hardcore, and my mum practices Santeria, just for background. Initially, I found his idea that all religion is harmful, backwards, stupid etc. (and his way of expressing it), and that mankind would be better off without it, quite abrasive. There was obviously a lot of personal anger there. I've always kind of been a bit more live and let live, I personally don't get it, because I don't think it's real, but if you do, and it enriches your life, go for it kinda lady.

We've discussed it quite a bit, and still do, and the consensus that we've come to, is that the bible (and really all religious text) describe people doing some really shitty things in the name of their God or Gods, or Goddesses. I don't believe in that stuff, but I do believe that people most definitely have the propensity to be shitty. They don't need gods or special books to be assholes. So, really, it's not religion that makes people do shitty things, or a god that makes them assholes, it's just the human condition. Some people are just shitty people, and sometimes, shitty stuff just happens. So, following that logic, we can pretty comfortably surmise that had religion never existed, people would surely find some reason or other to do terrible things, and to be total asshats to one another.

I think that the frustration, at least for me, with "buffet believers", is that if I want to be an asshat, I have to be an asshat. Let's take homophobia, for example. If an evangelical Christian wants to, say, not sell a gay couple a wedding cake, he or she can say, "The bible says homosexuality is an abomination! It's against God's teachings!" But if I wanted to not sell a gay couple a wedding cake (which would totally never happen because gay weddings are like, the most fun weddings ever, and also I'm not a bigot) I, Ariel, would have to say, "I don't want to make this gay couple a wedding cake because the thought of two people of the same sex marrying and having sex makes me personally uncomfortable because it's icky." I don't get to reference a super convenient book that people automatically respect because it's central to my sacrosanct "belief system" that no one can question ever because it's my "faith", I have to say that it makes me uncomfortable, and then attempt to defend that ridiculous position. By myself. I have to be totally personally accountable for the things that I believe, and I have to have some sound reasoning to back up my beliefs. People who use their religious texts to justify being assholes, don't.

Don't like the ladies particularly? Think bodily autonomy is a men only thing? It's cool as long as it's your "faith" and not your personal opinion.

Think that gay folks don't deserve the same rights as you? Same thing!

Wanna smack the shit out of your kid for funsies because you're kind of a sadist? Bible says I can!

Wanna justify having 19 fucking kids in an already overpopulated world to satisfy your baby addiction and need for constant adoration and attention? There's a kinda loosely related bible verse interpreted to make that okay!

Wanna travel to Alaska to kill a fucking polar bear and wear fun costumes because just bursting forth from the closet you've ensconced yourself in scares the ever loving shit out of you and you cant do the latter without doing the former? Ah, shit, I'm sure it's in there somewhere.

See? That's my frustration. It's totally not limited to Christianity, either, I'm just using it as an example here, because they're primarily who we snark on. I think that if you're going to be an asshole, you should have to be out with it. You should have to take more responsibility than yelling your opinion and then diving for cover behind your religious beliefs to effectively quell any discussion. And if you're an asshole because your religion tells you to be, and for no other reason, then you should have to critically examine those beliefs before you're allowed to harm others with them.

[Jinderella]

I have a honest question and I hope I can make my point clear without offending anyone.

What I don't get is people admitting the ugly parts of the bible and explaining that to them it doesn't represent their image of God. But then they do call themself Christians, knowing how that name has an associating with a lot of horror in the past.

I think last names are a great idea, but I don't call myself a Napoleonist, I think Karl Marx did have some valid points agains capitalism, but after Stalins regime, I would never call myself a communist, I am definitaly not a Nazi for liking child allowance.

So if you don't subscribe to the horrors of Christianity, why not clear it up for everyone and choose a different name? So whe atheists can immediately know you are not going to stone rebelious children and adulters, murder gays, burn heretics and we can serve you shrimps and bacon? You would never have to explain again how you can worship a God that killed like a psychopate, and we would know you are just a peaceloving nice person....

[OkToBeTakei]

I have a honest question and I hope I can make my point clear without offending anyone.

What I don't get is people admitting the ugly parts of the bible and explaining that to them it doesn't represent their image of God. But then they do call themself Christians, knowing how that name has an associating with a lot of horror in the past.

I think last names are a great idea, but I don't call myself a Napoleonist, I think Karl Marx did have some valid points agains capitalism, but after Stalins regime, I would never call myself a communist, I am definitaly not a Nazi for liking child allowance.

So if you don't subscribe to the horrors of Christianity, why not clear it up for everyone and choose a different name? So whe atheists can immediately know you are not going to stone rebelious children and adulters, murder gays, burn heretics and we can serve you shrimps and bacon? You would never have to explain again how you can worship a God that killed like a psychopate, and we would know you are just a peaceloving nice person....

But that is to assume that all christians believe the bible literally. That it is an historical factual 'event,' like Stalin or Hitler. Not all do.

So again it is a generalisation to say ALL christians.

[Arete]

Jinderella, in my opinion a different name is not an option because the same core history, theology, belief and identification with a certain Galilean preacher of the 1st century CE still comes with the package. People are still going to react to that. It's not the actual word "Christian" that causes some people to recoil in horror, it's what they have seen attached to the name. It's like asking men to come up with a different name than "man" to relabel themselves so people will not associate them with the evil things some men have done. It doesn't matter what name you choose, if people are scared you still have to sit and explain. I don't have an issue with sitting and explaining. If your coming from a postion that all men/Christians are assholes and believe one way because some of them did this/said that, what is a name change really going to accomplish?

JFC- As I said in another thread, I don't have a very good or coherent plan of what to do about those who scream the loudest and claim to represent the whole of Christianity other than use the vote, use the pocketbook, educate, explain. Wash, rinse, repeat. It's the best I have been able to come up with to date. Of course I don't think your a cunt! I'll be honest though, the Greek in me does cringe at your diet. You don't eat properly. :lol: ;)

honeyinthesunshine-I agree that if your going to be an asshole, don't be a lazy asshole. Either tell me why your toolery is a good idea without hiding behind a dogma, or shut up and go home.

[AVENues]

OKTBT, what would you say if you met a bunch of neo nazis wearing hitler T-shirts, and they weeped: but I haven't even read "Mein Kampf"! I just likez the idea of neo-naziism in genrull! I am totally not like that, I iz a different kind of neo-nazi and you iz being mean to me? I just want to make the wurld a better and a safer place and raid it ov ebul!

Would that sound comforting to you?

[Jinderella]

Jinderella, in my opinion a different name is not an option because the same core history, theology, belief and identification with a certain Galilean preacher of the 1st century CE still comes with the package. People are still going to react to that. It's not the actual word "Christian" that causes some people to recoil in horror, it's what they have seen attached to the name. It's like asking men to come up with a different name than "man" to relabel themselves so people will not associate them with the evil things some men have done. It doesn't matter what name you choose, if people are scared you still have to sit and explain. I don't have an issue with sitting and explaining. If your coming from a postion that all men/Christians are assholes and believe one way because some of them did this/said that, what is a name change really going to accomplish?

I get that, but a human, a man/woman, a citizen of a certain country, a Caucasian, that is something you are as a fact, not as a choice. A communist, Christian, Muslim, pagan, Democrat, Boy Scout, you are by choice. You consciously present yourself as part of a group, while you don't have to. To me it is strange people want to represent themselves as part of a group with a horrible history. I never fault individual people for misbehavior they didn't commit them self, I don't think children are accountable for their parent sins, but I don't understand how people still want to be known by such name.

If I was a member of a hockey club were children were frequently molested and the management of the club allowed it to happen and didn't reprimand the offenders, I would no longer be part of that club, I would not want to were their uniform and I would not want to be associated with it. If I still wanted to play hockey, I would look for a different club or start my own.

I don't want to sound mean, but I honestly don't understand how you can say, for example, you are Roman Catholic, but you are not against birth control, you think child molesters should be punished and you want gay-people to be allowed to marry. Wouldn't you feel much more comfortable calling yourself a New Catholic, Reformed Catholic or something like that? You can make that choice you know! If atheists would have a well known history of murder and abuse, I would never call myself an atheist again. I would call myself a pacifist or a non-believer, I'm sure I would find something...

[Arete]

I get that, but a human, a man/woman, a citizen of a certain country, a Caucasian, that is something you are as a fact, not as a choice. A communist, Christian, Muslim, pagan, Democrat, Boy Scout, you are by choice. You consciously present yourself as part of a group, while you don't have to. To me it is strange people want to represent themselves as part of a group with a horrible history. I never fault individual people for misbehavior they didn't commit them self, I don't think children are accountable for their parent sins, but I don't understand how people still want to be known by such name.

If I was a member of a hockey club were children were frequently molested and the management of the club allowed it to happen and didn't reprimand the offenders, I would no longer be part of that club, I would not want to were their uniform and I would not want to be associated with it. If I still wanted to play hockey, I would look for a different club or start my own.

I don't want to sound mean, but I honestly don't understand how you can say, for example, you are Roman Catholic, but you are not against birth control, you think child molesters should be punished and you want gay-people to be allowed to marry. Wouldn't you feel much more comfortable calling yourself a New Catholic, Reformed Catholic or something like that? You can make that choice you know! If atheists would have a well known history of murder and abuse, I would never call myself an atheist again. I would call myself a pacifist or a non-believer, I'm sure I would find something...

I'm what is refered to as "cradle Orthodox", meaning I was born into this tradition. Unlike the Boy Scouts or a political party, it's not something I chose latter in life. Eastern Orthodoxy comes with the standard package of being an ethnic Greek. You have to choose to opt out because it's the default position. Even when you opt out of the theological part (my father did, several of my aunts, uncles and cousins have), you will never opt out of the cultural traditions or the "tribe". Which is how I have an uncle who is a Greek Maoist and bakes the traditional Christmas sweets for the carolers every year. :doh:

As a believer, surrendering the label to the assholes of the movement has never appealed to me. As far as I'm concerned, they should be the ones to surrender the label, and find some rational justification for their hatred and bigotries. The well known history of the abuses is not the sum total of Christianity. Every day people who identify as Christians go out and serve humanity at least partially because of the religious imperative, but these things don't get written up. Neither should they and no one who does this sincerely wants a pat on the head as a good Christian. It's what they are supposed to do. Unfortunately, this also makes them invisible, so that people come to associate "Christian" with "abuse" and the rest don't matter.

AVENues, where I come from, comparing someone to a Fascist is some really serious shit, and not meant to be thrown around to be inflammatory. In my world, Christian or not, as Fascist deserves execution. That neo Nazi analogy was really fucked up of you.

[France Nolan]

But that is to assume that all christians believe the bible literally. That it is an historical factual 'event,' like Stalin or Hitler. Not all do.

So again it is a generalisation to say ALL christians.

Exactly. I said it in another thread but most mainstream denominations (Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox) actively discourage a literal interpretation of the Bible.

As far as serving shrimp and bacon, that's been repeatedly addressed. Christians are not bound by Old Testament Law.

I don't have to change the way I identify myself to make other people comfortable or to convince them that I'm not out killing gay people or burning witches. A minority, albeit a vocal and persistent minority, does not represent all of us.

This kind of thinking reminds me of when some (stupid) believers draw the conclusion that since Stalin was an atheist that all atheists must be evil. There are terrible atheists. There are terrible Christians. There are terrible Muslims and Jews and all kinds of terrible people in this world. I won't judge you based on the actions of extremists so how about extending that courtesy to others?

[Jinderella]

Exactly. I said it in another thread but most mainstream denominations (Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox) actively discourage a literal interpretation of the Bible.

As far as serving shrimp and bacon, that's been repeatedly addressed. Christians are not bound by Old Testament Law.

I don't have to change the way I identify myself to make other people comfortable or to convince them that I'm not out killing gay people or burning witches. A minority, albeit a vocal and persistent minority, does not represent all of us.

This kind of thinking reminds me of when some (stupid) believers draw the conclusion that since Stalin was an atheist that all atheists must be evil. There are terrible atheists. There are terrible Christians. There are terrible Muslims and Jews and all kinds of terrible people in this world. I won't judge you based on the actions of extremists so how about extending that courtesy to others?

I already said I won't judge you for actions of others. I already said I would never hold anyone accountable for the sins of others. What I can't understand is how people themselves want to be associated with such a brand.

Not because a person who claimed to be Christian committed some horrible crimes. But because Christianity is associated with a book full of horrible crimes and a past full of mass murderer out of its name.

You don't have to do anything with that information. I may not understand your choice of couch either. It's just an opinion.

[AVENues]

:lol:

[Mama Mia]

I get that, but a human, a man/woman, a citizen of a certain country, a Caucasian, that is something you are as a fact, not as a choice. A communist, Christian, Muslim, pagan, Democrat, Boy Scout, you are by choice. You consciously present yourself as part of a group, while you don't have to. To me it is strange people want to represent themselves as part of a group with a horrible history. I never fault individual people for misbehavior they didn't commit them self, I don't think children are accountable for their parent sins, but I don't understand how people still want to be known by such name.

If I was a member of a hockey club were children were frequently molested and the management of the club allowed it to happen and didn't reprimand the offenders, I would no longer be part of that club, I would not want to were their uniform and I would not want to be associated with it. If I still wanted to play hockey, I would look for a different club or start my own.

I don't want to sound mean, but I honestly don't understand how you can say, for example, you are Roman Catholic, but you are not against birth control, you think child molesters should be punished and you want gay-people to be allowed to marry. Wouldn't you feel much more comfortable calling yourself a New Catholic, Reformed Catholic or something like that? You can make that choice you know! If atheists would have a well known history of murder and abuse, I would never call myself an atheist again. I would call myself a pacifist or a non-believer, I'm sure I would find something...

To me, that argument doesn't make any sense.

I'm a Democrat- but I don't feel a need to find a different political party or use a different name for it because it was the party that embroiled us in Vietnam or brought us NAFTA - which led to the destruction of the way of life of native people in Mexico, which in turn led to some of the huge issues we have with poor undocumented immigrants today.

I'm American and I'm not going to move or deny I"m a United States Citizen because of the multitude of various atrocities committed by the U.S both in the past and today.

I used birth control provided by Planned Parenthood, have used their clinics for basic health care and have taken my daughters there for birth control services - even though I have some issues with some of their views and business practices and their founder was a racist proponent of eugenics.

I don't feel the need to go around defending or explaining or rationalizing my choice to be a Democrat, live in the United States or recommend Planned Parenthood for birth control. Why should I feel the constant need to defend or explain or rationalize the fact I'm a Christian ?

[zcccrv]

There is some mixing up of labels and meanings going on here. Label is only how we describe an actual thing. It's the meaning that is the important part. Atheism means not believing in God(s). If atheists come and kill my whole family and I still don't believe in a God, I am still an atheist. Even if it is the same label as those family killing people wear. Likewise, Christians are people who (they could probably explain it better) 1. believe in a God, 2. who had a son, Jesus Christ, 3. that came to Earth to show humans how to live and 4. believe in an afterlife.

By the way, has anyone ever heard of someone who believes in God but not the afterlife? That would be interesting.

[thoughtful]

I just read through this thread and the "inherently abusive" one, and have pretty much the same thing to say about both.

I'm an atheist because I just can't make myself believe in anything supernatural. That doesn't affect my respect for people who believe, if they are not harming others. And the people of faith that I know are not hurting anyone with their beliefs. Atheism is not automatically the same as anti-theism.

Fundies and those shoving religion into government -- that's a different story. But I don't think all of Christianity (or any other faith) should be condemned for that.

As for buffet or cherry-picking Bible and belief, I only think it's a problem if the person doing so claims to be a Bible literalist. If you say you believe it all, then you are a hypocrite for screaming about the Bible when beating your child or condemning same-sex marriage if you don't live by all of the rest of it, word for word.

Which makes all of those literalists hypocrites, since there are so many contradictions in the Bible (you don't have to go any further than the creation story!) that it can't all be true, and following every law and rule seems impossible.

I think the rest of the "buffet" Christians, especially if they are choosing only those things that are kind, are doing just fine, and what they choose is none of my business.

[2xx1xy1JD]

Ha, chuck a stone into a pack of dogs and the one who yelps is the one you hit :lol:

I think both AVENues and her opponents have a point. AVENues is completely right to say no one can defend or explain away..bad things... in their belief system by saying "Hey....but I'm not like that! Look where it says we all love cute kittens and shower every day! HOW DARE YOU JUDGE US JUST BECAUSE IT SAYS WE HAVE TO KILL THE UNBELIEVERS AS WELL!!"

It doesn't matter if you don't kill unbelievers nowadays and would be shocked if anyone did. So it is written, and so have your ancestors done. It's kinda understandable if that makes unbelievers a wee bit wary.

I make the comparison constantly (ad nauseam, as some have remarked :embarrassed: ) between a political system I adhere to and the religions some on FJ follow. Sorry. It's as close as I can get. And I see a strong similarity here.

You don't ever get to a point where you say "All the bad things done in the name of [X]? NOT our bad things, and how dare you even bring them up? Don't you know we aren't like that nowadays?" You are required to keep explaining, to discuss and not dismiss anger about what your comrades or people who shared your fundamental belief did and said, and to explain how this will not happen again and what you are personally doing to make sure it won't. After all, it still says in the texts, doesn't it?

To AVENues' opponents, I'm feelin' you, bruv. (Or sis, I suppose ;)). It sounds like an attack on you and your personal and shared strong beliefs. I hate it when people invoke Kronstadt (nearly 100 years later) and I also hate arguments when I'm stood on a picket line by people going "Oooh, when the dead weren't buried" (before I was even born) or "Unions are for the weak" or "I never voted for the strike" or....Sadly, however, it doesn't mean I get absolved of having to explain or counter. If it's that important, we just have to, even if we know we aren't like that and feel like we're being insulted for what we aren't.

I get what you are saying. I understand that for someone who was raised thinking that any religion = fundie literal reading of the Bible, there is a need to explain how we are different and what we do with the bad stuff.

At the same time, the broad brush strokes against religion go far beyond "we don't do that anymore". The comparison I would make is to someone claiming that anything remotely connected to socialism is automatically tainted by gulags - even social democratic governments that never had any connection to violent revolution or human rights restrictions (or Obama, who gets accused of being a Communist when he clearly is not).

I mean, a blanket condemnation of ALL religion based on "the bible has bad stuff" makes no sense when you consider that Hinduism and Buddhism - 2 rather large world religions - have absolutely nothing to do with the Bible. You also have religions that don't read the Bible as literal truth, religions that encourage active debate of Biblical passages, and even religions that don't require a faith in a deity.

I don't blame AVENues for developing certain views as a result of her upbringing - but that's not an excuse for remaining close-minded once different information is brought to her attention. Nobody is asking her to believe in anything - just to reconsider statements about ALL religions which are untrue.