Christianity versus Atheism (Jesus, morals, tradition, beliefs, followers)

[MidnightBlue]

Originally Posted by Elvendon

So, let me get this straight... you are saying that an anti-homosexual diocese (which is out of step with the Episcopal Church - which has currently ordained both women and homosexual bishops) which was lead by a bishop who is currently in schism with the rest of the Church and the only other member of this diocese I know of is now an atheist? Since when did schismatic bishops prove to be the acid test of what is typical in denomination!

Don't be silly; I didn't say anything even close to that. I told you I know lots of Anglicans, and I do. Even if I didn't, the squabblings of the Anglican Communion are always in the news, but as it happens, I know lots of Anglicans. The bishop I mentioned isn't a schismatic; he's firmly committed to the Episcopal Church. As far as that goes, the priest I mentioned is still within the Anglican Communion, too: he's schismatic in relation to the Episcopal Church, but under the jurisdiction of an African Anglican bishop.

Originally Posted by Elvendon

Homosexuality only became legal in the 1970s... now... how many years ago was that? thirty? Well bless mah grits!

Right, and you're nowhere near a resolution. Besides, Christians are largely to blame in the first place for the fact that homosexuality only became legal in the 1970s. It only became legal in South Carolina in 2003, and if the Christians here had their way about it, it still wouldn't be legal.

(BTW, Nobody here ever says "bless my grits.")

Originally Posted by Elvendon

Then it's the job of other Christians to bring them to heel.

Get to work!

Originally Posted by Elvendon

Ah, but it's not a universal tenet is it? It's merely a very widely held one.

There are no universally held tenets. For almost every rule to live by, there is an exception.

There is even a tribe a Papua New Guinea that believes that betrayal is a virtue. When the Crucifixion was recounted to them - they believed Judas was the hero!

There's always a tribe in Papua New Guinea. But the Golden Rule is a good rule whether or not it's universally acknowledged, and even if those who pretend to believe it see no reason to put it into practice.

[Bright-ness' Shadow]

Originally Posted by Elvendon

...
Christians lead the abolition of slavery in the UK - it was affluent plantation owners, who resorted to burning churches to make their point and suppress Christian dissent that wanted to keep it going.

As they did here in the US. The dicotomy is that Christians also fought via scripture and pulpit to keep slavery. Those self-same Christians were responsible for the Jim Crowe laws and the continuing suppression of blacks until the the 1960's. It should not be overlooked that there is a bad side to Christianity

People of faith are also on both sides of the same-sex orientation issue. But the main oppenent to civil justice is predomently Christian whereas others, not Christians have joined the with people of faith that hold to the love and inclusiveness of Christ against the bigots and haters.. Read James 2 1-17 and see how the opposing Christians are condemned.

[Booko]

Originally Posted by MidnightBlue

Actually, almost every large religion and culture professes a belief in some version of the Golden Rule.

Not almost every large religion. Just plain every large religion.

I'm a little puzzled by the idea that somehow a conservative nature is inherent in Christianity. That is, if I'm reading Elvendon right.

It seems to me that Jesus was anything but conservative.

The conservatives in His day were the Roman rulers and the Pharisees.

[Booko]

Originally Posted by MidnightBlue

(BTW, Nobody here ever says "bless my grits.")

The only time I hear "grits" mentioned here is when someone orders them at the Waffle House.

There's always a tribe in Papua New Guinea. But the Golden Rule is a good rule whether or not it's universally acknowledged, and even if those who pretend to believe it see no reason to put it into practice.

I'm not so sure how much more universal it needs to be other than "every major religion, and others besides."

[gnostic]

Originally Posted by Booko

It seems to me that Jesus was anything but conservative.

The conservatives in His day were the Roman rulers and the Pharisees.

I totally with this. Jesus would be considered a Leftist or a Greenie, if he lived today. So he would be more like reformist, instead of conservative.

But I supposed new idea would become old after a while, so that it no longer have this reformist's flavor.

Muhammad and Joseph Smith would be considered the same, like Jesus.

[MidnightBlue]

Originally Posted by Booko

Not almost every large religion. Just plain every large religion.

I was allowing for the fact that I don't know that much about some of them.

Originally Posted by Booko

I'm a little puzzled by the idea that somehow a conservative nature is inherent in Christianity. That is, if I'm reading Elvendon right.

It seems to me that Jesus was anything but conservative.

The conservatives in His day were the Roman rulers and the Pharisees.

I think Elvendon has a point, but that's a lot of the reason I rejected Christianity. Beliefs about Jesus have been elevated above the teachings of Jesus, and far too many churches have alligned themselves with oppression and power structures rather than with liberation and justice. I see the message of Jesus as very radical, with nothing in it to justify sexism, homophobia, racism, militarism or oppression of the poor. To me, mainline Christianity is at odds with the teachings of Jesus, and fundamentalist Christianity even more so. To me, if you believe that Jesus is divine but ignore his teachings, your whole system collapses in on itself; there's no coherence. I looked for churches that had a strong commitment to peace and justice, but I couldn't find any. Where the commitment to peace was strong, they still held to homophobic and often to sexist ideas; where their sense of the equality of all people was strong, their commitment to peace was weak. I do think some Christian churches have made great strides, especially the United Church of Christ, but in the end I thought it better to leave the Christian tradition altogether. Since I'd long viewed theism in a metaphorical sense, it quickly lost it any meaning once I was no longer a Christian.

[Elvendon]

Originally Posted by MidnightBlue

Don't be silly; I didn't say anything even close to that. I told you I know lots of Anglicans, and I do. Even if I didn't, the squabblings of the Anglican Communion are always in the news, but as it happens, I know lots of Anglicans. The bishop I mentioned isn't a schismatic; he's firmly committed to the Episcopal Church. As far as that goes, the priest I mentioned is still within the Anglican Communion, too: he's schismatic in relation to the Episcopal Church, but under the jurisdiction of an African Anglican bishop.

Oh I see. Well he still isn't typical of the Episcopal Church, or of any of the other northern Anglican Churches - he has to align with an African bishop (most African Anglicans have more in common with Roman Catholicism than they do with the Mother Church) to fit.

Originally Posted by MidnightBlue

Right, and you're nowhere near a resolution. Besides, Christians are largely to blame in the first place for the fact that homosexuality only became legal in the 1970s. It only became legal in South Carolina in 2003, and if the Christians here had their way about it, it still wouldn't be legal.

I beg to differ. The fact that the issue is hotly contested indicates that resolution will be achieved rapidly - either by some consensus being reached or by schisming. If the issue was not particularly bothered about, then I'd agree with you.

As for your statement that Christians were the main restrictive force (and that atheists weren't)... I'm not sure I'd agree. I mean, atheism has been around since before the French Revolution - and I don't know what the policy of the Revolutionaries was on homosexuality. I was under the impression that society as a whole objected to homosexuality, not just Christians.

Originally Posted by MidnightBlue

(BTW, Nobody here ever says "bless my grits.")

Just a little attempt to inject a little humour - I never thought it was a cliche

Originally Posted by MidnightBlue

Get to work!

Yessir! I'm going to uni this autumn... my sister goes to the same one, and she informs me there are LOADS of fundies there... that's where I'll start.

Originally Posted by MidnightBlue

There's always a tribe in Papua New Guinea. But the Golden Rule is a good rule whether or not it's universally acknowledged, and even if those who pretend to believe it see no reason to put it into practice.

Oh I agree with you there, I was just pointing out that it isn't *strictly* universal. Roar on with the tolerance I say.

Originally Posted by Booko

I'm a little puzzled by the idea that somehow a conservative nature is inherent in Christianity. That is, if I'm reading Elvendon right.

It seems to me that Jesus was anything but conservative.

The conservatives in His day were the Roman rulers and the Pharisees.

This is a good point, and it highlights something important.

You're quite right, Jesus wasn't a conservative (actually, the best example of Conservative C1st Judaism were the Sadducees, who were really conservative). But he wasn't a zealot - he advocated change, but not violent, rushed transition. Essentially, he was more a Ghandi like figure - thoroughly in favour of increased tolerance, but more in favour of slower, more considered and less violent approaches, than the real radicals (such as the zealots.)

I suspect my claim that conservativism is a variation of what Jesus (and I) feel (slower (but not slow) change based on persuasion rather than force) is probably wrong. I think I'll retract that while I consider it further.

Originally Posted by Pah

As they did here in the US. The dicotomy is that Christians also fought via scripture and pulpit to keep slavery. Those self-same Christians were responsible for the Jim Crowe laws and the continuing suppression of blacks until the the 1960's. It should not be overlooked that there is a bad side to Christianity

People of faith are also on both sides of the same-sex orientation issue. But the main oppenent to civil justice is predomently Christian whereas others, not Christians have joined the with people of faith that hold to the love and inclusiveness of Christ against the bigots and haters.. Read James 2 1-17 and see how the opposing Christians are condemned.

You're right...

I think Elvendon has a point, but that's a lot of the reason I rejected Christianity. Beliefs about Jesus have been elevated above the teachings of Jesus, and far too many churches have alligned themselves with oppression and power structures rather than with liberation and justice. I see the message of Jesus as very radical, with nothing in it to justify sexism, homophobia, racism, militarism or oppression of the poor. To me, mainline Christianity is at odds with the teachings of Jesus, and fundamentalist Christianity even more so. To me, if you believe that Jesus is divine but ignore his teachings, your whole system collapses in on itself; there's no coherence. I looked for churches that had a strong commitment to peace and justice, but I couldn't find any. Where the commitment to peace was strong, they still held to homophobic and often to sexist ideas; where their sense of the equality of all people was strong, their commitment to peace was weak. I do think some Christian churches have made great strides, especially the United Church of Christ, but in the end I thought it better to leave the Christian tradition altogether. Since I'd long viewed theism in a metaphorical sense, it quickly lost it any meaning once I was no longer a Christian.

*nods* You're absolutely right. Believing in Jesus without making a commitment to his teachings is hollow and pointless - Jesus himself says as much. I think the problem is with much of Christianity is what started as a genuine and heartfelt attempt to reassure those believers who sinned but were still contrite mutated when exposed to Roman religious and cultural beliefs into viewing the Church as a cognate to Noah's Ark - those who are in get saved, those who are out don't. Protestantism didn't help, with the nasty doctrine of sola fide making Christians even further entrenched in the idea that Jesus wants people to believe in him, rather than in what he represents.

I think the problem with Western Christianity is indicated by the name of it's progenitor - the Roman Catholic Church. Firstly - it's based on the idea of "Rome" (Romans VS Barbarians with the divine Pontifex Maximus at the heart) and it's determined to be "Catholic" - by force if necissary. The Catholic Church and many protestant movements have done well to distance themselves to a greater or lesser extent from these pernicious and toxic teachings - but not well enough I fear. I feel MidnightBlue, what you object to (quite rightly) is not in fact authentic "Christianity" (a religion based upon the teachings of Jesus) but the surviving elements of Roman Imperialism that festers at the heart of our faith.

You're quite right MidnightBlue - we're in sore need of a proper moral reformation. The Body of Christ is sick, and it needs a doctor. We could have been the Buddhism of the West, but the Evil Empire screwed us over.