Thread: Disrespecting belief Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=027062

Posted by bib (# 13074) on :
 
This Easter I have become significantly aware of the aggressive stance taken by many, particularly in social media, but also in the newspapers and radio towards the Christian aspect of Easter. Many seem to take a perverse delight in rubbishing something they obviously know nothing about judging by the ignorant remarks. How do we as Christians deal with this? Should we ignore it, or do we defend our faith? Maybe in defending we are contributing to the denigrators' fun. And yet, if we say nothing many undecided people will not hear the real Christian message.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
These people are trolls. And the proverb is, do not feed the trolls. That's what they want.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Specific remarks? Or is this a "War on Easter" thread?
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
You expected something different from nonbelievers?

1 Corinthians 1:18-25

Christians believe that Jesus is God in the flesh. He rose from the dead.

How does someone respectfully disagree with that?
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Um, fairly easily.
I understand you believe this, I do not.
Simple and plain, but not at all derisive.
Do you find this disrespectful?
I find painting all those who do not believe as you do a bit disrespectful.
 
Posted by SeraphimSarov (# 4335) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Um, fairly easily.
I understand you believe this, I do not.
Simple and plain, but not at all derisive.
Do you find this disrespectful?
I find painting all those who do not believe as you do a bit disrespectful.

You have not met many of the Bill Mahers of this world . It goes way beyond just that these people "don't believe as we do"

[ 19. April 2014, 04:27: Message edited by: SeraphimSarov ]
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
You have not met many of the Bill Mahers of this world . It goes way beyond just that these people "don't believe as we do"

I understand there are some who are antagonistic, Mere Nick seemed to employ a broader brush.
To be fair, ISTM, Maher's diatribes are fueled by those Christians who do not respect the beliefs of others.
 
Posted by SeraphimSarov (# 4335) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
You have not met many of the Bill Mahers of this world . It goes way beyond just that these people "don't believe as we do"

I understand there are some who are antagonistic, Mere Nick seemed to employ a broader brush.
To be fair, ISTM, Maher's diatribes are fueled by those Christians who do not respect the beliefs of others.

No ISTM, he has a very cynical hatred of religious belief in general.
 
Posted by StevHep (# 17198) on :
 
Before I became ill I used to comment quite a lot on the Guardian site. In many ways it functions as Atheism Central. ISTM that a lot of the anti-Christian hostility was more fuelled by personal bitterness and anger than by a rational assessment of the arguments offered or of the role of the Church and Christians in the world.. In that sense they are impervious to argument merely based on facts or reasonable propositions. All one could offer would be a positive faith in contrast to the negative one which they held.

I was always conscious though that many more people read comments than wrote them. They became my target audience rather than my immediate interlocutors. What impact that all had on anyone's belief systems is pure guesswork.
 
Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on :
 
Some people believe, some don't. There are aggressive types on both sides, and it's doubtful that they change anyone's mind (mostly they make their opposition feel even more self-righteous). Let it go.
 
Posted by Tulfes (# 18000) on :
 
Has it not always been thus?

The old secular advice is to avoid discussion of politics or religion. Good advice for ease of social intercourse.
 
Posted by bib (# 13074) on :
 
Maybe you haven't come across some of the diatribes I have seen. They are not simply comments disagreeing with what I believe (which I can accept), but foul mouthed accusations and insinuations eg that God came and arranged for Mary to be raped so that she could give birth to a bastard and then have her bastard killed etc etc. The instances of such comments are legion. I don't intend to list any more, many of which are worse than that one. Is it the anonymity of social media that gives people licence to behave in this way or is society changing? I am not asking people to believe what I believe, but just to be respectful in their arguments.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
How do we as Christians deal with this? Should we ignore it, or do we defend our faith? Maybe in defending we are contributing to the denigrators' fun. And yet, if we say nothing many undecided people will not hear the real Christian message.

The Lord Jesus has just been flogged, abused, spat on and left to die impaled on the Roman gibbet. Tomorrow He astounds His followers by rising from the dead.
Does He require us to defend Him from persecutors ? I think not .

I know any attack on our personal faith is hurtful . The irony for Christianity as a whole is that much of the hurt dealt to Christians comes from other Christians .
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
I have to say, I've noticed this here in Ireland over the last year too. I don't know why it is over the last year in particular, but there has certainly been an increase of attacks on what is perceived as being 'Christian'. And that's the point; 99% of the time its people arguing something out of total ignorance, and as a wise person once said, you cannot reason with the stupid. There is an element of trolling too. It makes for great news, it fills a letters page, creates activity on an online news/media site, sells newspapers and makes people watch the programme. Personally, I've stayed out of it - although when I watched a 'revelatory' style documentary (on St Patrick's day) on the heresy of St Patrick belief in the imminent return of Christ from a supposedly 'top' historian who had just recently translated his Confessio, I was somewhat tempted to point out just how unscholarly he was being. But in the end something inside me thought that just maybe he was manipulating the media to sell his new book. Sad that a scholar should do this, but that's the world we live in today.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
Maybe you haven't come across some of the diatribes I have seen.


No, I obviously haven't. Not often. And I bet I spend more time online than you and probably talk to a lot more atheists and anti-Christians and pagans, in real life as well as online.


The last big spate of really nasty stuff of the sort you describe that I saw wasn't from atheists at all, but from self-described liberal Christians on an Anglican mailing list who were usi g that sort of language to express their hatred and prejudice against evangelicals and fundamentalists (which I suspect was more of a class snobbery thing than theological, but as they were mostly upper-middle-class Australians and Americans they were indoctrinated into believing they had no social class - just as most white Englishmen think, or used to think, that we have no nationality or race). Knocking the orthodox Christian idea of God as a "cosmic child abuser". That was years ago. You still see echoes of it on is Ship and I am perhaps over-sensitised to it. (Doesn't help that, being a looney lefty, I read many of the opinions and attitudes of self-described "liberals" as right-wing soft-conservatism)


But the atheists and pagans I read online these days? Mostly cheap shots that run off like water from a duck's back. Usually the best they come up with is stuff we sorted 1500 years ago.

If you want nasty public discourse there is far more to be sickened by from racists and nationalists and the far right an there is from those guys.
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
bib wrote:

quote:
foul mouthed accusations and insinuations eg that God came and arranged for Mary to be raped so that she could give birth to a bastard and then have her bastard killed etc etc
I'm gonna speculate that those aren't "accusations and insinuations", because the person in question doesn't actually believe that God did those things, even if for literary effect they phrase it as "Yeah, God came down to Earth and did blankety-blank to some teenaged girl. Merry Christmas, everyone!!"

Rather, the posters are letting you know how the central narratives of Christianity sound to them. Essentially, they're saying "Virgin Birth? Sounds like rape to me. Crucifixion? Uh, sending his own son to a gruseome death. Glad I don't believe any of THAT garbage."

Now, speaking as a non-Christian, I think the rape and filicide readings are a little bit of an oversimplification(or even a distortion) of the themes. Nevertheless, I do understand how some people could read the stories that way. It wouldn't be totally out-of-left-field for someone to hear about God giving up his only son for crucifixion and thinking "Hmm, how is that different from filicide?"

So, you might want to take thes unpleasant encounters as an opportunity to reflect upon how the Christian story might appear to non-believers, and ask yourself WHY it might appear that way, and what you can possibly do to correct the misperception. Even if the ones making snide remarks on the Guardian are beyond reach.

[ 19. April 2014, 10:48: Message edited by: Stetson ]
 
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :
 
To be both fair and honest, several of Christianity's core beliefs -- conception by spirit, virgin birth, resurrection from death, etc. -- seem preposterous to those outside that religious fold, simply because these are events which, AFAWK, simply don't occur within normal human experience.

People who find tales of alien abduction incredible often mock those tales. People who think they've been abducted are no doubt upset by such a reception for their harrowing experience (or "experience," if you prefer). People who find the idea of reincarnation incredible may mock Hinduism; Hindus are probably upset by this.

Further, Christians who find the 6-day Creation story in Genesis a lovely, poetic metaphor "for "what really happened" sometimes discuss Christians who take said story as absolutely true with fairly savage mockery.

Sometimes I wonder if the human capacity to believe things for which there is little concrete evidence is our downfall. But then I remember how much I enjoy reading fiction.

Our real downfall, then, is twofold: first, the idea that we should somehow all agree to share one particular set of beliefs (as this seems to validate our own beliefs). Second, our apparent unwillingness to believe and let believe. When all's said and done, which of us is free of preposterous beliefs, even if it's only that someone we've fallen head over heels in love with is "perfect?"
 
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
That's fine, Porridge, and I have a lot in agreement with you. But I suspect the bad-mouthing is largely on social media such as Tw*tter, and drive-by sites like the comments section of the Grauniad's "Comment is Free". It's called Comment is Free for a good reason - no sane person would give you good money for it.

There's been a shift since the day's ken reports (and I think he's right, there was a time not so long ago when I used to run into the same thing.) But not so much now. I suspect sites like this would be pretty intolerant of the crusaders from wherever they appear - that certainly seems to be the way that more balanced discussion fora work nowadays. And I'm not just talking about quasi-religious sites.

But other social media are far more suited to trolls, who I suspect have migrated. For example, if you want the imbecile end of social justice discussion, then go to Tumblr.
 
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :
 
Last year, when discussing Islam with someone, we remarked that the Muslims believed that Muhammad ascended to heaven from Jerusalem. He said with a smirk "You don't actually believe that, don't you?"

I said, "It's not my place to comment on the merit of another religion. Muslims believe that this happened and I respect their belief."

If Christians want respect, they ought also to respect people of other faiths.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
Who is/was Bill Maher? Should I have heard of him? Is he a sort of American Polly Toynbee?
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson
So, you might want to take these unpleasant encounters as an opportunity to reflect upon how the Christian story might appear to non-believers, and ask yourself WHY it might appear that way, and what you can possibly do to correct the misperception.

Yebbut, we can't desiccate the Christian message by removing all the bits unbelievers might find difficult to believe, or even, in some cases - far be it from me even to hint at such a terrible possibility - convenient excuses for not believing.
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
But the atheists and pagans I read online these days? Mostly cheap shots that run off like water from a duck's back. Usually the best they come up with is stuff we sorted 1500 years ago.

Dead right. Virtually everything I hear from them, my reaction is, "Do they really think this is original material? We've been hearing this for centuries."

Rowan Williams was spot on when he said that Richard Dawkins was becoming "the latest atheist pub bore." Clearly, Dawkins is not an isolated case. I don't care that people are slagging off my religion. But nobody has a right to be that boring. There should be a law.
 
Posted by Ahleal V (# 8404) on :
 
I would agree with the OP that in my short lifetime there has been a shift from Christianity being seen as 'benevolently irrelevant' (see the Vicar of Dibley - started in 1994) to something that should be opposed, and removed from the public sphere. (This is something that really confuses me - is it an outworking of secular/Protestantism, that religion can ever be a private belief?)

OK, a lot of this comes from the wickedness of the Guardian's website, but it's more or less a *daily* occurrence there. And the commentators agree with this general milieu:

- Religion should be removed from the public sphere.
- Religious schools should be closed or at least not partially funded by the state.
- Established religion makes the non-religious second rate citizens
- Christians believe in fairy tale nonsense, and their intellect should be questioned.
- Religious beliefs are for children and the mentally unhinged.
- There is no afterlife.
- There is no such thing as sin.
- The Church has only caused pain and strife.
- Christ (probably) did not exist.

There's a lot to argue in the details of this, but it certainly makes for an incredibly different view of 'mission and evangelism' from only say 10 or 20 years ago. I really don't think that the churches have woken up to this shift.

x

AV

[ 19. April 2014, 12:20: Message edited by: Ahleal V ]
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
The Guardian's always been rather anti-Christian, hasn't it? But left-leaning, middle class Christians read it anyway. There's not much of an alternative. More generally, I think the rise of New Atheism (for want of a better term) has created a more stridently anti-Christian voice in the public arena. That was to be expected I think; you can't have increasing disengagement from and ignorance of Christianity without a bit of that.

We Christians should count our blessings, though, because things could be much, much worse. It irritates me when British Christians in particular complain about their faith being dismissed. Are we really meant to expect nice treatment from a non-believing society? Maybe it's confusing for some of us, because the PM and others talk about living in a 'Christian country', while at the same time a public and active faith is increasingly marginalised. But increasing secularisation has had its effect over many decades (if not a whole century by now), yet there are still some Christians who act surprised if their profession of faith is criticised or belittled. Where have they been?? Maybe there needs to be an educational campaign so that more Christians will begin to realise how marginal their faith really is!
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
When all's said and done, which of us is free of preposterous beliefs, even if it's only that someone we've fallen head over heels in love with is "perfect?"

Absolutely spot on , as was your whole post .

Just as an example . Take our collective beliefs over death , as this is something of a unifying reality for each of us . Some believe death is the end others believe it is not . Both of these are equally preposterous when you really think about it.

Do atheists truly believe our existence serves no purpose whatsoever other than to serve itself ? Or that when we, and our planetary home, are vapourised by the death of the sun it will be as though we never existed ? Or that even if some of us manage to escape and colonise another planet then all preposterous beliefs will be left behind ?
I doubt this much more than ever I doubt God.

I suppose many of us still like to think of the Christian faith as ranking higher than just one in a collection of potty beliefs . Changes to the blasphemy laws means we're no longer afforded that luxury.
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
God came and arranged for Mary to be raped so that she could give birth to a bastard and then have her bastard killed

The thing is, that is one way to interpret the passages, especially out of context. In fact, PSA does tend to argue for this interpretation.

The truth is that Mary wasn't raped - she gave consent. Maybe she was abused, but that doesn't seem to be the situation in context.

The truth is that Jesus was a bastard. But he was killed by human agents who could not accept his presentation of God to them. And/or God allowed him to die, because in doing so the triune God could experience the whole anguish of humanity, and so reach out to us. And a whole lot of other atonement theories.

I always thing that there is an opportunity to explore what is being said in these situations. That is why so much theology is not as simple as some would have it.

[ 19. April 2014, 14:31: Message edited by: Schroedinger's cat ]
 
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
This Easter I have become significantly aware of the aggressive stance taken by many, particularly in social media, but also in the newspapers and radio towards the Christian aspect of Easter.

Stay off of social media? It sounds flip, but I stayed off of Facebook for Lent, and it was really healthy (I have a few friends who are perfectly lovely people in person but unrelenting tools online). So much so that I will probably try to continue, just checking in to see if I have any new messages. It also will help you avoid the kind of story where they turn a somewhat interesting discovery into click-bait by throwing in a tangential Biblical angle and suggesting that it might "rock Christianity to its core" or something like that. (The last one I saw was the study where some scientists proposed a later date for the domestication of the camel, which was probably an interesting agricultural anthropology discovery, but got presented in the media as "proof that domestic camels didn't exist when the Bible says they did!")

I know a guy who is a professor of religion, and who has done a lot of work translating various gnostic texts. He likes to call the annual Newsweek or Time cover where they publish some "shocking revelation" gleaned from a Gnostic gospel as the "Easter surprise." It's usually something he studied a long time ago, presented without the kind of context which might let anyone know why it says what it does.

Beyond that, just accept it as part of the modern world and press on with the business of trying to love everybody.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson
So, you might want to take these unpleasant encounters as an opportunity to reflect upon how the Christian story might appear to non-believers, and ask yourself WHY it might appear that way, and what you can possibly do to correct the misperception.

Yebbut, we can't desiccate the Christian message by removing all the bits unbelievers might find difficult to believe,
Um, that is not what he said.

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

or even, in some cases - far be it from me even to hint at such a terrible possibility - convenient excuses for not believing.

This implies that Christianity is the default and believing other is lazy, deviant and or shirking responsibility. Yeah, no one would utter snark towards that attitude.
 
Posted by SeraphimSarov (# 4335) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Who is/was Bill Maher? Should I have heard of him? Is he a sort of American Polly Toynbee?
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson
So, you might want to take these unpleasant encounters as an opportunity to reflect upon how the Christian story might appear to non-believers, and ask yourself WHY it might appear that way, and what you can possibly do to correct the misperception.

Yebbut, we can't desiccate the Christian message by removing all the bits unbelievers might find difficult to believe, or even, in some cases - far be it from me even to hint at such a terrible possibility - convenient excuses for not believing.
Who is Polly Toynbee? Should I have heard of her? [Smile]
Isn't she that former SDP agony aunt?
 
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
SeraphimSarov asked -
quote:
Who is Polly Toynbee? Should I have heard of her? [Smile]
Isn't she that former SDP agony aunt?

You seem remarkably well informed...
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
Who is Polly Toynbee? Should I have heard of her?

As you live California, no, no reason at all. She's of solely local significance. She's a regular columnist in one of our newspapers and a convenient talking head for our television channels to get in from time to time.
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
[qb]
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson
So, you might want to take these unpleasant encounters as an opportunity to reflect upon how the Christian story might appear to non-believers, and ask yourself WHY it might appear that way, and what you can possibly do to correct the misperception.

Yebbut, we can't desiccate the Christian message by removing all the bits unbelievers might find difficult to believe,

Um, that is not what he said.


Correct. I don't mean get rid of the belief neccessarily(*). Just try to imagine how it might sound to a non-believer, as a way to re-think how you respond to their objections.

(*) Though, truth be told, were I a Christian, I think I would consider the Virgin Birth, at least, to be pretty negotiable as a basic tenet.
 
Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Sometimes I wonder if the human capacity to believe things for which there is little concrete evidence is our downfall.

I believe lots of things with little concrete evidence. Which seems a reason for not disrespecting others who's views are equally ridiculous.

quote:
... the idea that we should somehow all agree to share one particular set of beliefs ....
You could go back to Plato: there is only one Truth and since the True is the Good those who don't know the True don't know the Good.

The dangerous step is to claim to have gone from belief to knowledge, since then you feel you should help those who are too benighted to recognise the truth and stubbornly resist your efforts to explain it to them.

But I fall into the obvious contradiction: I know that nobody really knows and all are just believing. Which convinces me I don't really know.

I'd suggest that though the truth is quite useful sometimes we shouldn't make a fetish of it. I can't remember who has/had the sig: "It's better to be kind than right" but I'm with them.
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
Reading the comments attached to this article, it would seem that Guardian readers don't evince much more love for Islam than they do for Christianity.
 
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
This Easter I have become significantly aware of the aggressive stance taken by many, particularly in social media, but also in the newspapers and radio towards the Christian aspect of Easter. Many seem to take a perverse delight in rubbishing something they obviously know nothing about judging by the ignorant remarks. How do we as Christians deal with this? Should we ignore it, or do we defend our faith? Maybe in defending we are contributing to the denigrators' fun. And yet, if we say nothing many undecided people will not hear the real Christian message.

Not feeding the trolls does not and has never worked - but [citation needed] on your actual claims. On the other hand I'm reminded of the old adage "A class war is what happens when the lower classes start shooting back".

I have never heard an atheist be as offensive to Christianity as your mainstream Christian evangelist is about atheists. They'd only start being that offensive when they started arguing that all Christians deserved to be tortured simply by virtue of being Christians. (And normally that no one really believed in God - they were just lying about it). Tim Minchin's puerile Pope Song is less offensive than the average "good news" that we are all people who deserve to be burned. (And that's without getting into obviously offensive evangelism).

As for objections that other people are being mean about Christians I believe that Jesus said something about motes and beams.

As for the "real Christian message", what is it? Jesus said some good things - but right now there are only two areas where Christians are out of step with mainstream values. The first is on the subject of supernatural beliefs. The second is that Christianity is the last respectable bastion of homophobia - something that even Justin Welby accepts that the young think (with good reason) is akin to racism.

If you want the "real Christian message" to get talked about, try reclaiming it then talking about it rather than objecting when people push back against the messages Christians are actually spreading.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The Guardian's always been rather anti-Christian, hasn't it? But left-leaning, middle class Christians read it anyway.

I don't think The Guardian is especially anti-Christian. Yes, it has Polly Toynbee, but even she is aware that there are left-leaning middle class Christians reading her. The Independent, when I last read it about ten years ago, was rather more committed to the idea that religion was outdated and the religious would probably not be reading it.
The Guardian Comments Threads aren't so much anti-Christian as anti-everything. Whatever the subject of an article, the Comments Threads will be dominated by trolls.
 
Posted by SeraphimSarov (# 4335) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
Who is Polly Toynbee? Should I have heard of her?

As you live California, no, no reason at all. She's of solely local significance. She's a regular columnist in one of our newspapers and a convenient talking head for our television channels to get in from time to time.
Irony [Smile]
 
Posted by SeraphimSarov (# 4335) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The Guardian's always been rather anti-Christian, hasn't it? But left-leaning, middle class Christians read it anyway.

I don't think The Guardian is especially anti-Christian. Yes, it has Polly Toynbee, but even she is aware that there are left-leaning middle class Christians reading her. The Independent, when I last read it about ten years ago, was rather more committed to the idea that religion was outdated and the religious would probably not be reading it.
The Guardian Comments Threads aren't so much anti-Christian as anti-everything. Whatever the subject of an article, the Comments Threads will be dominated by trolls.

A good rule is to never trust the Guardian on religion and the Telegraph on politics
 
Posted by Amika (# 15785) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:

Do atheists truly believe our existence serves no purpose whatsoever other than to serve itself?

This one does, although she's not greatly joyous about it.

quote:

Or that even if some of us manage to escape and colonise another planet then all preposterous beliefs will be left behind ?

Not that one though. There will never be an end to 'preposterous beliefs' unless humans reach some other stage of evolution (or so I believe... [Biased] ).

[ 19. April 2014, 21:38: Message edited by: Amika ]
 
Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Amika:
Not that one though. There will never be an end to 'preposterous beliefs' unless humans reach some other stage of evolution (or so I believe... [Biased] ).

But evolution only favours survival. Obviously some preposterous beliefs don't but it isn't clear that religion is one of them.

If religious people had higher birthrates (or were seen as more desirable mates) than atheists, they could be the next stage of evolution ....
 
Posted by jrw (# 18045) on :
 
Perhaps Christians need to talk more about Jesus and less about Christianity (whatever that is).
 
Posted by PaulBC (# 13712) on :
 
O.K. so some silly people are against belief . Nothing new there But they react to what Christians say/do especially those who say we/I have all the answers . Just pat the commentators on the head and send them to bed after a cup of cocoa. We as believers have to exhibit the virtue of charity, or love if you will.
As for those who say God killed his Son , or allowed Mary to be raped that's trash talk and should be ignored. What Mary did in letting God work through her was exceptional. And as I am an adoptee Jesus & I have that in common.
Let us all rejoice in the victory that is Easter, [Smile] [Angel] [Votive]
 
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
Justinian wrote:
quote:
If you want the "real Christian message" to get talked about, try reclaiming it then talking about it rather than objecting when people push back against the messages Christians are actually spreading.
I couldn't agree more. And I wish more people would bear it in mind.

There's plenty of evidence that "knocking copy" serves to devalue your own position. And constant negativity will just turn people off listening to you. Ultimately, if it continues, people just lose confidence in the entire discourse itself.

This does of course apply to both sides.
 
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :
 
This thread reads like both sides are competing for the gold in the Oppression Olympics. Good grief.

As a creedal Christian, I agree with many of my atheist friends that much of what is said publicly on behalf of Christians is cringe worthy. It doesn't contain Christ. It's irreconcilable with his vision in the Sermon on the Mount. It's ignorant, unkind, disrespectful and makes me embarrassed to be a believer. It's often so bad that not only do I not wear my faith on my sleeve, but I take time to get to know people before I admit I have any faith at all. Much of what is said publicly deserves the kind of mockery the Mahers and Dawkins dish out. Most of the time I agree with them, sadly.

Most of this is due to the media, no doubt, who thrive on controversy. The mainline churches are simply too boring to be in the media much. No one cares if the Methodists or Lutherans opened another food bank or quietly lobbied a city council for another after school drop in centre for inner city students. They care whether a looney-tunes pastor burned a Qu'ran on You Tube, or said that an earthquake in Chile or tornado in Oklahoma was caused by the gays or the atheists. That media environment makes it pretty difficult for mainstream Christians to reclaim the message from the fringe. The media isn't, and has never been, even-handed on religion or anything else. That doesn't sell papers.

I don't expect non-believers to be respectful of Christianity. Too many Christians don't do a good job of earning respect anyway. We're not the victims. We're not oppressed.

[ 20. April 2014, 01:37: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
Maybe you haven't come across some of the diatribes I have seen. They are not simply comments disagreeing with what I believe (which I can accept), but foul mouthed accusations and insinuations eg that God came and arranged for Mary to be raped so that she could give birth to a bastard and then have her bastard killed etc etc. The instances of such comments are legion. I don't intend to list any more, many of which are worse than that one. Is it the anonymity of social media that gives people licence to behave in this way or is society changing? I am not asking people to believe what I believe, but just to be respectful in their arguments.

I'm sure for every anti-Christian screed like this that you've seen, I could find two nastygrams by Christians. You're focusing on the one because your ox is being gored. There is plenty of hate going the other way as well. In a sense it's a self-perpetuating cycle. But we Christians have the most to lose -- probably few people become Christians because atheists are nasty. Plenty of people probably become atheists because of nasty Christians. The best thing we can do is to withdraw our claws.
 
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Justinian wrote:
quote:
If you want the "real Christian message" to get talked about, try reclaiming it then talking about it rather than objecting when people push back against the messages Christians are actually spreading.
I couldn't agree more. And I wish more people would bear it in mind.

There's plenty of evidence that "knocking copy" serves to devalue your own position. And constant negativity will just turn people off listening to you. Ultimately, if it continues, people just lose confidence in the entire discourse itself.

This does of course apply to both sides.

I've just realised it's more than a year since I've been accused of being a Christian plant in an atheist community. I should do something about that.

As for the Oppression Olympics, this stuff is a run-off at regionals level.
 
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
As for the Oppression Olympics, this stuff is a run-off at regionals level.

And the first rounds ( Christians v. Christians, Jews v. Jews, Atheists v Atheists) had such promise.... [Biased]
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Amika:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:

Do atheists truly believe our existence serves no purpose whatsoever other than to serve itself?

This one does, although she's not greatly joyous about it.

Been there myself . Can't say believing in God has exactly wiped away joylessness, safe to say it's a different kind of joylessness from the one which I experienced as an atheist.
I have absolutely not the foggiest idea what my, or humanity's ultimate purpose might be . It's just that believing in the existence of a God ,(whatever that might be), means a purpose *does* likewise exist . Given that definition of logic , even if it's wobbly, joy does eventually get the upper hand .

Coming back to disrespecting belief , isn't a Christian's prerogative to 'turn the other cheek' ? None of us are especially good at that . I would also join with other contributors in giving practical advice Christianity, namely -- if you can't take it, don't dish it out .
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
God bless Bill Maher.
 
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
Justinian wrote:
quote:
I've just realised it's more than a year since I've been accused of being a Christian plant in an atheist community. I should do something about that.
Ha ha! But seriously it's something I struggle with (i.e. being Mr. Critical) - too much and people do indeed tune out. Which is good, because the rare times that the opposite happens is when things can get very ugly indeed.
quote:
As for the Oppression Olympics, this stuff is a run-off at regionals level.

I'm not even sure I'd grace it with that level of excellence, though I suppose it depends where you are. Which was rather the point of my earlier post.

But I genuinely think that matters have improved on fora that are conducive to proper discussion. And indeed that social media like Twitter and Facebook are increasingly crap and attract the socially manipulative. "Like" buttons? - *spit* - I've bailed out completely, and my life has not folded.
 
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jrw:
Perhaps Christians need to talk more about Jesus and less about Christianity (whatever that is).

Christianity is about Jesus. It's about his life, death and resurrection. It's about his teaching and example, which show us God the Father. If Christ lives in our hearts, the message of God's love should come through in our words and actions, so that others see God in us. It's up to all of us to watch ourselves, and to respond to the negatives by standing firm with the truth, in love.

For too long, the polite 'don't mention religion or politics' rule has kept people silent. As a result, there is a great deal of ignorance about both and urban myths abound in Britain.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Originally posted by Raptor's Eye:
quote:
For too long, the polite 'don't mention religion or politics' rule has kept people silent. As a result, there is a great deal of ignorance about both and urban myths abound in Britain.
ISTM it is unfair to omit the ignorance of the believers themselves.

[ 20. April 2014, 15:26: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
Raptor's Eye wrote:

quote:
For too long, the polite 'don't mention religion or politics' rule has kept people silent. As a result, there is a great deal of ignorance about both and urban myths abound in Britain.
Just an observation, but in my view, the taboo against discussing politics, whatever its stated rationale, has more to do with people finding it boring than with people finding it acrimonious.

I love talking politics, but unless I'm among fellow junkies, a political discussion will usually last about three minutes, tops, before eyes start to glaze over and someone says "Umm, can we talk about something else?"

And whenever I've asked people why they don't enjoy talking politics, the answer is rarely "Because it gets me into fistfights." More likely, some variation on "Ah, they're all crooks, so what's there to talk about", or something equally generic.

[ 20. April 2014, 15:57: Message edited by: Stetson ]
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Well, I grew up in a culture where religion was just about the most boring thing you could talk about, except maybe Alma Cogan.

So I see some vigour and abrasion in discussion as a welcome sign - religion matters maybe.
 
Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
And whenever I've asked people why they don't enjoy talking politics, the answer is rarely "Because it gets me into fistfights." More likely, some variation on "Ah, they're all crooks, so what's there to talk about", or something equally generic.

Frequently similar for religion if you substitute "silly" for "crooks".
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, I grew up in a culture where religion was just about the most boring thing you could talk about, except maybe Alma Cogan.

So I see some vigour and abrasion in discussion as a welcome sign - religion matters maybe.

Hard to find a balance between Yawn. And "I'm Right! This is why I am Right! I hear what you are saying, but I'm Right! Why can't you understand that I'm Right? It is completely apparent that I'm Right! How can you question that I'm Right? You actually know that I'm Right! Why won't you admit that I'm Right?...."
The Ship is more rare a place than it should be.
 
Posted by Russ (# 120) on :
 
Being openly antagonistic to Christianity does seem to be a lot more acceptable than it used to be.

I think there's two things at work here.

One is a reaction against the privileged position that Christianity used to have in what are now post-Christian societies. Like schoolboys feeling brave and daring for slagging off the teachers, in that hour after school when they've just escaped the environment in which such talk would be punished.

One is a reaction to an enhanced awareness of fundamentalist Islam and the real evils that are committed in its name. Trying to oppose those evils in a non-partisan way, it's easy to conclude that there's something wrong with the very religion-ness of Christianity.

Or is it something else ?

Best wishes,

Russ
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
I am sorry to say that some Christians make amazingly bad ambassadors as well. All it takes is one sermon denouncing (some minority here) to turn off masses of people for life. A work associate, just the other day, spoke of dropping Catholicism like a hot potato after hearing a homily about how gay people were damned.
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Aye, when Christians are slagged off for being inclusive, kind, tolerant, merciful, generous, forgiving, blessing their, our enemies, THAT is disrespecting meaningful belief.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I am sorry to say that some Christians make amazingly bad ambassadors as well. All it takes is one sermon denouncing (some minority here) to turn off masses of people for life. A work associate, just the other day, spoke of dropping Catholicism like a hot potato after hearing a homily about how gay people were damned.

If our attachment to Christianity is so provisional and fragile as to be broken as a result of one sermon, comment or media story, then we're already in a pretty secular context. Any religion would be on its way out by this point.

As for the complaints by Toujours Dan and others that the media and the public want stories about crazy or reactionary Christians rather than about Christians being kind, tolerant and helpful, I can understand the point being made. But again, it speaks of a society that's already so distant from Christianity as to be almost entirely ignorant of its variety and nuances.

Kind, caring, 'ordinary' Christianity isn't enough; maybe it's time for some hippy-type radical Christian communes, new liberationist orders of homeless mendicant holy men and women, and world-rejecting sects from the liberal end of the theological spectrum. Considering all the warnings of the potential collapse of the world's current financial system maybe all this wouldn't be so mad after all! But at present, most Western (and would-be Western) Christians, are still wedded to 'the system', regardless of their theology on paper.

[ 20. April 2014, 18:49: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
Russ wrote:

quote:
One is a reaction to an enhanced awareness of fundamentalist Islam and the real evils that are committed in its name. Trying to oppose those evils in a non-partisan way, it's easy to conclude that there's something wrong with the very religion-ness of Christianity.


Well, in fairness, if people are looking for examples of Christian evil to balance off the Muslim examples, it's not like they have to make stuff up.

[ 20. April 2014, 19:20: Message edited by: Stetson ]
 
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I am sorry to say that some Christians make amazingly bad ambassadors as well. All it takes is one sermon denouncing (some minority here) to turn off masses of people for life. A work associate, just the other day, spoke of dropping Catholicism like a hot potato after hearing a homily about how gay people were damned.

If our attachment to Christianity is so provisional and fragile as to be broken as a result of one sermon, comment or media story, then we're already in a pretty secular context. Any religion would be on its way out by this point.

As for the complaints by Toujours Dan and others that the media and the public want stories about crazy or reactionary Christians rather than about Christians being kind, tolerant and helpful, I can understand the point being made. But again, it speaks of a society that's already so distant from Christianity as to be almost entirely ignorant of its variety and nuances.

Kind, caring, 'ordinary' Christianity isn't enough; maybe it's time for some hippy-type radical Christian communes, new liberationist orders of homeless mendicant holy men and women, and world-rejecting sects from the liberal end of the theological spectrum. Considering all the warnings of the potential collapse of the world's current financial system maybe all this wouldn't be so mad after all! But at present, most Western (and would-be Western) Christians, are still wedded to 'the system', regardless of their theology on paper.

The current situation the Church is in is that the Roman Catholic Church is known for a long term cover up of paedophilia. The Church of England is a little better off. It's "only" in the situation where it comes off second best in a moral argument with a payday loan company (Justin Welby's attempts to take on Wonga.com last year) and is known for speaking out in favour of homophobia and trying to keep the glass ceiling. And the evangelical churches are generally worse on homophobia.

So yes, ordinary Christianity isn't getting anywhere. When you're in a position where you are struggling to take the moral high ground against payday loans of course you aren't. When you're in a position where David Cameron can take the moral high ground against you then you aren't. And something radical from the liberal end of the spectrum is very, very necessary. If the Church doesn't have moral authority it has nothing. And right now it has all the moral authority of payday loan companies or politicians.
 
Posted by jrw (# 18045) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
quote:
Originally posted by jrw:
Perhaps Christians need to talk more about Jesus and less about Christianity (whatever that is).

Christianity is about Jesus.
You could have fooled me.
 
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jrw:
You could have fooled me.

Expand? The churches, the worship, the teaching, the actions toward welfare and justice, all point to Christ and reveal God.
 
Posted by jrw (# 18045) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
quote:
Originally posted by jrw:
You could have fooled me.

Expand? The churches, the worship, the teaching, the actions toward welfare and justice, all point to Christ and reveal God.
Hmm. Perhaps I'm too negative.
 
Posted by Russ (# 120) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Russ wrote:

quote:
One is a reaction to an enhanced awareness of fundamentalist Islam and the real evils that are committed in its name. Trying to oppose those evils in a non-partisan way, it's easy to conclude that there's something wrong with the very religion-ness of Christianity.


Well, in fairness, if people are looking for examples of Christian evil to balance off the Muslim examples, it's not like they have to make stuff up.
Yes, but is that something new, or has it been around for a long time, in a way that public disrespect of religion in general hasn't ?
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Um, fairly easily.
I understand you believe this, I do not.
Simple and plain, but not at all derisive.
Do you find this disrespectful?
I find painting all those who do not believe as you do a bit disrespectful.

You have not met many of the Bill Mahers of this world . It goes way beyond just that these people "don't believe as we do"
My comments were directed at to OP in an attempt to encourage him to not let himself be troubled.

I appreciate the Mahers of the world more than I do those who won't lay their cards on the table in an attempt to come off as polite.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jrw:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
quote:
Originally posted by jrw:
Perhaps Christians need to talk more about Jesus and less about Christianity (whatever that is).

Christianity is about Jesus.
You could have fooled me.
If you listen to the shrieks of some bits of Christianity in this country, you'd think the sole purpose of Christianity was to prevent gays from getting married. Christ? Barely gets a nod.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
If you listen to the shrieks of some bits of Christianity in this country, you'd think the sole purpose of Christianity was to prevent gays from getting married.

Please. Prevent gays from getting married and abolish Obamacare. Has somebody been picking and choosing in your Bible?
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Or, another example (alas, you can easily find one a day):

link


Egregious public ignorance is nearly as repellent as outright hatemongering.

[mended broken scroll lock]

[ 22. April 2014, 04:57: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
If you listen to the shrieks of some bits of Christianity in this country, you'd think the sole purpose of Christianity was to prevent gays from getting married.

Please. Prevent gays from getting married and abolish Obamacare. Has somebody been picking and choosing in your Bible?
Sorry, you're right. I was sleep deprived from Pascha.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jrw:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
quote:
Originally posted by jrw:
You could have fooled me.

Expand? The churches, the worship, the teaching, the actions toward welfare and justice, all point to Christ and reveal God.
Hmm. Perhaps I'm too negative.
Maybe not. Our church put on the Miracle Maker film for the kids on Friday. I really, really struggled to relate the teaching and ministry of Jesus portrayed there (and it's straight out of the gospels) with the sin, condemnation, turn or burn theology of the Church.
 
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :
 
ISTM that negativity is so rife, what with media sensationalist distortion, the anti-Christian lobby, the readiness Christians have to look for our own failings, and some of the anachronistic theological angles that we've clung onto, along with the 'don't talk religion' message, that some might believe that Christianity is a negative religion rather than one of the good news of Christ.

It's up to us to change that rather than to add to the negativity by complaining about it.

Everything the Christian Church does and is focusses on Christ, Christians are going out of their way every day to serve God through Christ, Christian love is being spread in communities throughout the world, good things are being said and done in Christ's name.

Let the odd stupid remark be seen for what it is, let us engage with the theology so that we try to understand and overcome the negative distortions with the power of God's truth, let us learn to show how much we love God and love others as ourselves while using the right words that help people to associate our love with God.
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
Given the topic of this thread, this article might be interesting to some folks.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Given the topic of this thread, this article might be interesting to some folks.

Holy Shit! If true, that raises my opinion of both of them.
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
Yeah, I remember reading that after Falwell died. Apparently, they went around to college campuses and debated morality.

That seems to be a thing in American popular culture(possibly other places as well), Christians and infidels arguing on the rubber-chicken circuit. I think Clarence Darrow(who defended Scopes) did the same thing back in 1930s.

And, today, Ron Jeremy tours with the pastor of XXX Church, an evangelical outreach to the p0rn industry. I don't think he and the pastor have come to total agreement on their issues, but they apparently get along famously.

[ 22. April 2014, 19:48: Message edited by: Stetson ]
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
The touring thing does not surprise me. As Flynt states in the article, he initially went for the self-promotion. And the self-promotion could sustain the whole thing. But if they truly became friends, this changes the light in which I see both. Yes, I am fully aware people can be nuanced. Might say more about me that these two surprised me than it does about them.
 
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
What, or who, exactly, is the anti-Christian lobby? What's the anti-Christian equivalent of the NRA or the Sierra Club?
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0