How common Christianity affects our moral and intellectual integrity
A lot of people are surprised to hear that in addition to journalism and music, I also majored in Philosophy in college. I declared the major, along with my Journalism major, very early on my freshman year, first semester and never went back. I learned, or realized I suppose, that in order for me to stay intellectually engaged throughout college it was necessary that I stay on track with philosophy. As with all things, you find what you're good at, or what you are most passionate about, and with philosophy it was religion. I wrote hundreds (literally) of papers on which philosophers believed what and sort of developed my very own "Wendy religion."
Wendy says popular Christanity misses the point.
I admit that I don't have the answers to everything, but I do feel good knowing that I have a general background of information that most either are afraid to obtain or simply haven't had the time/desire.
I came into my freshman year an avid Christian. I "witnessed" to people in high school, went to church every Sunday, only listened to Christian music and followed the Bible to a T. I grew up Mennonite but was greatly influenced by a friend's "mountain-top worship"-style — the fundamentalist brand with little tolerance for people.
Thank God that phase is over. I shudder when I think of it.
When it comes to religion there's a lot anyone can say, especially yours truly. I could tell you about God of the Gaps, rant about "Christian" TV (those people can't seem to find anything to talk about except how Jesus died for our sins which, as Bishop Spong so kindly notes, is an outdated idea no one can relate to). I could tell you why I think Mary Magdalene was Jesus' wife (I hope, for Jesus' sake, he had a wife; the notion that he doesn't — and that Mary is a whore — stems from ancient male-dominated churches where women corrupt holiness… but really, a woman and a man together are whole, or, holy, which is where the name came from).
I could tell you why the traditional monotheistic God (omnipotent, omniscient, all-powerful) cannot exist based on logic and facts. I could tell you what Nietzsche says about God being dead, not literally, but figuratively. I could talk forever about a subject like this.
Instead, I'm going to include an excerpt from my dissertation paper that I completed right before I exited my senior year in college. It was a project I worked on for 6 months, but really it was something I have been learning a life time. It was called, "Argument Against the Traditional Monotheistic God: How common Christianity affects our moral and intellectual integrity."
I'm going to focus on the latter part of that. So without further ado, I present to you the meat of why I am so disgruntled with common Christians. The following is an excerpt from my study — I hope you take it to heart!
Fundamentalists are no fun!
Fundamentalists are stubbornly certain in their beliefs. In fact, they are so stubborn that their arrogance negatively affects the rest of the world.
Tillich once said, "Religious fanaticism appears, that fanaticism which has inflamed the arrogance of the churches, the cruelty of the moralists, and the inflexibility of the orthodox." Common Christianity can be likened to a sickness or disease that causes more harm than good.
Not only do other humans suffer as a result of stubborn Christians, but the image of God is also falsified within the religion itself. The problem is that we humans have a tendency to claim our words as absolute truth when they could easily be incorrect. Unfortunately, when Christians do this, the affects are intensified because there is such a large body at work. As Bishop Spong said, "We Westerners — especially the Christian theologians among us — have time after time erected idols out of our words and then claimed for those words the ability to define the holy God." What Spong is talking about causes major problems for the rest of the world and Christians a like.
There are several dangers of fundamentalism. First of all, fundamentalists taint the history of the church. For example, a Christian stubborn in her beliefs starts to focus on what is popular and tries to do whatever will draw in the most people (and perhaps the most money). Consider religious television. Ideas like "accepting Jesus as your savior" became more popularized as a result of nationally broadcasted preaching. The truth of the matter is, and theologians with educational background know this, the Bible never specifies this prerequisite as a free ticket to heaven.
Also, on religious television there is a large emphasis on "feel-good" religion. God is a "father," here to take care of us whenever we mess up and ready to take us under "his" wing. Not only does this make God out to be a weak being — waiting for us and upset when we sin — but it also falsely promotes religion. Bishop Spong puts it beautifully, "God is not a supernatural entity who rides into time and space to rescue the distressed. This God is the source of life, the source of love, the Ground of Being."
Fundamentalism also distorts the vision of Christianity. As religion becomes popularized, and as the history of the church is remolded and warped into something it is not, the vision of Christianity becomes increasingly warped, too. For most fundamentalists today, Christianity is largely based on a security investment instead of being based on adoring the nature of God.
One of the first questions that a fundamentalist may ask a person (and the one way to make anyone feel awkward, Christian or not) is "Are you saved?" Being saved is not, nor has it ever been, the central focus of Christianity. Instead, Christianity should strive to make the world a better place by motivating others to get along and to take care of our beautiful Earth. It is not about making sure you get into heaven.
There have been way too many wars in the name of religion. We have even killed our own kind. How can a person truly believe that God hates our enemies or hates non-believers or supposed "sinners?" Not only is that contradictory to God's nature (would God really be emotional/responsive to our actions?), but it is also the very opposite of the value system of Christianity. In Tillich's sermon on fleeing God he states, "Nevertheless, the sin of religion is real; and it contradicts the Spirit of Him, Who forbade His disciples again and again to hate His enemies as the enemies of God.”
As Tillich said, fundamentalists contradict the inherent spirit of what God is. The world we live in can be quite a disgusting place, no thanks to popularized Christianity. It is full of hate and envy, among other unfortunate characteristics. How is God like that? Is Christianity truly supposed to create a world like the one we live in?
Spong argues that fundamentalists are trapped in a childish faith. Their spirituality, faith, religion, etc., are not as mature as they ought to be. They rely on "daddy" to make everything okay - to smite their enemies, reward them for good-deeds, stop their dog from barking, and guarantee them a perfect life after death. Religion is not that simple. As Spong says, "God is so much more than a supernatural being, the divine Santa Claus, or the Heavenly Mr. Fix. It.”
This kind of moral is grossly tainted. Many also argue that this kind of mentality also stifles intellectual growth.
Baruch — or Benedict — Spinoza once said that believers often, “take refuge in the will of God, i.e., the sanctuary of ignorance.” In other words, whenever someone cannot figure something out, they are quick to point their finger at God, or God’s will. In other words, if something happens that is hard to understand, often times humans will use God as the default answer. This is a wide epidemic, commonly referred to as “God of the Gaps.”
Sounds easy enough to point a finger, but the methodology is so primitive and is hardly justifiable in our scientifically advanced world. Even in Spinoza’s time he understood how dangerous “taking refuge in the will of God,” could be and was bold enough to call the will of God the “sanctuary of ignorance.”
The problem with miracles
A perfect example of this lies in the realm of “miracles.” In fact, most believers assume that the credibility of scripture stands or falls on the truth of documented miracles. Some may argue that it’s simply having faith in the act/will of God, but often it is just a result of a poor intellect and ignorant conclusions.
A miracle, for the believer, is defined as some divine interruption of natural law. For example, Minnie almost walked into oncoming traffic but was scooped away by an anonymous stranger. Miracle or act of God? Many would argue yes.
The problem with this is that whenever a natural law is not being interrupted, God must therefore not be at work. And, because of many scientific discoveries, we are finding that previous “miracles” were in fact just occurrences not understood by the human mind yet. If someone holds true to the idea of God only being active when God is interrupting laws, then by default God is slowly becoming less and less active in the world. Soon God will be nowhere.
Another problem with this is the fact that miracles lead us to an egocentric mentality. But isn’t religion supposed to guide is to the very opposite of egocentricity?
Many assume that if you pray for something, God will perform a miracle and just like that your desires will be satisfied. It is unacceptable (on a moral and intellectual level) to view God as some being that caters to human needs (on a side note — there are other problems with miracles as interruptions, such as a lack of thinking and the weakening of the image of God, taking God from totality to a moody being).
With all that said, it makes sense to advocate a more epistemically humble methodology, namely agnosticism. Instead of declaring absolute Christianity, why not open a few more doors — a few more possibilities — and broaden the general intellectual/moral horizon?
Agnosticism defined
It is common, especially in predominantly white protestant neighborhoods, to slap a negative stigma on those who proclaim agnosticism. But when you really get to the root of the definition, how can any person think of an agnostic as immoral, unethical, or anti-religious? It appears that a large number of people are simply confused about what an agnostic truly is — what I am.
An agnostic is a person who cares enough about themselves, the world and those who exist within the world to be skeptical and to ask questions. We humans are fortunate enough to have a mind, but sadly it is often neglected, especially in the realm of religion, to wit, Christianity.
If there exists a God (we can never know), do we not owe the deliberate use of our minds to this deity who created us? And even if God did not exist, do we not owe it to ourselves to exercise and stretch our intellectual capability?
For the sake of the human race, it is necessary for people to grow up a little bit when it comes to religion. Perhaps we must not hold on so dearly to our heaven — what if there really is no such thing? Perhaps we ought to be more deontological in our ethic and love simply because loving is the right thing to do. Too many people follow the "rules of the Bible" because they want to sit within the pearly gates — that is such a tainted ethic. There is no room for selfish behavior in true religion — religion ought to be deeply moral and more about self-awareness than self-centeredness. We will become better people if only we follow this advice and as a result, our moral, and intellectual, integrity will no longer be compromised.
Wendy Gould is a freelance journalist for Glamour Magazine, NUVO Newsweekly, Kiwanis International and various publications. She is also a photographer who specializes in portraiture, business, fine arts, and photojournalism. For more about Wendy, visit wendygould.com.
I'll just say it straight, and I don't mean to be harsh…
This article is very bad.
The writer of the article shows a very poor, surface understanding of the things she addresses, from fundamental Christianity to agnosticism. She fills space with clichés and no grasp of history, neither ancient nor up to recent decades. She fails to note that most people die in wars not because of a religion, but because of tyrannical expansion, e.g. Egypt, Assyria, Persia, Rome, Iraq, Germany, etc.
She fails to note that it was Christianity that ended slavery by the hands of the Christian British Empire. The decline of Britain and Christian influence in the world has led to slavery's resurrection.
She fails to give a scientific argument to explain away the miracle of bodily resurrection or changing water to wine.
She fails to understand that THE central message of the New Testament is that Jesus' blood cleanses a person's sins as a propitiatory sacrifice to reconcile us to God, the ultimate goal being a restored relationship with God not solely as His people, but as His sons and daughters.
She fails to notice that those who have fixed their gaze toward heaven have accomplished more on earth than anyone else.
She fails to admit that it was the Church itself that educated people, not any government, for centuries.
She fails to note that the people of Canaan, whom God commanded the Israelites to destroy, were involved in all sorts of perversions of sexuality, desecrations of their bodies, and even sacrificing their own children (but again, she has no grasp of history).
She lambastes Christians for follow biblical principles, but I would like to ask her the question:
What do you base your morality on? And why should I follow it?
Perhaps the term agnostic is in fact appropriate. The Latin form: ignoramus.
Miss Gould, if you are reading my comment, you are certainly thinking that I am one of the typical pseudo-Christians you dislike, that I believe in Jesus because it's family tradition. My e-mail address is available to you. If you are truly open to asking questions, I'll tell you why I am completely certain of the validity of the Bible.
Hey! Thanks for the comment — I'm looking forward to more. I will address all comments in my blog! :)
In the meantime - everyone read some Bishop Spong material — that's some good stuff! :D
Actually, I'll touch on a few right now (it is rather late so apologies for any typos) since I'm in the mood.
"The writer of the article shows a very poor, surface understanding of the things she addresses, from fundamental Christianity to agnosticism. She fills space with clichés and no grasp of history, neither ancient nor up to recent decades."
I am actually fascinated with history, especially Christian history! :D
"She fails to note that most people die in wars not because of a religion, but because of tyrannical expansion, e.g. Egypt, Assyria, Persia, Rome, Iraq, Germany, etc."
Wars are started for many reasons. Wars started in the name of religion are very common, though, and detrimental/contradictory to the Christian moral.
"She fails to note that it was Christianity that ended slavery by the hands of the Christian British Empire. The decline of Britain and Christian influence in the world has led to slavery's resurrection."
It was not Xnity that ended slavery..YIKES is that incredibly wrong haha. Not only did Xnity have little to do with stopping slavery, it actually decreased the amount of tolerance in our world. I'm not saying all Xns are members of KKK (though many many KKK members are Xn), but religion itself (and common Xnity is high on the list) has a lot to be blamed for. It used to be that religion was taken as sort of an inherent good. We now realize it has done more harm that good now. That's because it has turned into more of a survival technique as opposed to a moral code.
"She fails to give a scientific argument to explain away the miracle of bodily resurrection or changing water to wine."
I don't need to. That is not my point at all. Please keep in mind that these so-called miracles were written for a time so outdated that even referring to them in todays world spells out the end of Xnity. In mine, and many theologies opinons, a literal belief in the bible is an impoverished belief and misses the entire point of what Xnity is about.
Common Xnity has focused on these ridiculous things. Who cares if water was turned into wine for someones wedding. Should we not focus on something of more substance. Whether it happened or not (I must admit my skepticism..surprise), it's not worth fighting over. There are better things to talk about.
"She fails to understand that THE central message of the New Testament is that Jesus' blood cleanses a person's sins as a propitiatory sacrifice to reconcile us to God, the ultimate goal being a restored relationship with God not solely as His people, but as His sons and daughters."
First of all, God is God - not a he or she. Why limit God to a certain sex?
Secondly, as I said - the idea of Jesus dying for our sins has become innoportune and unbelievable. Inopportune because it is based on the backdrop of a time before our own.
The idea says that we humans are unclean because of the original sin. So, God came in the form of living flesh and died to cleanse our sins. I get it.
But then you have to consider Mr. Darwin, and other scientists. Darwin proved that the world is still evolving - it is always evolving. The galaxies continue to shift and form and nothing is perfect yet - perhaps it never will be.
If our world was never perfect then the idea of original sin is no longer valid. Therefore, the idea of Jesus dying for our sins makes no sense. Do you really understand that notion? It's completely and utterly mindracking.
Instead of believing that we are a fallen people, I choose to believe that we are instead unwhole, or unholy. I believe that spirituality makes us whole. I don't believe that a prophet was hung on a cross for treason. Believing that wont get me to heaven. That is a lazy ethic.
"She fails to notice that those who have fixed their gaze toward heaven have accomplished more on earth than anyone else."
Not true at all. In fact, that is a ridiculous comment backed by absolutely no proof whatsoever. First of all, there is no saying which type of person with whatever beliefs has been the most successful in life.
Secondly, Xnity is such a YOUNG religion that there is no real possibility in measuring anything fairly (it would simply be out of favor for the Xns).
Thirdly, if I were to take a guess I'd say scientists have come the furtherst. Or even simply those who are most devoted and dedicated and willing to work hard.
"She fails to admit that it was the Church itself that educated people, not any government, for centuries."
Why the heck would I even bring that up or feel the need to "admit" that? Again, Xnity is very young. Many many MANY people were educated and smart before Xnity came around.
Secondly - there is a reason why there is a huge push in separation of church and state. No offense, but I would rather my future children learn about all religions and historical backgrounds instead of getting an education from the Xn perspective.
"She fails to note that the people of Canaan, whom God commanded the Israelites to destroy, were involved in all sorts of perversions of sexuality, desecrations of their bodies, and even sacrificing their own children (but again, she has no grasp of history)."
Again, there was no reason to note this in my article. But I will address it now. I am a peaceful person, brought up with a non-violent activism mentality. I do not believe that any war is good. I do not believe that any killing is good. I do not think children should be burned. I do not think that anyone should be assaulted. I do not believe people who commit those crimes should be smited or killed. I do not want to worship a God who thinks that is necessary.
Martin Luther King Jr., Ghandi — those two were on to something with the whole pacifism thing. And they are revered today and will be revered for thousands of years to come.
"She lambastes Christians for follow biblical principles, but I would like to ask her the question:
What do you base your morality on? And why should I follow it?"
I base my morality on Kant's categorical imperative. It is a deontological ethic that says to do things simply because they should be done.
Do not alms to the poor because you want to be rewarded.
Do not help the old lady across the street so that people think you are kind.
Do not believe that Jesus died for your sins simply so you end up in heaven.
Do not do anything out of selfish motivation. I believe in a pure ethic and I do things because it is in accordance with my duty.
You should follow a pure ethic because it is the right thing to do. Believe what you want to believe, pray and be spiritual. But think twice about what you are praying for and why you believe what you do. Is it for yourself? Is it for some greater reward? Or is it to better the world, the environment, the humans who live on this earth? I ask myself those questions every day. I cannot be perfect all the time and I believe that God knows this.
But try.
"Perhaps the term agnostic is in fact appropriate. The Latin form: ignoramus."
This is ridiculous. Agnostism has a latin root, all right. GNOSTIC is a person to knows. "A" simply means "not/contrary/etc."
Therefore, agnosticism literally means "to not know."
And Mr. Proud — I am completely uncomfortable in my not knowing, in my epistemic humility. You know why? Because it keeps me on my toes - it keeps me thinking and keeps me asking questions.
Epistemic arrogance plagues the whole world. Xn's, with their Bible and all, should be wary of this. Unfortunately, it is their arrogance which causes the most detriment.
:D
I'm like you in the sense that I can't resist responding.
I'll start with the end, though. Agnosticism comes from Greek, not Latin. Ignoramus is the Latin form. Ignorant is, of course, the English.
Your main problem, however, is you are so quick to throw this title on yourself, but you assert otherwise. To call yourself agnostic and to say you don't know something would logically lead to writing nothing at all, or at most writing questions. You contradict your own title, however, my making silly statements like this one:
"I could tell you why the traditional monotheistic God (omnipotent, omniscient, all-powerful) cannot exist based on logic and facts."
Then you begin to close your article by saying this:
"If there exists a God (we can never know)…"
Either you know something about God (and therefore CAN know anything about Him), or you don't know something or anything about Him (because you CAN'T). But at least be consistent with your own self.
Now, being fascinated with history and actually studying history are two very different things. You make a bold statement in reference to Christians accomplishing more in our world than non-Christians:
"Not true at all. In fact, that is a ridiculous comment backed by absolutely no proof whatsoever."
Another foolish thing to say. Just Google it. Here's a quick reference concerning medical advances: cmf.org.uk/literat…t=article&id=827
Let's also not forget that it was by following the biblical law of quarantining the sick that the Bubonic Plague was overcome. It wasn't the doctors who weren't following the Bible that solved the problem.
It would also behoove you to take an HONEST look as to how Jesus and His followers brought rights to women. Even in today's world you can still see potent remnants of what the world was like for women before Jesus by visiting some of the countries that haven't been very influenced by Western (i.e. Christian) culture. You owe a lot more to Christianity than you think. But again, you have no grasp of history.
"First of all, God is God - not a he or she. Why limit God to a certain sex?"
Are you sure? I thought you were agnostic (i.e. you don't know anything about God). I call God "He" because that's how He revealed Himself to us in His word.
"We now realize [religion] has done more harm tha[n] good now."
If it weren't for Christianity, slavery would never have been abolished. The entire world practiced it. It was indeed the Christians of Britain that pushed for its abolition. They were criticized for endorsing a "peculiar institution" (i.e. liberation).
"I base my morality on Kant's categorical imperative. It is a deontological ethic that says to do things simply because they should be done. … You should follow a pure ethic because it is the right thing to do."
You are going to have a very difficult time defining "the right thing to do." You're making the assumption that there is a such thing as good and evil. The problem, however, is you're eliminating in your own thought any foundation of good and evil, so it becomes subjective, relative to each person's own desire. Tell someone to do the right thing who has no moral foundation, and he will do whatever pleases himself. Sometimes this won't affect other people, but what if killing is pleasing to him? Or pedophilia? Rape?
If there is no absolute definition of good and evil, you become a slave to anarchy.
"I do not believe that any killing is good. I do not think children should be burned. I do not think that anyone should be assaulted. I do not believe people who commit those crimes should be smited or killed."
I'm glad you don't think children ought to be burned. I didn't think you did. But something you didn't notice and probably will ignore even after I point this out, is you're again inconsistent with yourself. You say you don't believe any killing is good, but I bet you wash your hands, regularly bathe yourself, and eat meat (perhaps not, I don't know) and vegetables. The inconsistency is that you also put yourself on the same exact level of animals, plants, and bacteria, all living things according to modern taxonomy. But you kill bacteria when you wash yourself and plants (and maybe animals, too) when you eat. If Mr. Darwin is such a genius and is somehow correct (by the way, he himself never proved anything: he merely speculated and hypothesized; neither have later scientists been able to prove his theory in any sort of scientific way [i.e. observable, repeatable tests]), then you and I are no better than the germs we kill when we clean ourselves.
This may seem a stretch, but think about it. That's really what you're saying.
"Wars are started for many reasons. Wars started in the name of religion are very common, though, and detrimental/contradictory to the Christian moral."
Then what the hell is the point to your whole article in the first place??? You blame Christianity for suffering, but here you affirm that it wasn't Christianity, but hypocrisy.
You accuse Christianity of being a young religion, so it loses credibility to the wise older religions. But you also say that Christianity is old and outdated, irrelevant to us today. What then? Is it the century before and the century after the birth of Christ only that are worthless?
"Many many MANY people were educated and smart before Xnity came around."
Not the masses. The Church did that. Go get a good history book.
"In mine, and many theologies opinons, a literal belief in the bible is an impoverished belief and misses the entire point of what Xnity is about."
You're entitled to your opinion, but that's all it is. You have no foundation for it, and that's your big problem.
You should probably take a better, closer look at what a literal interpretation of the Bible renders. If we believe Genesis 10 literally, then we should expect to account for the entire population of the world from the names mentioned in that chapter. I refer you to an excellent work: "In Search of…the Origin of Nations" by Craig White. His website is originofnations.org and the book is available there.
If you study biblical prophecies and look for literal fulfillment, you are pleasantly surprised. But I don't think you ever actually studied those, did you?
I'll give you my analysis of you based on everything you've said thus far.
You were a weak Christian going into college, energized by the feel-good presentation of Christianity you rightly criticize. Your spiritual battery was charged on Sundays and probably Wednesdays. You had some nice friendships in your youth group and "believed" in Jesus. (A side note: "faith" and "believe" are the same word in both Hebrew and Greek, and they both denote action in trust, not spurious half-hearted conviction of mind.) When you got to college, you didn't have that shelter and began making friends with people who weren't Christians. They subscribed to a belief system similar to what you hold now, and you were enchanted by that and by the opportunity to spread your wings, so to speak, and explore other ways of life. Perhaps it was a sexual "liberation" you sought, or parties, or you just didn't like the idea of such nice people going to hell because they believed differently than you; but at some point you found an excuse to abandon your "faith" in Jesus, an excuse masked as intellectual reason. Since you were already looking for a way out, you didn't bother seriously trying to refute the arguments. Your apostasy (if you were ever really Christian in the first place, having biblical faith) became complete.
So now you peddle online the regirgitated nonsense you learned in philosophy courses.
Before you make assumptions about me, understand that I used to be atheist (ask Ray Pawulich: we grew up together). It was by a miracle that God instilled the full knowledge that the Bible was truth. I began to biblically believe and study WHY the Bible is true, WHY Jesus is the Messiah, WHY we were created and not evolved. Daniel 9:25 became that solid ground upon which I stand in knowing who Jesus is and knowing the Bible is indeed God-breathed. You ought to look into that one.
The problem, however, is that it won't make any difference. You've made a choice to disbelieve; you weren't forced to by logic. So logic can't help you. Indeed, you make such a strong effort to avoid logic, you'll only hide if I present it to you.
- I simply said that traditional monotheistic God could not exist. I did not say "God doesn't exist." I believe there is a higher power, I do not believe that higher power is the traditional monotheistic god.
- Google may be able to tell you a lot of things, but it does not tell you how many Christians have accomplished something the most. Your whole argument is faulty simply because there are no standards of measurement. It's all a matter of opinion - what you think is the best accomplishment or your idea of the most. Darwin changed the ENTIRE WORLD and he was a single person. I could easily say "he has accomplished the most in the world." But that's an opinion. It's all opinion — there are no facts here because we simply cannot measure.
- Please don't try to tell me that doctors are only legit and have only accomplished things because they read the Bible. Lest us not forget that these doctors are also proving every day that so called miracles are just previously unexplained phenomena. They've changed a lot of "miracles" into scientific data.
- I can never know if God exists for sure (GOD..as in GOD - not strictly the Xn God..let's get that straight). But I do know that should God exist then God has no limitations - including God's sex. Read Paul Tillich (a Christian, actually..as was Spong and a few of the other sources I cited) who said that God is simply the end all.
- You have a lot to learn with the whole women/church thing. Only in the last 50-100 years have women even been allowed to be preachers. The way women were denegrated is all over the freaking Bible. Did you know that Jesus traveled with not only the apostolic band but also a group of WOMEN. So it wasn't just the 12 disciples? NO..you probably don't. Because there's only one line in the Bible, where Jesus is dying on the cross, where it mentions that these women followed Jesus all the way from Galilea! THEY WERE THERE THE WHOLE TIME. But the Christian authors left that out.
They also turned Mary Magdalene into a whore. Did you know there is not one speck of biblical proof that says she was a prostitute? That was a definition bestowed upon her by a male church frightened of a flesh and blood woman. Mary was a trusted member of the disciples - she was there the whole time. And she was the only one who mourned for Jesus at his tomb, which, by the way, would be COMPLETELY out of Jewish custom - absolutely unacceptable UNLESS
Unless..she were the closest of kin to Jesus. His life partner.
Why do you think that the Christian churches preferred only female pastors (some still do). Why are priests supposed to be CELEBATE? Why was Mary turned into a whore? Why were the women of Jesus' time hidden? Because they were thought to corrupt men. They were believed to be not as holy as men.
- I will not argue that many Christians only want to do good. In fact, my entire family is that way and I grew up that way. It is wonderful to have dedicated people who do service work for others - THAT is what Xnity is about. My argument is based on COMMON christianity - popularized christianity. Television smut and immature faiths. People who pray about their dogs barking and to win the super bowl game. THAT kind of faith is belittling to our moral and intellectual integrity. How can you not agree?
- To address your slavery issue, I will just copy and paste what I said before becuase you missed it: "It was not Xnity that ended slavery..YIKES is that incredibly wrong haha. Not only did Xnity have little to do with stopping slavery, it actually decreased the amount of tolerance in our world. I'm not saying all Xns are members of KKK (though many many KKK members are Xn), but religion itself (and common Xnity is high on the list) has a lot to be blamed for. It used to be that religion was taken as sort of an inherent good. We now realize it has done more harm that good now. That's because it has turned into more of a survival technique as opposed to a moral code."
- If you knew anything about Kant's categorical imperative (IMMANUEL KANT WAS CHRISTIAN, BY THE WAY), you would know that your argument is completely invalid. Instead of spoonfeeding you the answer, I suggest reading some text. What I will say, is that I cannot tell you my ethic in a nutshell — I don't think anyone can. Essentially, I believe you should do things out of duty (not for some greater reward) and act in a way that if your maxim became universal the world would not fall to pieces. I also HEAVILY believe that intention says a lot. For example, if I ran over someone's dog in my car and someone killed a dog for fun, in the end 2 dogs died but one was done in an inherently cruel way. Ethics has a lot to do with intention. So if I help the old lady across the street because it's my duty, and someone helps the old lady across the street to look good/be rewarded somehow, there is one clean ethic there and the other is tainted. That's all I'm saying.
- I'm actually vegetarian..but that has no validity in this argument. You made a stretch all right, and I'll take that as a compliment to my fine argument. First of all, open a science book. Plenty has been proved regarding Darwins theory. It's accepted as proof. THINGS EVOLVE. they always change — there is so much scientific proof regarding this that there isn't enough space to write it down.
About the bacteria thing… Wow I can't believe I have to argue about bacteria. Anyway, I will wash my hands and kill bacteria. That's fine. I don't care if they die. But I do care if another human being, a flesh and blood human with brothers and sisters and parents and children, has to die.
Love is not about revenge. It is not about smiting your enemies. God should not be about those things either. And like I said — a God who is so moody is not a God I want to worship.
- "Then what the hell is the point to your whole article in the first place??? You blame Christianity for suffering, but here you affirm that it wasn't Christianity, but hypocrisy."
My point was that common/popularized Xnity affects our moral and intellectual integrity. I never affirmed anything, either. There are wars started for many reasons. My POINT is that there should be NO CHRISTIAN WARS. EVER. it is contradictory to Xnity, it's books, it's claims, it's goals.
- "You accuse Christianity of being a young religion, so it loses credibility to the wise older religions. But you also say that Christianity is old and outdated, irrelevant to us today. What then? Is it the century before and the century after the birth of Christ only that are worthless?"
Christianity is young in comparison to the many religions that have been established WAY before Xnity even came into being. BUT, that doesn't change the fact that it was developed in a time that has become outdated in our modern society. It is very very outdated, in fact. Eastern religions (they are much older than Xnity), can be outdated, too. But I have found in my studies that more often than not these ancient religions have been translated in such a way that there is a greater modern understanding of what they are about.
- "Not the masses. The Church did that. Go get a good history book."
I don't understand why you think that simply because I don't have a Christian view of history that means I have no historical knowledge. There are still masses who are uneducated. turn on the TV.
- "You're entitled to your opinion, but that's all it is. You have no foundation for it, and that's your big problem."
THANK YOU. So are you! So is every human being, Xn or not, living on this Earth. The world would be a much better place if everyone understood this and believed it about their own thoughts as well.
- If you study biblical prophecies and look for literal fulfillment, you are pleasantly surprised. But I don't think you ever actually studied those, did you?
I think I mentioned I grew up Mennonite? For 18 years of my life? Yeah. I have read the Bible from front to back, and with that, many other philosophical and theological texts.
With that said, I am glad you admit that a literal translation of the Bible is ridiculous.
- Just so you know, my beliefs are very different from pretty much all of my friends. You are right in the sense that I was living based on feel-good religion (it is what's most popular) and basically agreed with everything I learned in Sunday school.
When I got to college I began to study religion. Hours and hours every week was spent on learning about xnity, other ideas, other religions, etc. It made me realize that there is a lot I don't know.
You had better believed that I struggled to stick to my guns, believe what I was taught. Who wants to admit that they lived a sham? Nobody. But my epistemic arrogance was getting me no where. It was not easy to admit I didn't know, but I have grown so much spiritually since doing so.
I don't want to make any assumptions about you. The only thing I can gather is that you are very defensive and afraid to be wrong. But who isn't?
I haven't made a choice to disbelieve. I've made the choice to say I don't have all the answers. I'm sick of the way Christianity has been prostituted - I want to barf every time I turn on the TV and see an evangelistic TV show. And I am disheartened by the hoards of people I've met (self-righteous Xn's) who judge, condemn and act selfishly all in the name of this religion.
My philosophy professor, when I turned in my thesis, said to me, "I'm not sure if you are agnostic. I sense that you are still trying to figure things out, but if I'd call you anything it would be a very liberal theist"
Perhaps he was right. I still find myself wavering (and that's OKAY with me). I'm still reading, learning and trying to figure it all out. Spirituality is a journey that everyone takes. I just get upset when I see blind followers who do more harm than good. Religion (all types) have a tendency to cause major problems. I just think that the Christian moral, the one that Jesus taught, should be applied more liberally. Let us not judge others and condemn them to hell for being gay or even for not being Xn.
I didn't at all say that a literal translation (I think you meant interpretation) of the Bible was ridiculous. I said that you would be pleasantly surprised if you looked for literal fulfillments of prophecy, meaning that you would find they have been fulfilled exactly as the Bible predicted they would be.
For example, read Genesis 49:13. But be sure to read the beginning of the chapter which gives the context: Jacob is telling his sons what will befall them in the last days (meaning their respective tribes by context, of course). Zebulun was destined to dwell on the seashore and be a haven for ships. Did this happen? The Bible records that Zebulun was landlocked in Canaan and later exiled with the rest of Israel to Assyria. Do you know how it was fulfilled? Have you ever bothered to look? I honestly doubt it. Have you studied Daniel 9:25? I doubt it. If you had, then you would understand that the Bible is reliable in predicting future events in literal fulfillments. This attests to the fact that it is God-breathed. It can be trusted.
Another sermon on Christian living can't save someone's faith. Facts do. You didn't have any, and you apparently haven't bothered to look since then.
The core of everything here is you are bitter about something, so you bend what you need to to justify your new positions. You've heard the lies that Christianity degraded women, and nothing could be further from the truth. I suppose you think some other group of people was responsible for ending slavery. You really don't know what you're talking about. You accuse the apostles of distorting the Gospel when they wrote it because they didn't like women, so they made Mary Magdalene a whore. That isn't true. The Bible never said she was a prostitute, but that she had had demons cast out from her. It does say that she supported Jesus' ministry from her own means and that she was at the cross. Furthermore, she was NOT the only one who went to the tomb: other women were with her. You offer speculation to try to make a controversial story of her marrying Jesus, which isn't Scriptural in the least. There isn't any historical evidence about her at all aside from the New Testament Scriptures. There are legends (which may be true) of her travelling with Joseph of Arimathea to Gaul (and Britain?) to preach the Gospel, but none of the funny stuff you would like to propogate.
Female pastors weren't allowed in the early church (read what Paul said). Priests remaining celibate is a Catholic thing, not a biblical one. I'm not sure what you mean by women being "hidden." If you mean omitted, then that's a silly thing to say: the Bible explicitly includes women, even though the CULTURE (not Christianity) deemd their witness less reliable. If you mean covered up, then women today could learn a thing or two from their modesty.
Your problem is that you're trying to completely change the central message of Christianity to fit today's culture. You say it has more to do with doing good things than the salvation of human souls, but that's bullshit (pardon my language, but I'm just saying it like it is). Jesus didn't come and die to start Amnesty International. He died because we deserve to. You have a problem with seeing aspects of God that you plain don't like. You love His kindness and compassion, but you despise the fact that He is JUST. If a person does wrong, he is to be punished. That is, of course, unless another person who has done nothing wrong takes that punishment instead. You have sinned, and you know that. You can't pay for it by doing good things, because you should have been doing those things anyway.
Christianity's message and doctrine come from the Bible. If you veer away from and contradict the Bible, you are no longer dealing with Christianity, but some new religion. You aren't a Christian.
You think the doctrine of the fall of Man is outdated because of Darwin, but Darwin didn't prove anything: he only speculated and hypothesized. I already said that nothing he said has been proven scientifically, but you ignored or didn't understand that. Science is observation. Without observation, it is not scientific. Evolution is not and cannot be observed (macro, not micro), so it can't fall into the category of science. All he did was give speculation, and that was enough of an excuse for people looking to be atheist.
Now, you don't realize that you contradicted yourself in saying that all killing is wrong, but you don't care about bacteria. Why not? With your evolutionary thinking, what actually separates men from bacteria. They're both living, aren't they? What then? Superiority? Advancement? If that is true, then what was wrong with Hitler killing humans whom he saw as inferior? According to a logical outworking of your stated beliefs, the answer to that question is "nothing." Do you see my point?
You said:
"I do not believe that higher power is the traditional monotheistic god."
But earlier you said:
"I could tell you why the traditional monotheistic God (omnipotent, omniscient, all-powerful) cannot exist based on logic and facts."
That's an absolute statement. Either you just believe it, or it is a rock solid fact that the Christian God cannot exist. You are contradicting yourself again.
"Lest us not forget that these doctors are also proving every day that so called miracles are just previously unexplained phenomena. They've changed a lot of "miracles" into scientific data."
Something you said first in your article. But how is a dead person resurrected not a miracle? That isn't something you can naturally explain away. Your response earlier was to simply deny it. Your starting point, then, is that miracles don't happen because they can't happen. So when a miracle occurs that you can't explain, you just say it was made up. Frankly, that's stupid reasoning.
"Love is not about revenge. It is not about smiting your enemies. God should not be about those things either. And like I said — a God who is so moody is not a God I want to worship."
Who are you to define love? Who are you to call God moody? Why can't you just see that it's justice, not moodiness. God deserves your worship because He deserves it (for creating YOU, not least of all reasons), not because He fits your expectations of what God ought to be.
"I don't want to make any assumptions about you. The only thing I can gather is that you are very defensive and afraid to be wrong. But who isn't?"
I get defensive when someone bastardizes blatant truths by their own volition, based on emotions.
No one wants to be wrong. But I can demonstrate how I know I'm not wrong, at least not about central things. The peripheral issues are always up for debate and revision.
"I'm sick of the way Christianity has been prostituted…"
That's exactly what you're doing. If you want to form your own new religion, have at it. But don't act like your new religion is somehow Christian.
Anyway, I don't know how much your article matters. It's posted on an obscure website with only one person responding. May it rest in seclusion where it belongs. Before you write more articles, you should read more and actually have an open mind and heart. Quit looking for excuses to leave Christ.
But one last thing. Honestly, how many people do you think were able to read before the Church educated the masses? And how many can read now?
Seriously, you need to take things in their context, not how you want to take them so you can make some comment that makes you look stupid.
You are missing the whole point of my entire argument. You bring up "points" that are not only ill-grounded, but also irrelevant.
I am sure that we can agree on a lot of things. Perhaps you will agree with me on this: It is ethically pure to pray about ridiculous things like your dog barking, winning the superbowl, etc. That it is morally unsound to do or believe something just so you can be rewarded.
Perhaps you will agree with this as well: It's important for humans to not compromise their intellectual integrity by assuming that a "miracle" is the act of God or by blindly following.
Just listen to what I'm saying. I have no problem with Xnity that is pure, thoughtful, intelligent. My problem is with popularized Xnity - COMMON Xnity. The way people float about without thinking about their actions/beliefs/etc. I have a problem with those people — the ones who are overly judgmental and contradict the message of the Bible. They are giving Xnity a bad name - don't you agree?
I cannot argue with a person who goes in circles and who wants to fight just for the sake of fighting. Also, please understand that whoever told you about Xnity and education/slavery did not have their facts straight. Sure - I'm willing to believe that some Xns helped with those things. But some Xns also added fuel to the sexist/racist fire - that's not an opinion. That's not something I made up. Those are hard-known facts that are undeniable.
You can't judge an entire religious group based on a percentage of people (the percentage here is actually quite high) — I don't do that. I acknowledged, and am grateful, for the Xns with pure morals and intellectual ability. But my point is dealing with popular Xnity.
You shouldn't feel so attacked because I made a comment about hypocrites and fakes and tainted and epistemically arrogant Xns. You should be pointing the finger too. I find it hard to believe that you agree with TV smut propaganda (that is focused on money).
All I ask is that people think about their MOTIVES and actually THINK. That's all. Is that so much to ask, Nathan Proud?
Wow.
Nathan,
you sir are a typical close minded religious person that sees any sort of discussion that could "hinder" or "attack" your precious belief system you start to reference BELIEFS, and not as much science (which can actually be proven).
I am an Atheist and went through most of my teenage years and early 20's as an Agnostic. I agree with the moralistic views that religion has helped lay the ground work for. I will not agree with the argument that if you are not religious then you are not morally sound, hence a bad person. That in itself is one of the many reasons I am not a religious man, due to the hypocracies that religion regurgatates upon itself every day.
Need I bring up some of the "most religious" men on our planet also liked to touch little boys in inappropriate places…..
Religion/moralistic beliefs and views are very personal and keep our society from falling apart, as our governments were all built upon a religious belief system at some point. Stupid can't buy alcohol on Sunday rule….(fist shaking)…
I appreciate your passionate belief in Christianity Nathan but I refuse to listen to people such as yourself about how Xnity is THE reason everything exists. The difference between myself being an Atheist and people who are religious is that religious people look down upon people such as myself, whereas I don't think anything different about a persons religion or beliefs.
Here's something I'm sure you will love…how about 2000 years from now our society is living off of the basis of beliefs that are found in today's Harry Potter books. Obviously this is far fetched but is is really, if our government all of the sudden forced everyone to live by the rules/beliefs found within such a book?????
I would also like to add that many atheist/agnostic/non-"religous" people I know are also the most ethically pure. It is because they act in accordance with what they feel is necessary.
They give money to the poor and help old ladies across the street and volunteer at shelters not for some greater reward but because it's something they feel is a good thing to do. I think that's very admirable.
your own "wendy religion" give me a freaking break. besides, if you are going to write a whole article on why you are an agnostic, why don't you call it "Why I Am an Agnostic" instead of "Common Christianity and its effects on blah blah blah" because it's not about that - that's just your opinion. I would take your opinion more seriously and more respectfully if you didn't try to sound so educated all the time, i mean it's really a stretch, it feels like you are stretching, and it's just pathetic and hard to read. I cannot believe you put some of your college papers in this article. this is just… horrendous. you write about your favorite things and your college experience as though you are somehow interesting and I can't conceive of where you got that idea. i usually enjoy reading your articles so i can laugh at how much they suck but this one was too awful for me to sit through. go Nathan!
Wendy, I typed up a thought-through response yesterday and lost it because I accidentally clicked "back." I'll type it again, but I need to very quickly respond to Trevor.
Trevor, your syntax is hard to follow, but I think I got the gist of what you were saying.
Your comments are nothing new. I've heard the same kind of thoughtless statements for a long time, and I'll unfortunately have to put up with them the rest of my life.
The reason I responded to this article in the first place was because my friend Ray asked me to start some lively discussion. Perhaps you should open your mind to the fact that you could be wrong in your beliefs. And you should also evaluate the words that are actually written so you don't misrepresent them. For example, you said I said that being an atheist means you're a bad person. I didn't say that at all. I know atheists who are still good people in terms of morals and such. What I pointed out (and you [willfully?] ignored) is that there is no absolute moral foundation for the atheist. If there is no God, why are you kind to anyone? Why should anyone be kind to anyone else? Why shouldn't we kill someone if we feel like it or rape someone because we have a sexual craving and can overpower a woman?
If you respond, I want you to give me a reason that does not originate from Christian Scripture.
There is no logical reason, other than your own personal conviction based on feelings. Why shouldn't I if I don't feel bad about it?
Hypocrisy shouldn't be a reason to reject any religion, by the way. I am ardently opposed to the Muslim religion because of the crazy stuff the Qur'an says, not because of abusers of the religion.
In case you didn't notice, those "religious" men who sexually abused children had nothing to do with biblical teaching, wouldn't you agree?
To follow Harry Potter books 2000 years in the future would be pretty ridiculous. Then again, they never claim to be the word of God.
I am happy to see that you call yourself as you are. That is, you don't disguise yourself as agnostic. But the sad reality of your worldview (no God) is that you really can't sustain the idea that evil and good exist: it's survival of the fittest, or of the most adapted.
Pray that no one overpower you.
Wendy -
Just to throw this out there, your writing style when responding to detractors is quite off-putting. The "YIKES" and "you're wrong hahaha" really just makes you look petty. Please find a respectful way to discuss your opinions and those of people on other sides of the issue without attempting to cut them down or make yourself look like you're above them.
Thanks
Jacky and Katy - I'll take your words of wisdom to heart - I mean it! :)
Nathan - I know that I can easily be wrong. I love debating and enjoy a good discussion. I have a lot to learn and I think that a lot of others do, too. We're all always learning and I think that's awesome!
Once upon a time, men were raping their young daughters and watching them cry. Men were killing complete strangers just because they had urges to do so. Women were seducing animals. Boys were having sex with their father's sisters! Gay people were having sex all over the place!!!
Then some guys wrote a book. This book taught great lessons. "Killing is wrong" and "gay dudes are gross". Oh, but if you see a gay guy, then killing is fine. Actually, there are a few other instances where killing is acceptable.. but for the most part just stay away from it unless you want to be damned to hell.
Jesus was an impressive man, but just as much of a Messiah as Marshall Applewhite or David Koresh. The stories of his miracles are mind boggling and make you crap your pants. I'm sure the stories that followers of Jim Jones told were quite impressive as well. Translate them fifty times, pass the stories down for 2000 years and they would probably become even more impressive. (and more true)
I'm going to cut this short. I'll write more later.
The main points I want to get out there are:
1. Christians don't do bad things because they've read the bible. Nobody has ever died in the name of Christ.
2. Bacteria are on the same level as humans. If you've killed bacteria, you might as well kill your sister if she pisses you off. Same thing!
3. Nathan Proud is pissed for Christ and that makes god a happy little girl.
"If there is no God, why are you kind to anyone? Why should anyone be kind to anyone else? Why shouldn't we kill someone if we feel like it or rape someone because we have a sexual craving and can overpower a woman?
If you respond, I want you to give me a reason that does not originate from Christian Scripture.
There is no logical reason, other than your own personal conviction based on feelings. Why shouldn't I if I don't feel bad about it?"
You've hit the nail on the head. Do it because you're supposed to - not for any other reason. That's very Kantian of you.
Also, most Xn/biblical scripture is blatantly inspired by Eastern religions. The similarities between those texts and that of the B-I-B-L-E are uncanny.
Eastern religions and philosophies are fascinating and I think they'd do any person good to read (Xn or not). You'll be surprised at how many of the same, ancient texts are repeated throughout the Bible.
The Bible is not unique in the advice that it gives or the moral code it supports. Not everything originates from the (very young) Bible.
David,
Your whole comment seems just to be an arrogant swipe at the Bible. It honestly doesn't even deserve a response, but my flaw is that I can never resist responding.
Your anecdote of the origins and interpretation of the Bible is ridiculous at best. You don't like the Bible, so you just made a new and unsustained version of history and references to biblical commandments that don't exist.
No one ever died in the name of Christ? You really don't know history at all.
Bacteria is on the same level as human beings? Well, if we all just evolved from the same who knows what, then you're absolutely right.
You mentioned texts being translated fifty times and reveal how naïve you are. Translations of the Bible are translated from the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, ergo they're translated once.
Wendy, I promise I'm going to respond to the earlier part. This is just a quickie. You responded to something I said to Trevor.
- You've hit the nail on the head. Do it because you're supposed to - not for any other reason. That's very Kantian of you.
= Why am I supposed to? Says who? What weight does that have if I don't feel like it? In other words, on what basis am I supposed to?
- Also, most Xn/biblical scripture is blatantly inspired by Eastern religions. The similarities between those texts and that of the B-I-B-L-E are uncanny.
= Are you kidding? Every time there was any eastern influence, the Bible instructs Israel and the Church to flee any such beliefs. When the Tabernacle and Temple were constructed, they were positioned so the worshipper would have his/her back to the east.
Now there will certainly be similarities, but that's because everything comes from the same origin and mankind used to be very centralized. Most every culture has a Flood story with one righteous man and his family surviving. Does that mean that any of those cultures copied the story from another? No. It means that the general event actually occurred.
- The Bible is not unique in the advice that it gives or the moral code it supports. Not everything originates from the (very young) Bible.
= There was a time long before the Bible was written that God and man lived together. God spoke to the man and taught him. Through the generations, morals and commandments were passed down. Most of the generations put their own spin on that law, even all to some degree. That's why the Bible was given to us: so the original law would be restored to us, so we could follow it and live by it. That law is good for us. It is that law, as you put it, that we're just supposed to do.
BUT, it is what we're supposed to do because it is founded and rooted in the very nature and character of God. Without God, there is no "supposed to do."
Nathan - you are supposed to because it is the right thing to do. It carries weight because it is your duty. I can't say it any more times - if you don't get it then I'm sorry. Humans are not just mindless idiots walking around. We are smart - we are gifted with a priori knowledge and unless we suffer from some disorder then we know the difference between right and wrong.
It is highly frustrating to read your comments because as I said before they are ill grounded, irrelevant, misinformed and heavily biased. It's a shame that you can't consider any other side but your own because that's a dangerous mindset to have in this world.
It's great to debate and to speak for your cause, but listen to what the other person is saying. I found points in your argument that I agreed with and acknowledged that. I'm just going to accept that you are probably not used to debating and that you don't want to learn from this conversation. Some of the things I said are things you don't agree with, but I find it hard to believe that you disagree with every single point mentioned.
And Nathan,
The Bible has been translated from hebrew, yes. They have been passed down many times and there are many many versions.
Have you ever read the King James bible? I suggest looking into the origin of that one. What you'll find is a dictator who wanted to manipulate the minds of his people.
Did you know that "virgin," did not mean a woman who has never had intercourse? It actually means "young girl" or "young woman."
Have you ever seen a translation from Chinese to english? That stuff is hilarious and ridiculous botched. Translations are difficult.
AND - even if the Bible were translated perfectly (which is impossible), you must consider that the new testament was written after Jesus' death and even in 2 weeks can a story get messed up, let alone 10 years. Also, the validity of the Bible is always compromised considering the fact that it's writers could easily be delusional (especially in the old testament, but also true in the first). You could be delusional as well - that's a fact that all spiritual people must face.
It is wonderful that you have a strong faith - It's admirable the way you stand up for what you believe. I only caution you because your arrogance is offputting and hazardous to those whom you come in contact with. I urge you to do some research. It seems as though all your historical knowledge comes from a tilted viewpoint (a christian viewpoint) which will get you no where. Learn about the opposing side, the arguments that fight against what you believe. It's important to do so because not only will it help make your faith stronger, but it may also teach you some things you didn't know and lead you to make better arguments/be more devote/whatever.
I guess my sarcasm didn't come through.
Nathan, do you think the whole Jewish Holocaust thing is on the same level as taking a ten minute shower? The death counts are probably about equal. You are a disgusting s.o.b. if you really believe humans are the same as bacteria. Are you heartless enough that you would be okay with watching your parents get murdered? Or are you just so sensitive that you cry every time you move because you know you are killing something. You have to know you're being ridiculous with a lot of the things you are saying.
I can't stop looking at the first comment you left. Why even bother pointing out that she didn't explain the 'miracle of water turning to wine' or 'Christianity brought an end to slavery'? That had nothing to do with her article.
"She fails to notice that those who have fixed their gaze toward heaven have accomplished more on earth than anyone else."
This makes me want to puke. You have done so much more than anybody that isn't Christian? Look at yourself! You come on here making nonsense arguments about Wendy's article in hopes of making her look like a fool. That clearly was your goal. You have done such a great thing and will surely be rewarded when you get to heaven! Down here on earth, you're just another Christian whacko to most people.
It's reasons like this that Christianity is a dying religion. Stop with the preaching. Don't make arguments or statements the stem from the bible. We want cold hard facts here!
Nathan,
I agree with the idea that the Bible layed the ground work for todays moralistic views of right and wrong. I do what I feel is right, and not by the guide or direction or something or God.
I thing its a difference on opinion. You view the way you do things as handed down by God, whereas I do things by the way I was raised and what I view as right and wrong.
Really there is no difference in the way we do things, its just a difference in belief systems. I just do not lead a "religious" life as in going to church and having a relationship with God.
The hypocracies I see on a daily basis are from people I call "selective christian/religious". They have premarital sex, drink, swear, talk bad about other people, dont give back to others etc….yet go to church every Sunday or twice a month or whatever to get the feeling of exsolving themselves from the sins they have committed.
At the end of the day if I think you are a good person then thats all that matters.
The notion that since I am atheist leaves me with no belief/moral system therefore I should not have to adhere with societies rules and kill/rape/pileage whomever I like is grossly wrong. I do not have to be a religious person so I don't do bad things. Let's not forget some of the most famous serial killers/cult leaders did these things out of there perverted belief in religion, yet they are "better" than me because I have no God to believe in or lead me through my life in a positive way.
I am a good person who is involved with a local food kitchen, chamber of commerce and other community networking functions and I do so on my own account, not by or through the guidance of a higher being.
I appreciate and respect your passion Nathan, I just feel as though it is not a two-way street with many religious people when they find out that I am not a religious person. I am looked upon differently which is hilarious because aren't you supposed to accept people for whom they are and not judge???
You say, "Jesus died for our sins which, as Bishop Spong so kindly notes, is an outdated idea no one can relate to."
I'm wondering, however, how you and Bishop Spong have managed to infiltrate the minds and hearts of every human being on the planet and read their thoughts enough to understand what they relate to? Well, anyways, I must have some sort of defense against your psychic abilities, because you've missed me, as I still relate to this idea and believe it. As do many people I know, so you might want to hone your skills a little more before repeating any statements like this.
I agree with some things you say, like that it is wrong to kill in the name of God. And, that "as religion becomes popularized, and as the history of the church is remolded and warped into something it is not, the vision of Christianity becomes increasingly warped, too." However, do not be fooled into thinking Christianity is popular. It's increasingly booted out of anything and everything people can possibly kick it out of and Christians have lost the right even to wish someone "Merry Christmas." If Christianity was popular, it's servants wouldn't be haggled and picked on 'round every corner.
Finally, no one has the right to judge, as you said. Christian or non-Christian. When Christians try to share their viewpoints, they are often seen as judging or forcing, and I suppose this will just always happen naturally.
Hopefully, you, Miss Gould, will take in to strong account something someone once said, someone I know you will certainly agree with VERY STRONGLY.
"The problem is that we humans have a tendency to claim our words as absolute truth when they could easily be incorrect." - Wendy Gould.
Be open to learning, and to learning that you are wrong. You don't know everything. You could stand to learn a lot, and I'm sure not just about the fields of philosophy and religion.
Kayte - I am so glad for your comment. I agree that everyone wants to think our words are absolute truth - who wants to be wrong?
As for Bishop Spong (a religious man himself), he acknowledges that with Darwinism and scientific discoveries and progression the Bible is becoming increasingly hard to believe — that's all. And it's true.
I would love to talk to you more about science vs. xnity if you ever get the chance :D I think it's really interesting and I think we could learn from each other.
Wendy,
There are many translations of the Bible for various reasons. They keep making more to make it easier to read or to be more precise with evolving language. I usually use NASB, which is the closest standard translation to being literal. The NIV or NLT were written to be easier to read. However, they were all translated from the manuscripts. They didn't, for example, translate the NKJV from Latin or from the old KJV.
And one of the points of translation is to translate what is being communicated. I know someone who has a book with French translations of Assyrian cuneiform tablets. He doesn't speak French an so he used an online translation system, which rendered a phrase like, "Est-ce qu'ils auront des plans et prendre du territoire," into "Is that that they will have some plans and to take of the territory?" The proper translation is: "Will they have plans and take territory?" If you know someone who can speak the language you're translating from, you're gold. But you are right in that there is no such thing as a perfect translation, due to nuances and such. That's why people study the original language (myself included).
And that brings up your next point. You're probably referring to the word "almah" in Hebrew from Isaiah 7:14. You must have simply heard that from a professor. I heard the same thing before, too, but it isn't entirely true. Almah CAN
Wendy,
There are many translations of the Bible for various reasons. They keep making more to make it easier to read or to be more precise with evolving language. I usually use NASB, which is the closest standard translation to being literal. The NIV or NLT were written to be easier to read. However, they were all translated from the manuscripts. They didn't, for example, translate the NKJV from Latin or from the old KJV.
And one of the points of translation is to translate what is being communicated. I know someone who has a book with French translations of Assyrian cuneiform tablets. He doesn't speak French an so he used an online translation system, which rendered a phrase like, "Est-ce qu'ils auront des plans et prendre du territoire," into "Is that that they will have some plans and to take of the territory?" The proper translation is: "Will they have plans and take territory?" If you know someone who can speak the language you're translating from, you're gold. But you are right in that there is no such thing as a perfect translation, due to nuances and such. That's why people study the original language (myself included).
And that brings up your next point. You're probably referring to the word "almah" in Hebrew from Isaiah 7:14. You must have simply heard that from a professor. I heard the same thing before, too, but it isn't entirely true. Almah CAN mean "young girl," but it's the most exact word for "virgin" in the sense we know it. Given the context of the verse (miracle/sign), it's referring to biological virginity. It would behoove you to look into that one yourself. Don't believe everything a professor tells you, especially when you're already predisposed to believe it if it contradicts biblical teaching.
- AND - even if the Bible were translated perfectly (which is impossible), you must consider that the new testament was written after Jesus' death and even in 2 weeks can a story get messed up, let alone 10 years. Also, the validity of the Bible is always compromised considering the fact that it's writers could easily be delusional (especially in the old testament, but also true in the first). You could be delusional as well - that's a fact that all spiritual people must face.
= You really have no idea what you're talking about.
The resurrection of Christ was a pretty momentous event. Let's take September 11, 2001. That was nearly seven years ago. Do you and I agree that two planes ran into the World Trade Center and destroyed them? I hope so. We may differ on details and motives, but we agree on the event. Was President Kennedy assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald? We may discuss conspiracy theories, but the event itself it rock solid in history.
The apostles weren't delusional. Have you read The Case for Christ? You should.
If the prophets of the Old Testament were delusional, they were still pretty good at prophesying. Did you ever look up the Genesis 49:13 reference? How about Daniel 9:25? I could give you a plethora more if you want.
It's silly to accuse them of being delusional. It's more likely that you are.
David,
You didn't read everything I said apparently.
Of course I don't believe that bacteria and human beings are equal in dignity and worth. I wash my hands and shower all the time. I brush my teeth. I disinfect. I hate germs.
My point in saying something silly like that was to show the foolishness of the logical outworking of evolutionary philosophy. I believe that God created the heavens and the earth, that it didn't happen by chance. He created Man distinct from the rest of creation, and we are the rulers over it. But if there is no God and everything simply evolved, then everything is equally worthless. You, me, Jews, Russians, Mexicans, etc. We are all on the same level as any matter or energy in the universe. So if you are to say that killing is wrong, then why would it be ok to kill a chicken, a plant, or bacteria? People then just make up whatever moral standard that suits themselves best. Which they should, provided there is no God.
- Why even bother pointing out that she didn't explain the 'miracle of water turning to wine' or 'Christianity brought an end to slavery'? That had nothing to do with her article
= Those absolutely had to do with her article. She said that miracles are explained away by scientific logic. I asked her to scientifically explain away two well-known miracles of the Bible: water to wine and the resurrection of Jesus Christ. So far she hasn't tried to tackle either.
She also said that the Christian religion has done more harm than good. I responded with the abolition of slavery as one example of what Christianity has done for slaves world-wide.
Dear Trevor,
I actually really enjoyed what you had to say. I don't think you're a bad person. You volunteer and do very good things. You and I could probably be good friends in real life (message boards are stupid).
The point I was making that you were responding to, wasn't that you have no morals. Not at all. My point was was simply that there is no absolute foundation for it, other than moral law itself, which I believe God puts in every person. But if there is no God, then there is no reason to do anything other than that it makes you feel good. If someone murders because he likes it, how would you go about convincing him that it's wrong? You can't say, "It's just wrong," because that doesn't sustain itself. Right and wrong, good and evil, become subjective, and some people won't make the distinction at all.
Do you understand my point?
Nathan,
Why don't you try addressing the main points of this article instead of wandering all over the place?
Wendy,
- Why don't you try addressing the main points of this article instead of wandering all over the place?
= Because you and other people have said things in response to things I've said that pertain to your article. The points in my responses deal with the philosophical core of the article.
With that, I'll get back to the response you gave…
- Perhaps you will agree with me on this: It is ethically pure to pray about ridiculous things like your dog barking, winning the superbowl, etc. That it is morally unsound to do or believe something just so you can be rewarded.
= I think you mean "impure." I disagree with you. My cat got lost in a blizzard a few years back. I of course prayed for him and searched for him. I never found him, but someone else did and returned him to us after quite a few weeks had passed. He was starved and had frostbite on his ears (half of each ear fell off from it). How could it be bad to pray for his safe return? It benefitted both him and me.
What did Jesus say? "You have not because you ask not. Ask, and it will be given to you. Seek, and you will find. Knock, and it will be opened to you."
We have a half-agreement, though. To do something for the sole purpose of greed or self-gain is not biblical. Jesus said, "If you love Me, you will keep My commandments." We are to do things as unto the Lord.
But to pray for the Colts to win the Super Bowl this year, there's nothing bad about that. Any prayer just must also have the qualifier: let Your will be done. That's what Jesus asked for when confronted with His impending crucifixion.
- Perhaps you will agree with this as well: It's important for humans to not compromise their intellectual integrity by assuming that a "miracle" is the act of God or by blindly following.
= Give God glory in all things. You seem to want to take it away. Whether something is supernatural or a simple natural occurence, give God the glory for it. After all, He created the wind that gave that breeze you asked for on that hot day while working outside (for example).
It's also intellectually stifling to assume that miracles don't happen.
- My problem is with popularized Xnity - COMMON Xnity. The way people float about without thinking about their actions/beliefs/etc. I have a problem with those people — the ones who are overly judgmental and contradict the message of the Bible. They are giving Xnity a bad name - don't you agree?
= They do give Christianity a bad name.
But "common Christianity" isn't what your article is about. It's orthodox Christianity. And you assume that the people who follow orthodox Christianity only do so blindly. I hope by now you don't think I do. You attack the foundation of Christianity: the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ as a propitiatory sacrifice. Then you try to replace it by making Christianity some social club.
- Sure - I'm willing to believe that some Xns helped with [the abolition of slavery]. But some Xns also added fuel to the sexist/racist fire - that's not an opinion. That's not something I made up. Those are hard-known facts that are undeniable.
= I'm glad to see you finally admit that Christianiy accomplished the abolition of slavery, or at least you say they had a part in it. What kind of kingdom do you think Britain was in those days? What kind of leaders? What was the foremost written work studied in the schools? What was preached and professed? What was the foundation of their ethic? It certainly wasn't agnosticism.
And I think you would agree with me that the sexists and racists are the hypocrites (since that kind of teaching isn't given in the Bible).
- You should be pointing the finger too. I find it hard to believe that you agree with TV smut propaganda (that is focused on money).
= Are you telling me I should judge? And aren't you judging the televangelists (and grouping them all in one bunch?)? I think some of them are fake, and some are not.
One thing Paul said gives me encouragement: whether Christ is preached in sincerity or in pretense, oh rejoice because Christ is preached!
In spite of whatever their motives are, people's souls are being saved and God is glorified. Pure motives would obviously be preferable.
First of let me say that when you put up an article for people to read, especially an article that is as sensitive to people as religion you should expect for it to start debates and perhaps ones that aren't so friendly.
Religion isn't a science it is a belief it is a test in faith for each person. It like all things has its good and bad, pros and cons. But that is up to each individual to determine. I would no more appreciate someone telling me to be religious as I would an article that makes those who believe in religion feel uneducated. Regardless of your intentions with this article it comes across hostile to those who believe. If religion or lack of, is personal to you or these are your opinions what did you think would happen by putting them up here? I am afraid by putting up an article that states how religion is wrong and pointing out to others it is but yet stating how religion is wrong for forcing people to believe what they believe in, is hypocrisy at its best.
Finally what is the objective of anyone who posts or debates religion? To try and use science to tell someone what they have faith in is wrong is wrong. To try and tell someone they must believe in something purely because you believe in it is wrong. Everyone must find his or her own path. Right and wrong, good and bad it is all subjective as previous posts have mentioned. Those who claim they do not believe in God are on a power trip of their own. Those who believe in God are those who are too afraid to be their own person.
They are called beliefs because that is what they are. None of can go back in time to find out what is true and what isn't. To claim the bible is false because it is manmade but then site works by other men is just more hypocrisy. Finally spending this much debating something that no one will change their mind on is just spending too much of your life not living it. Too claim you are something or aren't something isn't just limiting yourself.
I'm baffled by all this.
There are millions of people doing horrible things without feeling remorse. Many of those people claim to be Christians. Nathan makes it seem like nothing bad is going on because god's almighty power is apparent in this world.
Nathan, I need some answers.
How does god determine who is worthy of a miracle or having their prayers answered? While god was busy saving your cat, there were hundreds of murders, rapes, children being molested, women being beaten, babies dying moments after birth. Who are you to think your cat is more important then all those things? Why worship and love something so twisted and demented? You know, I'm happy you got your cat back.. but honestly, there are many more important things that need to be prayed about.
I can't wrap my brain around taking god so seriously. There is so much evidence saying there was no need for a supreme creator. Everything we have could have easily happened by chance. Also, this universe is incredibly unstable. It's getting bigger as you're reading this. Solar systems are destroying themselves. New galaxies are being formed. Why would god make something so faulty? When our solar system destroys itself, it is going to cause a lot of torture to whatever is living on our planet. As our sun expands, our planet will literally be a giant slow cooker. After years of suffering, everything will be put out of it's misery. Death by being baked. It's delicious! That is happening all the time throughout our universe. Why would god want that?
Do you think the KKK are a good group of people? They are strong believers of your religion. They have even dug through the bible and found some verses to support what they stand for. I'm sure the verses were taken out of context, but still, they feel they are doing the right thing. I watched a couple documentaries about them in school. One man said the reason they light the cross is to "show the light of Christ." Then they go out and commit hate crimes. Now, according to you, they are better humans than me, simply because the fixed their gaze upon heaven.
There are cases of Christians murdering gay people. They were doing god's work.
They are better than me because they fixed their gaze upon heaven.
How can you acknowledge such striking similarities between Christianity and older religions and not think it's strange? Christianity is clearly a mutt of all other religions. Name some original things Christianity has that no other religion has.
I don't believe in heaven. I don't believe in god. But if there is a heaven, and a god that determines who gets in, I have no doubt I would make it. I'm a decent person and make good choices for the most part. The only thing going against me is that I base my beliefs on new findings and facts rather than ancient stories and hopeful thinking. But is that really such a bad thing? God is supposed to be somewhat of a father, right? Shouldn't a father want their children to move ahead in life? Look at the world around them and try to make sense of things using common sense? Educate themselves? Would a father really want his children to live their lives according to words written thousands of years ago? It's silly.
Why doesn't god come up with a new bible that's more fitting to life today? He could easily talk through people like he did back in the day. Oh, I guess if somebody said they had new scripture that god told them to write, they would be crazy. If somebody claims to be the holy son of god, they are obviously trying to start a cult. If somebody said god was talking to them as a burning bush, and were actually serious about it, they would most likely be tripping off acid, or they'd be a homeless person that lost their mind years ago. 2000 years ago all that stuff was legit though…
Has anyone even noticed that all the sources I've used are in fact Christian's themselves? I'm not just saying this stuff to make people not want to be Christian.
The message of Christianity is a WONDERFUL one. Why can't people stop being so hypocritical and selfish in their faith?
um shut up
Josh,
You made some really good points. I'm glad you're here.
David,
Not sure what happened. I responded to you a few days ago but it apparently didn't post. It's been a long day and I have a headache, so I'll make this short.
You brought up some cliché arguments and used poor logic concerning suffering in the world and God. There are many good books out there that address that very issue. The core of the answer is that we are free to do what we want, and we do bad things. Man is prone to evil. If your free will is taken away, you are a slave.
You admit that the Ku Klux Klan took Bible verses out of context, so you answered your own objection.
- Would a father really want his children to live their lives according to words written thousands of years ago? It's silly.
= Not at all silly if the words were from a father who is eternally faithful, whose words don't change because they're perfect in the first place.
Really, you should evaluate the words of the prophets. If you think they were some cracked people, then they're