I Say We Duke It Out!

Just when I was trying to figure out how to say something, someone else goes ahead and does it for me. Thanks ebeth.

I don't know what to call myself, but I guess that doesn't matter. I do believe in God. I think if I lived in another area of the world, I would consider myself a christian, but I truly can't say that comparing my understanding of christianity with what many people who call themselves that in this country.

I get distressed by what the connotation of what the word christian has become.
The whole thing has become such a DisneyWorld, Chuckee Cheese, latest special effects movie affair.
It feels more like a social club to me than a desire to fathom an iota of the mysteries of the universe.
As a matter of fact, have thoughts that wonder about possibilities, why's where's when's how's is frowned up and, yes, forbidden. This is what the bible said happened, don't you dare think that it could be any other way, or you'll be damned for all enternity.
What kind of belief in God is that? That God was invented by mankind, and in particular by the members of mankind that had an interest in maintaining the status quo.
The reality, I cannot help but believe, is sooooooo much more than what can be contained in a few hundred pages.

In this forum especially, I detest how some do not see the big picutre of the discussion, and instead focus on the minutiae.
It's an affront to me that instead of address what people say, the responses are regurgitations of platitudes.

I find it frustrating that supposedly this is a debate forum, yet, where the rubber meets the road, instead of using intelligence to explain, clarify ones position, some use the cowards way out of falling back on stock answers.
That is not a debate. That is insulting another persons intelligence when it is assumed a seeker of knowledge will accept that.

I view those who believe in pleasant fairy tales about people rising up out of the dust childish. This story was a metophor for heavens sake, showing that man was at one point in time created, not to be taken as fact. Again, the reality is so much grander and awe inspiring.

I worry how much the Christian Right is getting involved in our government, but at the same time, their churches do not pay taxes. That's disgusting.

I have small grudges about things I want to express in my workplace., but don't. Not because I'm afraid to speak my mind, but because I have to work with "Christians" who would send out a low current of constant disapproval, and I have learned I have to pick my battles. I have to maintain a good working relationship, and would be unable to, there would always be this small elephant in the room, if I was, for instance, put up a beautiful picture of my step-daughter getting married, to another woman.
My co-workers have pictures of sons/daughters wedding, crosses on the wall, plaques with words about Jesus on them, which is fine. However, if my SD saying vows were on my desk.....well, it would always just BE there, an open sore whenever particular people entered the room.
I won't let something like that be an irritant to me, so it's easier to just not go there.

I don't like it when some of what I say is addressed with words that really don't say anything, and other areas that are far more important are ignored.

ok, that's it for right now.

Talk about someone else expressing it for me better than I can. I can't agree more with this. Actually, I agree with all of it but this passage rally struck me.

One of the things about the current incarnation of Christianity in this country (especially in the south) is the discouragement of independent thought, curiosity, and questioning. I thought the idea was to try to find God and to develop an understanding. How do you do that without questioning what you've been taught by men? There are so many different ways to interpret the bible, how could anyone have it exactly right? How can a book contain God? How could a book be the only way to find God? I've come to the conclusion that it can't.

FD - to continue, how could we have such wonderful brains if God didn't want us to ask questions?

I have a Pastor Bob Theory. Well, not really a theory, more of an observation.

Very simply, it is when a Chuckee Cheese Christian (Hey, I like that....CCC) cannot express an opionion on something, and it's because Pastor Bob has yet told them what the bible sez to think.

I work with a Southern Baptist, nuff said. One day I asked her "so, what happened to all the jews who lived and died before Jesus was even born"? (not to mention non-jews)

She: Why, they're all in hell! (silly)
Me: Why? They lived and died BEFORE Jesus was born.
Can't remember the rest, just that my point made no sense to her. This had never come up with Pastor Bob, and she had never given a thought to anyone that lived in the thousands of centruries before that.

OK - it just so happened I was channel surfing the public access channels that evening, and came across these two good boys having a call in bible show.

You're saying "No you didn't"

Yes I did.

I told the person who answered the phones a fake name, got put through, and fired away!

I was raised by Southern Baptists of the closed mind variety. Worse than being closed minded, we were taught that questioning God came from the devil. You can imagine that not many questions were asked -- questions that might have easily been answered. What kind of God can't hold up under questioning from mere mortals? No, your Pastor Bob theory holds up under my own experience. To me, it's very much like a business. What good is a pastor if you can find God without him?

Priesthood is the progenitor of all bureaucracy, and the prime function of any bureaucracy is to provide for and ensure its own permanence.

There is no reason to suppose, even from the heavily altered and edited accepted canon of the christians, that any priesthood were ever intended. This was, in fact, an imposition on the cult by Saul of Tarsus. The concepts of orthodoxy and heresy are inimical to the central message of the putative gospels, which enjoin one to find "the kingdom of heaven" within oneself, and not in a hierarchical, priest-ridden establishment. What has passed for christianity since about a century after the death of the putative "Savior" bears little resemblance to the teaching which is reported in the "gospels."

When one couples that with the knowledge that Origen, Pamphilus and Eusebius winnowed the known "gospels" of the first three centuries to the four which are the contemporary cannon, and that those texts were altered and heavily edited, it beggars any contention on the part of modern religionists that their religious establishments are representative of primitive christianity or the teachings of their alleged "Lord."

It is also interesting, Big Bird, that in the case of the civlization of the Yellow River basin, rather inaccurately referred to as the Shang dynasty of China, a bureaucracy arose--the Mandarins--without apparent reference to any particular creed. Ancestor worship was and remained the most consistant "religious" expresssion of the Chinese, and the Mandarins needed no reference to a canonical orthodoxy to justify their existence.

First of all, I want to thank everyone that has responded in this post. I would thank you all personally but I'm a bit behind! So, everyone that has posted, thank you so very much!

This next part applies in generality and I am in no way saying this is everyone. This thread has helped me immensely. My problem has been that from what I was reading that it is Christianity that is hated (might not be the right word, so forgive me if it isn't) and not the person.

From what I have read in these responses, it is the Christianity of today that is being spoken of. And, I agree with so much of what you have all posted. Yes, unfortunately, I believe the real Christianity, the true teachings of Christ have become distorted so terribly. I don't like the Christians that try to force Jesus down anyone's throat. They are in direct conflict of what the Bible says.

Yes, we are to spread the good news, but I don't recall God saying a thing about hitting someone with a baseball bat first and while they are recovering from the blow inundate them with the Word. We are to tell someone of the good news and if they accept it they accept it. If they don't accept it, then we are to go on our way. So, I am in complete agreement here with those that mentioned this.

I am a person that firmly believes there is always a reason for the way people exhibit themselves. I was unable to figure that out in so many posters so I started this thread.

After reading posts in this thread, like from Edgar, I have a much better understanding of him, as I do others. So, I am sure that I will understand where some of the dialogue is truly coming from, and for that I am very grateful.

It is sad to me that someone would not want to call themselves Christian. But, I can certainly understand why you feel that way. My question to you is this, if you understand that it is the "man" that has done these things, why disregard the message? I understand not all do this, as some have specifically stated they don't. If I am reading something into this that is not there, please just tell me. I am doing my best to not assume anything. I hate assuming anything.

I ask questions. I don't believe God wants me to NOT ask questions. I do not believe that any one person has 100% of the truth, especially about the Bible. I have heard so many different interpretations. I have heard other Christians interpret something so totally different from what I understand it to mean. In some cases, I have agreed and in some I have not.

Like Intrepid, I do not feel it is within my authority to tell anyone they are going to hell. That is between each individual and God as they understand Him or don't understand Him.

As far as the laws go; this is the tough one. Yes, there are certain things I do not think should be legal. Is this imposing my beliefs on someone else? Yes, on one hand it is. No, on another hand, it is just exercising the same right as those that would want these things made legal. I feel as long as I keep completely within the law, I am just exercising my right. I don't think this will ever be completely resolved. I have to vote according to my moral, ethical, spiritual, etc. beliefs. I suspect that each of us vote the same way. So, here I guess we have to let democracy decide. But, I will state this, I do not believe in Christianity at whatever the cost. I don't feel that is the way God would want it. It has to be an individual's choice and not forced on anyone. I can see how some would feel that they are being forced though. I can only ask that you try to understand that Christians might feel that you are trying to impose your will upon us also? I realize that you are voting (lobbying, etc.) for what you believe in.

Again, thank you all so very much for being so open and honest with your posts. I have a much better understanding of each of you now. There are still a few that I am hoping will come and share in this thread.

There is one thing I would like to make clear. I have not felt particularly persecuted. Yes, I have not liked being called some of the things I have been called, but at least now, I can see more of where that is coming from. I will always stand up for God/Jesus when anyone calls Him names. Yes, I know He can defend Himself, but to me it's just part of being a Christian to stand up for the Lord, as long as I do it without condemning anyone else, which I am sure I have been guilty of at times.

I imagine it is very hard for you to feel any other way about Christians than you do because of the type of Christianity so prevalent in today's society. I only hope that you all can meet someone that you feel is a real Christian and actually displays that behavior to you.

It is not just Christians I disavow, but all religious thought, period.

I am not a Christian, yet I behave more christianlike than many Christians I know. The Puritans came to America to escape the religion of the King and immediately set up laws and rules that required all members of the colony to profess Puritan doctrine - how soon we forget. It's happening today in America by an outspoken minority who are claiming moral authority over all Americans and working to incorporate a specific interpretation of Christianity into law.

Modern day Christianity has little, if anything, to do with the teachings of Jesus. Saul/Paul was one of the first to modify the message in order to gain support and conversions within the gentile population. The writers of Matthew and Luke finished the job with stories of miracle births and filling in the holes required in the Jewish scriptures so that the Jews leaning toward Christianity would be convinced. The sayings gospels of Q (hypothetical text used as the basis for Mark which is dated around 70 C.E.), Thomas (about 70-80 C.E.), and Mary (about 90-100 C.E.) are probably the best sources of Jesus' message. The rest is largely fabrication.



Exactly what I wanted to say, Set. Most modern day Christians know nothing of the formation of Church doctrine, they pretend they haven't been manipulated by 2000 years of history and yet still claim to be the bearer of Truth. Those that want to remain ignorant of history or think history is irrelevant because the divine word they have received is direct from the hand of God are welcome to it, but they can stay the hell away from me.

Any problem one might assert that i have with christians (and its only a problem as self-avowed christians perceive it--its not a problem for me) is that any criticism of orthodoxy is taken as a personal attack. I consider religious conviction to be idiotic (and like EB, i'm talking about all flavors of religious supersition). So, when i encounter such superstition, i say: "That's idiotic." The perfervid true believer usually bellows (in actuality or only virtually) at that point: "You hate god, you're calling me an idiot."

No, i'm just saying you're peddling an idiotic story--whether or not any such individual is either an idiot or a snake oil salesman always remains to be determined.

But how are you going to change that from happening without encroaching on freedom of religion, instead? If the population of a country is 80% Muslim, or 80% Christian, then 80% of its people will want to take their religious holiday off, and close their shop. The'right' of the seecularist to shop on any which day then clashes with the 'right' of the believer to be at home for his holy holiday.

Now if we still lived in the age of small mum-n-pop stores, that would be one thing, because secular shopkeepers would open, religious ones close, and those who still wanted to shop (or dine, etc) would be able to do so at establishments owned by secular folks. But even so it would mean 80% of the shops would be closed, so nothing would change about your complaint that the majority religion limits a minority person's options. Now factor in bigger companies. If 80% of your staff wants to spend their holy day celebrating their religion, it simply often becomes unfeasible to still run the show with the remaining 20% of employees. So, businesses close, altogether.

What are you going to do about that, without offending other freedoms in turn? The only alternative I see (apart from teasing enough employees into working with large bonuses, which only makes sense for the business if that 20% who does still want to shop spends a friggin big deal) is forcing people to work on their holy day. That way the minority would retain the right not to have a shopping- and dining-free day imposed on it - but the majority would have their right to celebrate their holy days taken away from it. You'd have freedom from religion at the cost of freedom of religion.

"By their fruits shall they be known"

Now you will be accused of name-calling, having described the devout as "fruits" . . .

Now Timber, calling them fruits isn't going to help. I tend to think more in the terms of veggies.

Habibi's argument is a non-starter. When i was in the army, no adherent of any religion was ever required to stand duty on a day sacred to their religion. I and all the Jews always worked on christian holidays, and got other days off, usually with a pass as well, in compensation. I managed to get "Druid" put in my personnel file, with the result that i was always able to insist that i have Saturday night off duty, and to be allowed to go alone to a pine grove, if one were available. What did they know? They went along with it because it was easier than dealing with an appeal to higher authority.

Fruits, and veggies LOL

Another example of appealing to religion for one's personal gain.

:wink:

That's right, and the Devil take the hindmost . . .

nimh,

The problem would then be (if there were freedom from religion) that my right would be taken away. The way it is now is everyone has the right to either practice their religion or not even have one if they choose.

What is an acceptable compromise?