A question regarding the "What is a Christian?" thread

[Jennifer5]

We have seen how ugly the discussion can get, but why?

If you want to discuss what Christianity is, please go back to the other thread. (http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?p=66508#post66508)

What I want to know is, what specifically about the topic upsets you? Why does it become such a touchy subject?

Just take a while to think about and come back and share your thoughts. I think this may be the only way for us to work through whatever is going on.

[BenL]

... or law vs. love ... or Roman vs. Celtic

That's what I think is at the core of conflict over what Christianity means.

The head/law/Roman approach is to codify life into a bunch of rules and to judge people by the way they follow the rules ... or don't. This way tends to exlude people.

The heart/love/celtic way is to acknowledge the primacy of love ... God's love ... in creation and in human beings. Recognizing that God's love is expansive and that creation, including human beings, is an expression of God's love, the reckoning becomes God's and not ours. This ways tends to include people.

Jesus of Nazareth, called the Christ, is at the center of Christianity. He seems in his most authentic teachings to embrace the way of love, but there are enough verses in the Gospels to support a legalistic approach to his teaching.

And Christians have been duking it out ever since.

How's that for a great oversimplification?

[Zerbie]

Ahh, this question finally has a taker!

Actually, while I think Ben has nailed a critical argument from within Christianity, I think Jen means to ask a broader question. Do you, Jen?

What I hear in her question is 'why does the topic of christianity in general bring up so much of anger and other negative emotions?' I don't know if I'm interpolating my own meaning onto Jen's question, though.

If that is the question, all we have to do is consider the things done and said in the name of christian religion and we can see why some non-christians have an extremely negative reaction to the word, and some christians who strive to follow the example of Jesus feel hurt or offended when they get lumped in with those who preach hate. I think it is that, quite simply.

A few (I think they are only a few??) people are using christianity as a disguise for cruelty, greed, and a power-grab. They find ways to drive wedges of discord into US society in general, and we've all reacted they way they counted on us to react: by fighting amongst ourselves.

Anyway. It's still early in the day. Maybe?

[BrianB]

I think this touches a hot button(s) because there have been so many things done in the name of Christ that were not Christ-like. Some examples are; the spanish inquistion, the holocaust, bombing of abortion clinics, persecution of gay people, persecution of jewish people. Those things do not represent christianity to me. Yet, many see that as the face of christianity. So...how do we change the face of christianity?

[antiochian]

Frankly, a lot of what we see in this culture is not Christianity, but Neo-Christianity at best. People have made up a whole new religion, a religion of politics and power, based on fear and legalism. Somewhere in all of this, the person of Jesus Christ and his message of love, grace, and mercy is lost.

Because people have been wounded by the Church, they are angry. They have every right to be. They deserve to be heard.

Those who remain in the Christian faith and who love Jesus will be sensitive to criticism, even if they know deep down that much or most of it is true. Their voices deserve to be heard as well.

Believers and non-believers, Christians and others, must find a way to come together in humility and love on this forum (I think we do a good job of that for the most part). Otherwise, we will be doing what the homophobes do--dividing the human family into "us" and "them."

I received a PM from a forum member some time ago stating I would go to hell if I left the Church. I was obviously angered and hurt by that. Again, division--"saved" and "lost."

Thank heavens there are true followers of Christ who radiate his beauty through their actions and words. What a blessing they are to the world and the lgbt community!

[Jennifer5]

Ahh, this question finally has a taker!

Actually, while I think Ben has nailed a critical argument from within Christianity, I think Jen means to ask a broader question. Do you, Jen?
That's exactly what I was trying to ask, but I'm fine with this conversation going wherever it needs to go.

I wish that U-dog, Dsdrane, Daniel and others would join in on this conversation. They clearly feel that this is a touchy subject and I think it would be good with they would talk through why that is.

They are definitely not the only ones though, I just think that everyone could benefit from this conversation.

I think others have been right, a lot of it may be about us trying to group people the wrong way... none of us like 'the box'.

[Zerbie]

Frankly, a lot of what we see in this culture is not Christianity, but Neo-Christianity at best. People have made up a whole new religion, a religion of politics and power, based on fear and legalism. Somewhere in all of this, the person of Jesus Christ and his message of love, grace, and mercy is lost.

And the phenom you describe is centuries old. Much of that message seems buried. But again, it HAS managed to continue to survive through the centuries, usually DESPITE the church and not because of it.


Believers and non-believers, Christians and others, must find a way to come together in humility and love on this forum (I think we do a good job of that for the most part). Otherwise, we will be doing what the homophobes do--dividing the human family into "us" and "them."
Yes. And we have been doing just that. There is a third way, and that is where the solution lies.


I received a PM from a forum member some time ago stating I would go to hell if I left the Church. I was obviously angered and hurt by that. Again, division--"saved" and "lost."


Wha-a-aaaaaat??????!!
I'm assuming whoever did that is not a regular, bc I don't know any of our regulars who would talk like that.
Wow! What a limited view of the world. As if God does not exist outside some building that PEOPLE built sometime in the last 200 years. God cannot be crammed into a little tiny building. We need to understand this.

Jen, thank you for raising this subject.

[antiochian]

Correct, not a regular. Haven't seen her/him here in awhile now.

[andrewlittle]

That's exactly what I was trying to ask, but I'm fine with this conversation going wherever it needs to go.

I wish that U-dog, Dsdrane, Daniel and others would join in on this conversation. They clearly feel that this is a touchy subject and I think it would be good with they would talk through why that is.

They are definitely not the only ones though, I just think that everyone could benefit from this conversation.

I think others have been right, a lot of it may be about us trying to group people the wrong way... none of us like 'the box'.

I can't say whether this applies to what happened or not - only the participants can answer definitively.

None of us may like the idea of a box philosophically, but we almost all gravitate to finding a box that is just the right shape for us, anyway. Having no limits, parameters, definitions, etc, temds to be very uncomfortable for most of us - even though that is the "ideal" which we think we strive towards.

What we do like is a box that doesn't constrain us but, at the same time, limits our universe to that with which we can effectively deal. Some boxes are smaller than others, some more oddly shaped than others, some made from permeable materials while others are impervious. Few of us like "no box", however.

That's all well and good until one of two things happens - either someone tries to fit you inside their box, or starts taking your box apart because they don't like it. When the latter happens, we feel exposed and somewhat insecure - not quite, but a little like being in sensory deprivation. Some people do great with that, but most start having to deal with their emotional or mental peculiarities which we all have.

Also, while we like to be in our particular box that is shaped just like we want and need it, we tend to get lonely in there. We need to sell our version of what a box really is to someone else, so they can fir in our box as well. Get enough people in your box and you have an organized church. A few more and you have a denomination. Of course, most of the people in the box are compromising somewhat so they fit. It's a somewhat tenuous existence in the box - one that can breed some underlying tensions and frustrations that no-one wants to deal with because it will upset the equilibrium that has been negotiated.

But, then, when someone comes along and tells us our box sucks, we react with some indignation and at least some of the pent up frustration that has been accumulated.

Okay, I'm going to stop and take a breather to see if this makes any sense whatsoever. I may just have run this metaphor into word-picture hell.

[Jennifer5]

I can't say whether this applies to what happened or not - only the participants can answer definitively.

None of us may like the idea of a box philosophically, but we almost all gravitate to finding a box that is just the right shape for us, anyway. Having no limits, parameters, definitions, etc, temds to be very uncomfortable for most of us - even though that is the "ideal" which we think we strive towards.

What we do like is a box that doesn't constrain us but, at the same time, limits our universe to that with which we can effectively deal. Some boxes are smaller than others, some more oddly shaped than others, some made from permeable materials while others are impervious. Few of us like "no box", however.

That's all well and good until one of two things happens - either someone tries to fit you inside their box, or starts taking your box apart because they don't like it. When the latter happens, we feel exposed and somewhat insecure - not quite, but a little like being in sensory deprivation. Some people do great with that, but most start having to deal with their emotional or mental peculiarities which we all have.

Also, while we like to be in our particular box that is shaped just like we want and need it, we tend to get lonely in there. We need to sell our version of what a box really is to someone else, so they can fir in our box as well. Get enough people in your box and you have an organized church. A few more and you have a denomination. Of course, most of the people in the box are compromising somewhat so they fit. It's a somewhat tenuous existence in the box - one that can breed some underlying tensions and frustrations that no-one wants to deal with because it will upset the equilibrium that has been negotiated.

But, then, when someone comes along and tells us our box sucks, we react with some indignation and at least some of the pent up frustration that has been accumulated.

Okay, I'm going to stop and take a breather to see if this makes any sense whatsoever. I may just have run this metaphor into word-picture hell.

I love this! I completely agree. I really like the part I bolded.

[Daniel]

I wish that U-dog, Dsdrane, Daniel and others would join in on this conversation. They clearly feel that this is a touchy subject and I think it would be good with they would talk through why that is.


What is touchy here is not the subject, but rather, the presumption of each ego thinking that it is 'right'. This leads to division and discord. One is left defending one's position or point of view. As such, one gets touchy.

What is the opposite of this?

When one is making love. Then one isn't thinking about being right. One joins with the object of one's affection totally. This can lead to an experience of transcendence.

It's the different between the desire for happiness and the need to stake out territory. As such, the latter all too often leads to a pissing contest.

[Rick336]

Also, while we like to be in our particular box that is shaped just like we want and need it, we tend to get lonely in there. We need to sell our version of what a box really is to someone else, so they can fit in our box as well.

This makes sense to me.

Rick

[u-dog]

I resonate with what both BenL and Andy have said. The Head/Heart or Roman/Celtic or Law/Grace or Pharisee/NotPharisee split is, I believe, a basic difference in personality types and it has been present in the life of the Christian movement from the get-go. I would be lying if I didn't admit that I think that Jesus himself was on the heart/Celtic/Grace/NotPharisee side. I would be lying if I didn't say that I think Christianity has been hijacked by the Pharisees many times over the years since Constantine made Christianity the state religion of the Empire.

But I would also not be authentic if I didn't admit with Andy that this belief is my "box" and I get edgy when people start to climb in with me and to make changes to the shape of my box. This is a fear reaction and nothing good comes from fear. Fear of loss is the root of all evil. Fear leads to Anger which (if not expressed in a healthy way) leads to hate which leads to violence and oppresion and genocide and every other form of evil.

Love is the only antidote to fear (see 2 John chapter four).

This is what I think... for what its worth.

U-dog

[Jennifer5]

So here's question...

Is it possible that the things that upset us about this topic are nothing more than a lack of communication? Do you think that if someone was aloud to finish making a point before they were attacked by the person reading it, we would still disagree?

I know from personal experience, that I've never intended to walk all over another persons beliefs, although I'm sure I have. I have always felt horrible for doing it and wanted to make it right.

Do you think that many of you are fighting for the same side?

I may be way off, but Daniel you brought a good point to mind.

Do you think it's possible that you're (this is a general statement, NOT picking on Daniel!) getting upset about something that is not meant as an attack?

Dsdrane, remember Rick's post and how upset you got... do you think you might have been on the defense about something that wasn't even an attack?

U-dog, I found what you said very interesting. The idea of feeling threatened because someone is trying to climb in your box. The thing is, people have probably discovered that you have a really nice box and want to join you... they do not intend to change anything about it. However, change is inevitable and over time the sides of the box get weaker and you don't want it to give way.

[dsdrane]

Dsdrane, remember Rick's post and how upset you got... do you think you might have been on the defense about something that wasn't even an attack?

Jennifer, do not believe for a second that it wasn't an attack. It was. That's why he's here. Right, Rick?

Why else would he be here?

I'm all for inclusiveness. I lived in Manhattan for 16 years; I know all about the beauty of EVERYBODY. It's a beautiful thing, a lovely thing.

But THIS PLACE is about political and RELIGIOUS equality and justice.

How IS someone who negates RELIGION supposed to contribute to equality and justice in something HE NEGATES??

Is it just me!?

I worry we're so busy trying to be friends that we gloss over the bits that actually negate who we are. That might be ok for some; but it ain't for me.

My argument with Rick is much larger than the two of us agreeing. I don't care about being right; I care about being heard. And that cannot happen when his arguments are based upon what comes out of a testtube.

What do YOU THINK?

[Jennifer5]

Jennifer, do not believe for a second that it wasn't an attack. It was. That's why he's here. Right, Rick?

Why else would he be here?

I'm all for inclusiveness. I lived in Manhattan for 16 years; I know all about the beauty of EVERYBODY. It's a beautiful thing, a lovely thing.

But THIS PLACE is about political and RELIGIOUS equality and justice.

How IS someone who negates RELIGION supposed to contribute to equality and justice in something HE NEGATES??

Is it just me!?

I worry we're so busy trying to be friends that we gloss over the bits that actually negate who we are. That might be ok for some; but it ain't for me.

My argument with Rick is much larger than the two of us agreeing. I don't care about being right; I care about being heard. And that cannot happen when his arguments are based upon what comes out of a testtube.

What do YOU THINK?
I think that Rick is the only one that can tell us if it was an attack or not. Rick?

I think that you're being too quick to judge, because I'm not a Christian either and I didn't start a fight with what I posted. I really feel that the problem was either his specific words, or a problem that you have with one another.

[Zerbie]

Jennifer, do not believe for a second that it wasn't an attack. It was. That's why he's here. Right, Rick?

Why else would he be here?

Any number of reasons. Only Rick knows for sure, but I can think of a few reasons right off the bat for why he might be posting here, none of which are negative.

I sense that Rick is here for the same reason the rest of us are: he's at a certain point in his personal journey through life and activism such that this forum is a place where he can express himself and work through various ideas and philosophies and bounce them off of other social justice advocates.

I sense no attack from Rick. If I felt one, I would say so, I just don't feel it. The logical next step for me then is to say I find it unfair to attribute a negative intention to his motives for joining this group. He is a lifelong advocate of equality with a personal history of activism that spans decades. What a precious resource to have on board! Someone who can draw parallels between Prop 8 and Anita Bryant by comparing actual experience in grassroots politics and public protest throughout the decades.




I'm all for inclusiveness. I lived in Manhattan for 16 years; I know all about the beauty of EVERYBODY. It's a beautiful thing, a lovely thing.

But THIS PLACE is about political and RELIGIOUS equality and justice.

How IS someone who negates RELIGION supposed to contribute to equality and justice in something HE NEGATES??

David, he advocates for equality and justice in the world we all share together -- he does not negate that world. He contributes to equality every day. One does not need to hold certain supernatural beliefs to adhere to deep values and demonstrate them by one's actions.

If this board were to become a place where some who advocate for justice, equality, and a fair chance for all are unwelcome due to being atheist, I would leave.



Is it just me!?

Not entirely, no. Sometimes Rick's tone when talking about religion does become. . . er. . . unpleasantly strong.
We have to realize that the blind religion he decries is not ours, but those of the unthinking and the uncaring.


I worry we're so busy trying to be friends that we gloss over the bits that actually negate who we are. That might be ok for some; but it ain't for me.

This seems to be the root. For my part, I do not in any way interpret Rick's words as "negat(ing) who we are." That would freak me out if I did, so now I understand your intensity, but not the reason behind it. I know you are feeling negated now, but I miss the reason why.

When you say "negate who we are," what and how do you mean? What about Rick's words mean 'negation' of selfhood to you? I am sorry I do not understand where you are coming from, but I want to. Can you patiently explain this to me from its foundation? I want to know what you are experiencing. I think we may have a genuine misunderstanding here, rather than an actual conflict/negation.




My argument with Rick is much larger than the two of us agreeing. I don't care about being right; I care about being heard. And that cannot happen when his arguments are based upon what comes out of a testtube.

What do YOU THINK?

I am still a bit lost. I want to hear you better and am ready and listening. Can you explain to me why/how it is that you feel unheard because Rick's arguments are 'based' on 'testtubes'? Why do you feel unheard because he chooses to logic out a strictly science-based view of life?

I probably sound like an absolute pest. Genuinely missing something that you mean to convey. Please explain it, David. For me? :pray:

[christa08]

If Rick can't be here because he's an atheist, then I can't be here because I'm straight. ;)

[dsdrane]

As a disclaimer, I'd like to (re-)iterate that I was a life-long agnostic.

Additionally, I wasn't around for the Anita Bryant pie-flinging, but I came right after. I marched in NYC with ACT-UP, Queer Nation, etc. I waited outside while my (then) boyfriend was shut up in jail with others protesting the exclusion of gay people from the St. Patrick's Day Parade (only because we had a dog...otherwise I would have been arrested, too.)

And, just for good measure, the 2nd edition of The Joy of Gay Sex was (in part) dedicated to me.

I bow down to no one when it comes to gay street cred.

And, as I've said many times on these forums -- and personally to close friends -- I don't care if someone is atheistic. However, my not caring stops when my theism is ridiculed.

Especially here.

I came here because I, long out of the closet, wanted to find others who were attempting to reconcile being out and being religious. I came to religion late. But when I came to it...I CAME TO IT. For me, it was the death of a parent, experiencing 9/11 in NYC (4 blocks away), the end of a long-term relationship...two, actually...and moving away from NYC after an adulthood there...and lots more. What I experienced has nothing to do with anyone else; it's what I experienced.

But I'll be damned to have Rick -- or anyone else -- tell me it was hocus-pocus, irrationality, non-science, or what have you.

Especially here.

I came out as a proud gay person WAY before I came to grips with religion. And, frankly, I'll put my I.Q. up against Rick's or anyone else's on this forum. I'm smart, I'm educated and I'm rational, and I'm not going to sit quietly by while someone here tells me -- or others like me -- that I'm/we're otherwise.

I didn't come this far to put up with b.s. like that.

[wmanion]

Religion and political oppression do not necessarily go hand in hand. Of course, they can and sometime often do, but at the same time, not always. Gandhi would not have been considered a Christian by most Christians, yet we want to follow his practice on non-violence. Soulforce in not made up of an entirely Christian base. It has pagans, wiccans,, Buddhists, and I am sure a few more. The goal here is to be free from religious and political oppression.
According to Wikipedia the definition of religion is as follows: A religion is a set of stories, symbols, beliefs and practices, often with a supernatural quality, that give meaning to the practitioner's experiences of life through reference to an ultimate power or reality.[citation needed] It may be expressed through prayer, ritual, meditation, music and art, among other things. It may focus on specific supernatural, metaphysical, and moral claims about reality (the cosmos, and human nature) which may yield a set of religious laws, ethics, and a particular lifestyle. Religion also encompasses ancestral or cultural traditions, writings, history, and mythology, as well as personal faith and religious experience. What I am trying to say is that religion does not necessarily mean Christianity. Based on Rick’s experiences atheism is his religion.
I really think what the problem here is that David is feeling oppressed by Rick’s comments but I do not believe in any way that was Rick’s intent. Rick has started many threads about his doubts about Christianity that are though provoking and I can certainly see where he is coming from. Most of his threads only stand to remind me that the Bible was written by man. I believe in God with all my heart and I believe that my belief should be manifested to others in the form of love, but as far as many of the Bible stories, I find them mythical and not having anything to do with the love of God at all. I consider most of the Bible the “bathwater” and I threw out the “bathwater” a long time ago but I kept the baby. It is the baby that is the most important to me.
David I am sorry you are feeling oppressed. It is not a good feeling, but I am sure it is just a misunderstanding and from the many things that Rick has written, I do not believe his intent was to cause you to feel this way.

Bill

[Gregory_de_Bois]

I think it is a touchy subject because there are truth-claims made by Christianity that are hard to grapple with. There are a lot of things in the Bible that are misunderstood, and as one of the powerful forces in Western History, it is hard for us not to blame it for some of the atrocities that have happened.

Dominant religions will always raise strife, not because of anything necessarily intrinsic to the religion (much of the issues in America related to religion, have more to do with interpretation than to the truth of the religion itself). When something or someone is in power, we naturally question it. Christianity is no exception.

Moreover, Christianity itself makes some pretty exclusive claims. This doesn't negate the all-embracing love of God, but there is still judgement. I think in the past few centuries, the church has severed belief and practice, or orthodoxy and orthopraxy. There are the "fundies" and there are the "liberals". One grasps the importance of good doctrine while the other knows the necessity of serving. But they each need each other.

Instead of discussing that, though, I want to explain why this is part of the issue. Now we all find ourselves on one side of the isle or the other, or we are struggling to bring them back together. I especially see this as true in the Episcopal Church. I want the inclusive nature, but I want good doctrine too. See, when the issue of Christianity and its definition are brought up, it stirs up a debate that has been raging for 400+ years. I think there is a simple solution (a sort of holistic Christianity), but I think that we are such complicated creatures, it is hard to tackle.

Thus, when we discuss the definition of Christianity, we are obligated to know the history, and beyond that to decide for ourselves. I doubt that we will forge a perfect definition, but that shouldn't stop us from trying.

Namaste.

[Rick336]

Jennifer, do not believe for a second that it wasn't an attack. It was. That's why he's here. Right, Rick?

Why else would he be here?

I'm not here to attack anyone. I do have strong opinions about religion but I've never called anyone stupid for their beliefs. You may think my opinion feels like an attack because it's contrary to your beliefs.


But THIS PLACE is about political and RELIGIOUS equality and justice.

How IS someone who negates RELIGION supposed to contribute to equality and justice in something HE NEGATES??

Is it just me!?

I worry we're so busy trying to be friends that we gloss over the bits that actually negate who we are. That might be ok for some; but it ain't for me.

My argument with Rick is much larger than the two of us agreeing. I don't care about being right; I care about being heard. And that cannot happen when his arguments are based upon what comes out of a testtube.



It sounds like you might be saying that my views and opinions do not belong on this forum because they aren't Christian views. Is that what you're saying?

Or, are you saying that I need to be more tactful in how I voice my opinions and that I should be careful that I don't disrespect the religious beliefs and opinions of others?

Rick

[Rick336]

As a disclaimer, I'd like to (re-)iterate that I was a life-long agnostic.

Additionally, I wasn't around for the Anita Bryant pie-flinging, but I came right after. I marched in NYC with ACT-UP, Queer Nation, etc. I waited outside while my (then) boyfriend was shut up in jail with others protesting the exclusion of gay people from the St. Patrick's Day Parade (only because we had a dog...otherwise I would have been arrested, too.)

And, just for good measure, the 2nd edition of The Joy of Gay Sex was (in part) dedicated to me.

I bow down to no one when it comes to gay street cred.

And, as I've said many times on these forums -- and personally to close friends -- I don't care if someone is atheistic. However, my not caring stops when my theism is ridiculed.

Especially here.

I came here because I, long out of the closet, wanted to find others who were attempting to reconcile being out and being religious. I came to religion late. But when I came to it...I CAME TO IT. For me, it was the death of a parent, experiencing 9/11 in NYC (4 blocks away), the end of a long-term relationship...two, actually...and moving away from NYC after an adulthood there...and lots more. What I experienced has nothing to do with anyone else; it's what I experienced.

But I'll be damned to have Rick -- or anyone else -- tell me it was hocus-pocus, irrationality, non-science, or what have you.

Especially here.

I came out as a proud gay person WAY before I came to grips with religion. And, frankly, I'll put my I.Q. up against Rick's or anyone else's on this forum. I'm smart, I'm educated and I'm rational, and I'm not going to sit quietly by while someone here tells me -- or others like me -- that I'm/we're otherwise.

I didn't come this far to put up with b.s. like that.

I think the message I'm getting from you is that I need to tone down my strong anti-religious opinions some and think before I express my thoughts on this forum so that my words don't come across as offensive and disrespectful to others.

If this is what you're saying then I hear you. I will try to respect everyone's religious beliefs on this forum just as I would want everyone to respect my beliefs.

For instance (when it is appropriate) instead of saying that all religion is "absurd" it would be better for me to say that a society based on scientific evidence and rational thought works much more effective than one based on beliefs in the supernatural. ( or something like that )

Rick

[Rick336]

I sense that Rick is here for the same reason the rest of us are: he's at a certain point in his personal journey through life and activism such that this forum is a place where he can express himself and work through various ideas and philosophies and bounce them off of other social justice advocates.

Yes. This is exactly it. I've been on other internet forums but this forum seems to fit best. Even with some of my controversial opinions here, I've always been made to feel welcome and comfortable to express myself.

And this forum has educated me to points of view that I may never have been exposed to on other forums; for example Paganism, Buddhism, the feelings of being a transgendered person. I have learned so much from others who contribute here. It has helped me see the world from many different points of view.

And many others on this forum are activists for LGBT equality. This forum is the main reason that after years of inactivity, I was back in the streets last November 15th waving a protest sign for LGBT equality.

And I love talking about my past experiences in LGBT activism with stories and photos. Those memories are very important to me and it means a lot to be able to share them with others.

I also love being part of an organization that is out there on the front lines of equality and justice. I may not be an Equality Rider, but at least I can cheer them along from the sidelines.

Thanks Zerbie. :)

Rick

[dsdrane]

If this is what you're saying then I hear you. I will try to respect everyone's religious beliefs on this forum just as I would want everyone to respect my beliefs.

For instance (when it is appropriate) instead of saying that all religion is "absurd" it would be better for me to say that a society based on scientific evidence and rational thought works much more effective than one based on beliefs in the supernatural. ( or something like that )

Rick

I truly believe -- now -- that you're a good guy. I didn't mean to get all in your face...I'm sorry.

But...I want to bring something to your attention:

For instance (when it is appropriate) instead of saying that all religion is "absurd" it would be better for me to say that a society based on scientific evidence and rational thought works much more effective than one based on beliefs in the supernatural. ( or something like that )

Rick

Rick...do you have any idea why this statement might be problematic to people who think the "supernatural" is completely "rational"??

I feel THIS is our impasse.

What say you?

[dsdrane]

It sounds like you might be saying that my views and opinions do not belong on this forum because they aren't Christian views. Is that what you're saying?

Or, are you saying that I need to be more tactful in how I voice my opinions and that I should be careful that I don't disrespect the religious beliefs and opinions of others?

Rick

Yes, I think you should be more tactful...if for no other reason than many come here victims of hateful theology.

But, no, I do not believe that your voice should not be heard on these forums. I have many friends who are atheistic -- straight and gay. Atheism is not my problem, but I do question what function it has here addressing anti-gayness in THEISM. What voice do they actually have there? I'm guessing NONE.

[Matt Algren]

Pardon the interruption, but the problem has to do with extreme evangelism.

A fundamentalist who strongly holds her beliefs but expresses them in respectful terms is a-okay with me, even when she's talking to me about the intricacies of the differences between our beliefs. But when the guy in my town stands on the street with his big 8 foot cross and his mock cemetery with stones for Buddha and Mohamed and shouts at people about how they're going to hell for all eternity if they don't repent and practice his version of Christianity, I find it offensive. There's a big difference between the two, yes?

Likewise, an athiest who strongly holds his beliefs but expresses them in respectful terms is fine by me, even when he's talking to me about the ways he disagrees with me. But when someone on a message board can't let the subject of religion come up without talking about unicorns and magic fairies and tries to foist the horribleness done by some in religious communities on me personally, I find it offensive. The same big difference from the last paragraph is present here.

Extreme evangelists count on emotional reactions to their rhetoric in order to portray themselves as victims. That's true whether they're evangelizing FOR religion or AGAINST religion.

By the way, I'm not making the street preacher guy up, and I'm not talking about anyone here in the second example. I've run into this before and finally had to put the guy on ignore because he was so constantly on-purpose offensive. I don't want to do that here.

[Alecto]

DS: the voice of atheists, agnostics, pagans, faeries, Buddhists, Taoists et all have as to people reconciling their sexuality with their faith is that they, in many cases, have reconciled their sexuality with a faith belief (or lack of one). There's all different kinds of options for how to do that, and I tend to be in favor of giving someone ALL of the options and encouraging informed decisions.

[Rick336]

Rick...do you have any idea why this statement might be problematic to people who think the "supernatural" is completely "rational"??

I feel THIS is our impasse.

What say you?

Yes. Many people believe the supernatural is completely rational because to them it is real. I have a friend who believes demon possession is an absolute fact. There's no question in his mind that a demon can possess a human body much like in the movie "The Exorcist."

But I believe rational thought is based on reality and the only way to know what is real is with trustworthy evidence. When I ask my friend what evidence he has that demon possession is real he says things like, "I knew a man who knew someone who had been possessed by a demon and this man is a Christian and I know he would never lie."

For me, this is not convincing evidence. I'd need to see some physical proof that a previously unknown "evil" force had entered a living body and controlled the thoughts of the person's brain. As far as I know, there has never been any scientific proof that this has ever occurred or could ever occur. In fact, the idea goes against the laws of physics.

Many believe that "supernatural" events take place outside the "natural" world. They believe that the supernatural can't be explained by scientific evidence. But if it can't be explained by evidence, then how do we know it exists? Evidence is how we humans measure the existence of things. It's how we measure reality.

Rick

[u-dog]

Rick,

I have no strong feelings or opinions about the existence or non-existence of demons. I'm fine if they exist and fine if they don't. I've met some pretty Skanky folks over the years but there are reasons other than demon possession that might explain their skankiness just as well.

What I notice, though is that your notions of "natural" and "rational" and "laws of physics" and "scientific" are pretty thoroughly 18th century and almost exclusively Newtonian in nature. But we no longer live in a Newtonian universe.

In a universe (multi-verse?) where there are eleven or twenty six dimensions, some of which exist all rolled up in the folds of other dimensions and in a universe which may in fact be an infinite number of universes layered on top of each other in ways we can't begin to fathom... and in a universe where a change in an atom here can be instanteously reflected by changes in an atom way over there ... In a universe where new answers produce more questions faster than new Questions produce answers .... In this Einsteinian and Quantum environment ... what exactly do the words "super-natural" and "natural" mean? Where does one leave off and the other pick up?

This ain't your grandfather's universe, Rick. It's a big, weird place full of hugely weird shit. Demons? I don't know ... maybe. I never met one ... as far as I know ;)

U-dog

[Alecto]

...more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy, rick? :P

[Pablo Rafael]

In a universe (multi-verse?) where there are eleven or twenty six dimensions, some of which exist all rolled up in the folds of other dimensions and in a universe which may in fact be an infinite number of universes layered on top of each other in ways we can't begin to fathom... and in a universe where a change in an atom here can be instanteously reflected by changes in an atom way over there ... In a universe where new answers produce more questions faster than new Questions produce answers .... In this Einsteinian and Quantum environment ... what exactly do the words "super-natural" and "natural" mean? Where does one leave off and the other pick up?


It sounds to me like we are getting into string theory in this conversation.

From my point of view, I see every discovery and understanding of the universe bringing me closer to an understanding of God. If string theory is correct and everything is made up of almost infinitely small strings of vibrating energy it seems almost a religious idea to me. When we get into Einsteine's theories, quantam mechanics or string theory, is anything really rational at that level? The spiritual and scientific seem to blur together.

[Rick336]

In a universe (multi-verse?) where there are eleven or twenty six dimensions, some of which exist all rolled up in the folds of other dimensions and in a universe which may in fact be an infinite number of universes layered on top of each other in ways we can't begin to fathom... and in a universe where a change in an atom here can be instanteously reflected by changes in an atom way over there ... In a universe where new answers produce more questions faster than new Questions produce answers .... In this Einsteinian and Quantum environment ... what exactly do the words "super-natural" and "natural" mean? Where does one leave off and the other pick up?

It sounds to me like we are getting into string theory in this conversation.

From my point of view, I see every discovery and understanding of the universe bringing me closer to an understanding of God. If string theory is correct and everything is made up of almost infinitely small strings of vibrating energy it seems almost a religious idea to me. When we get into Einsteine's theories, quantam mechanics or string theory, is anything really rational at that level? The spiritual and scientific seem to blur together.


I agree that there is a strange universe out there. And as you mentioned above, a growing number of physicists believe in the possibility of a string theory and that their may be many other universes or dimensions other than the one we live in. But what these physicists are looking for is evidence to prove their theory. Searching for evidence to back up a theory is what science is all about. That’s how the theory of gravity, or evolution, or the big bang is held by almost all scientists because the overwhelming evidence backs it up.

If someday in the future they find enough trustworthy evidence that string theory is real and that other dimensions do exists then it becomes less of a theory and more of a fact because of the evidence. It will become part of the real world.

Several hundred years ago most people believed that when someone suddenly fell to the ground kicking and foaming at the mouth that a demon had possessed their body. Through years of scientific research it was discovered that instead of a supernatural evil force, it was a neurological disorder called epilepsy that was causing this. The previous belief of demon possession was irrational because no evidence backed it up. Evidence is where you draw the line between real and not real.

It’s through research and finding evidence that we discover reality. So far, there is no trustworthy evidence to show that the “supernatural” or “spiritual” world exists. To believe that it exists without evidence is called faith.


Rick

[Daniel]

Oh ye of little faith!











sorry...sorry..sorry....

:smashy::borg::running:

:lol: