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/show...6508#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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Jennifer5

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]

Originally Posted by andrewlittle

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]

Originally Posted by Jennifer5

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]

Originally Posted by andrewlittle

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]

Originally Posted by Jennifer5

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]

Originally Posted by dsdrane

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]

Originally Posted by dsdrane

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?

[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