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

[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]

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 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.

Originally Posted by dsdrane

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Zerbie

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]

Originally Posted by Rick336

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:

Originally Posted by Rick336

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]

Originally Posted by Rick336

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]

Originally Posted by dsdrane

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]

Originally Posted by u-dog

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]

Originally Posted by u-dog

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?

Originally Posted by Pablo Rafael

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....