Calling all non-kooky Christians...

[Finella]

In the last few days I had been observing and thinking about the posts in this region of the forum, and agreeing that it really is difficult to post reasonable, sincere responses to threads which get swept up in two-way personal attacks. Here's an attempt to bring something different, we'll see how it goes.

We subscribe to The Door Magazine, billed as "Pretty much the world's only Christian satire magazine". In the latest issue there was this great commentary by Ole Anthony which I think is relevant to some of the discussions we've been having here -- that is, that Christianity gets a bad rap because of the loonies out there.

http://www.thedoormagazine.com/lastword-186.html

I like that he gives a clearer translation of the Great Commission, and that he describes how other religions handle conversion with less of a trivial flair than the Christian faith does.

For the purposes of this thread, I wonder what it is that Christians who use reason and scholarship as well as personal faith to guide them in daily lives can do to help dispel the negative perception of Christianity -- here in this forum, or in the world. Broad question, but I'm curious what people have to say.

---,---'--{@

 

[Guest]

I describe myself as an atheist/agnostic/Christian... atheist because I don't have any reason to believe in a god. Agnostic, because there's no knowing. Christian because the philosophies attributed to Jesus are the example by which I try to live my life.

Much of the negative view of Christians is unreasoning. Much of it is deserved however. If Christians would actually try harder to follow the teachings of Christ, there'd be far fewer hypocrits giving the whole a tarnished image. Worldwide, that is. I'd like to see more Christians posting here, they're underrepresented.

Other than those small words I have nothing significant to offer. Thanks for the flower!

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

For the purposes of this thread, I wonder what it is that Christians who use reason and scholarship as well as personal faith to guide them in daily lives can do to help dispel the negative perception of Christianity -- here in this forum, or in the world. Broad question, but I'm curious what people have to say.

---,---'--{@

The problem is not the dearth of reasoning Christians or the seeming multitude of woo woo Christians in toto, it's their representation on the 'Net.

One of my closest IRL friends is a Cantor with his Eastern Orthodox church. He's very much into spirituality and mysticism... as it relates to his religion, but totally rejects all the other horsecrap that the woo woos and creduloids espouse. Tomorrow as a matter of fact, we're both going to the North Texas Skeptics meeting where UFOs as Religion will be discussed. But he has to make sure to leave on time to make it to Vespers.

This is the same man who accompanied me to a presentation by "Biblical Archaeologist" Ron Wyatt (links showing how full of ◊◊◊◊ this guy was on request) and we both sat there looking at each other thinking "how the hell could he say that and why are so many of these rubes nodding in agreement."

The problem is that "John" is in the minority on the web. He's got a webpage devoted to his church and has joined a web forum or two, but he's a working man who doesn't have much time to present the opinions of the rationally devout. What we then are left with are the marginally literate who somehow scrounge up the $22/mo. for AOL or the master diatribist who comes across as a cement brained troll with an agenda.

The rational devout are out there. I just wish they'd have more of a web presence and not be scared off from forums like this one due to the misperception that you have to be atheist or agnostic to be a "complete" skeptic.

 

[SFB]

Agnostic, because there's no knowing.

I say lack of evidence, human nature, knowledge of cultures (world-wide), history, are evidence for the non-existance of god.


edited, spelling.....

 

[Skeptical Greg]

I posted something in a similar vein a few days ago..

Sincere Theists, Deists, Christians... Where are you?


It serves as sort of a wake-up call, but is pretty much lost on the JREF forums, because very few of our members profess
to be practicing Christians, and we can't really know if the ones who seem to be ' kooky ', are playing some
kind of game.

 

[Guest]

I say lack of evidence, human nature, knowledge of cultures (world-wide), history, are evidence for the non-existance of god.


edited, spelling.....

A lack of evidence is evidence? human nature, culural and historical knowledge aren't evidence either...

 

[Finella]

I posted something in a similar vein a few days ago..

Yeah, Diogenes, I forgot to give you credit when I first started the thread; it was that which inspired me to try a different kind of topic. Thank you!

I reacquainted myself with a really cool rational Christian website a friend shared with me; he even has JREF on his (absolutely huge) links page: http://www.pathguy.com/

I highly recommend his site for anyone here. Although I'm sure some people might not completely agree with him on why one should be a Christian, he makes his arguments in succinct and reasonable ways, and parallels them with reasons to be an athiest and an agnostic.

Maybe we just need to "Evangelize" about reasonable, compassionate (not to be confused with "Compassionate conservative") Christianity more....::shrug::

---,---'--{@
(ES... always sign with flowers, I figure why not leave something beautiful wherever you go? )

 

[SFB]

A lack of evidence is evidence? human nature, culural and historical knowledge aren't evidence either...

EP:

When taken in toto, it's evidence enough for me! Do you really need proof? I mean when scholars stack up the evidence for the very likelihood that Jesus did not exist (a mere fabrication by Paul), that says something to me (http://www.jesuspuzzle.com). When I see religious wars it says something to me. When I see no evidence for the existence of a Xtian god, or any god, it says something to me. As I travel the world, and experience other cultures and how they view religion, all claiming to be the true religion, it says something to me. When I consider human nature, and the need for some to believe, it says something to me..........I could go on, but I think you get the picture.

I hope you don't consider this a personal attack, just discussion.

 

[Kiri]

For the purposes of this thread, I wonder what it is that Christians who use reason and scholarship as well as personal faith to guide them in daily lives can do to help dispel the negative perception of Christianity -- here in this forum, or in the world. Broad question, but I'm curious what people have to say.

---,---'--{@

Ooh, I love roses!
(chomp, munch munch munch gulp)

Okay then! I'm not a Christian (so feel free to ignore me if you wish), but I do have have one or two points I hope are relevant:

The problem goes beyond the TV preachers hustling for bucks (though make no mistake: they're a big part of the problem in that they cheapen and sensationalize evangelism, and their occasional, highly public scandals besmirch the faith as a whole). The root cause, I believe, is that moderate, reasoned voices have abandoned public discussion of religious topics to the fundamentalists, the Biblical literalists in particular.
Fixing this will be an uphill battle: it will require that authoritative Christian writers and clergy publicly and repeatedly endorse science and informed inquiry into theology. I practised paganism for a few years, and the problem is much the same: the public image is shaped primarily by the colorful dingbats who make the most noise. Rein them in, and credibility results. Be prepared to be burned as a heretic, though...

-Kiri the unicorn

 

[Gregor]

The only ethical Christian is a kookie one

Allow me to argue that the term 'liberal Xian' is (while probably describing a nice person) an oxymoron - only fundamentalists have logical consistency.

Let me define a liberal Xian as one who (i) has read parts of the bible, (ii) accepts Jesus as a historical figure, (iii) accepts Jesus as a divine figure (more than man), and (iv) believes in an after life. And no more.

Thus you can be a liberal Xian without accepting: (i) biblical inerrancy, (ii) original sin as a historical truth, (iii) eternal punishment for non-belief, or (iv) an impending second coming.

A fundamentalist Xian must accept inerrancy, original sin, a real ark, eternal punishment, virgin birth, a second coming, the trinity, the resurrection, answering of prayers, snake handling, and etc.

My argument is that the only logically consistent position to take - if you're going to profess a belief - is fundamentalist xian.

A liberal xian says:
1. I'm going to pick and choose what to accept from the Bible
2. I'm not basing my decision on what is a 'core' belief on external proof or archeological evidence.
3. I'm not basing my decision on core beliefs based upon divine instruction to me.
4. I'm just chosing those parts that make me feel good.

Isn't that a flawed basis for a belief system?

A fundamentalist says:
1. I believe everything in the bible - 100%
2. As a result I need to: proselytize, accept the ark, accept the imminent second coming, believe in a wrathful OT god, & etc.

While we don't want to hang around the fundamentalist, his position is internally consistent (although externally contradicted by science). We like the liberal, but his position is 'wacky' because it's the gospel according to himself.

We should never convert based upon the witnessing of the liberal, because when we ask "why are your beliefs correct?" the answer is: "'cause it sounds good to me."

 

[Ipecac]

I only became an atheist within the last couple of years. There's still a decent amount of anger in me over all the lies, guilt trips, and other nonsense the Christian church teaches.

However, as long as someone is up front about their faith, acknowledging that there's no proof of it and that it's what they choose to believe, I don't have much problem with it and would treat them with all due respect.

 

[Guest]

----
However, as long as someone is up front about their faith, acknowledging that there's no proof of it and that it's what they choose to believe, I don't have much problem with it and would treat them with all due respect.
----


That's the same way I feel about your faith.

 

[Ipecac]

----
However, as long as someone is up front about their faith, acknowledging that there's no proof of it and that it's what they choose to believe, I don't have much problem with it and would treat them with all due respect.
----


That's the same way I feel about your faith.

While I appreciate the sentiment, I have no faith.

 

[darling]

Re: The only ethical Christian is a kookie one

My argument is that the only logically consistent position to take - if you're going to profess a belief - is fundamentalist xian.

I think the problem is in your definitions.

A fundamentalist picks and chooses from the bible just as much as anyone else. Moreover a fundamentalist is not open to the possibility they are wrong. In fact, they define any evidence that contradicts their viewpoint as false. Using that logic, you can prove, well... pretty much anything.

This is best illustrated if you've ever seen two fundamentalists disagree on one issue. One of them must be wrong, but each thinks it's the other one.

 

[Wally]

I describe myself as an atheist/agnostic/Christian... atheist because I don't have any reason to believe in a god. Agnostic, because there's no knowing. Christian because the philosophies attributed to Jesus are the example by which I try to live my life.

Much of the negative view of Christians is unreasoning. Much of it is deserved however. If Christians would actually try harder to follow the teachings of Christ, there'd be far fewer hypocrits giving the whole a tarnished image. Worldwide, that is. I'd like to see more Christians posting here, they're underrepresented.

Other than those small words I have nothing significant to offer. Thanks for the flower!

E.P., have you ever visited-- http://www.atheistsforjesus.com/ --? Lot of interesting refrences. also the book he sells made for some very interesting reading.

 

[Yahzi]

Gregor is right. Liberal Xianity is dead. You have to choose between fundy or athiest now.

Liberal Xianity was predicated on the God of the Gaps theory. Science explained what it could, and God was everything else.

But science has filled in all the gaps that matter. All that is left for God is stupid stuff, like quark glue and the cosmological constant. That's not enough to support a personal, loving force.

So you have three choices: a) reject science and feel good, b) reject religion and eat well, c) remain ignorant. Option c) enjoys huge popularity, but supplies are going fast.

 

[muscleman]

I dont talk here to impress them of my spirtual life (though that is what we should all do), but heck, its fun debating with atheists, it makes me feel powerfull, considering the fact that I always debunk their arguments, and they wind up looking stupid (and i love that feeling...).. revealing their stupidity makes me feel powerfull (such as their distorted view on the word "faith", "nature as chance", "omniscience/freewill argument", etc. etc.).

 

[SFB]

I dont talk here to impress them of my spirtual life (though that is what we should all do), but heck, its fun debating with atheists, it makes me feel powerfull, considering the fact that I always debunk their arguments, and they wind up looking stupid (and i love that feeling...).. revealing their stupidity makes me feel powerfull (such as their distorted view on the word "faith", "nature as chance", "omniscience/freewill argument", etc. etc.).

MM

Do you know what? You make me very angry, very very angry. And the reason is: you do not address my post in this thread, yet promote your ideas without challenging mine. Think About It MM, THINK, use YOUR Brain.

 

[Guest]

While I appreciate the sentiment, I have no faith.

Your idea/worldview/philosophy/thoughts about the way things are/etc.

is what I meant.

 

[Finella]

Re: Re: Calling all non-kooky Christians...

The problem goes beyond the TV preachers hustling for bucks (though make no mistake: they're a big part of the problem in that they cheapen and sensationalize evangelism, and their occasional, highly public scandals besmirch the faith as a whole). The root cause, I believe, is that moderate, reasoned voices have abandoned public discussion of religious topics to the fundamentalists, the Biblical literalists in particular.
Fixing this will be an uphill battle: it will require that authoritative Christian writers and clergy publicly and repeatedly endorse science and informed inquiry into theology. I practised paganism for a few years, and the problem is much the same: the public image is shaped primarily by the colorful dingbats who make the most noise. Rein them in, and credibility results. Be prepared to be burned as a heretic, though...

I hope the moderate to liberal Christians haven't abandoned public discussion of religious topics!

I know my church holds all sorts of open-to-the-public discussion groups, ranging from Ghandi to C.S. Lewis to crises in the Middle East (for Lent they are hosting religious leaders from Christian, Muslim, and Jewish faiths for panel discussions on this topic). I guess the problem is visibility, for one thing. The Fundies have a bamboozled a whole lot of people of their money and thus can spread their literalist, either be a Real Christian or be an athiest, hateful philosophy far and wide. they do it in a very attention-getting way, too. I think I said in Diogenes' thread before that it's against my religion to seek that kind of attention. But is that the solution?