Respecting Christians

[rcfieldz]

Is there a problem?

Respect...should be given to all beings. Do Christians create a respecting blockade to your existence?

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Again, it's hard for me to see what about this viewpoint is repugnant.

It's the banality of the evil that does it.

 

[Minarvia]

Respect...should be given to all beings. Do Christians create a respecting blockade to your existence?

I personally do not think that respect should be "given" to all beings. They should be earned/deserving of it. Now, the criteria of that is another discussion. But I do not automatically respect everyone, nor should I feel that I should do so. I also had a father who I loved but was not a very honourable man, or even a terribly good one, or a good father. I loved him, but I could not respect of honour him. I later came to understand that I simply could not "honour" a man who was not "honourable." I can also substitute the word "respect" here.

 

[bruto]

Respect...should be given to all beings. Do Christians create a respecting blockade to your existence?

Yes, sometimes they do, when they put aside all respect for others and assume that only their own point of view is valid and all others are fraught with sin and damnation. If they enter the room with guns blazing, they cannot expect respect from those already in it.

That said, I count myself lucky that I know few Christians of that sort anywhere but on this board! I have no problem at all respecting the many Christians I know in real life, who are respectable and respecting people in general, whatever they may think in private. We get along fine, with religion a topic rarely if ever discussed.

 

[nabee]

It's more than the general intellectual torpor that is intrinsically linked to blind faith that makes it difficult for me to cultivate respect for Christians. (I single out Christianity, but you can freely substitute that with other Abrahamic religions.) What irks me the most is the particularly sinister fact that a believer can't disagree with the whim or the actions of their god. His divine judgement is flawless and to dissent or disapprove would surely be a sinful act of rebellion.

So, by necessity, Christians tacitly condone my eternal suffering, and, if they're really trying, they should Psalm 58:10 me.

I can get along with a Christian in most instances by settling with the fact that they probably don't wish me perennial perdition, they just haven't thought about it much, have explained it through some ridiculous hermeneutic magic trick, and/or haven't even read the book they should be reading daily. Still, it's an uncomfortable thought, right? Hell for me is justice in their eyes... and maybe a few others'.

Do you find it difficult to respect Christians, and why isn't this point discussed more when the topic of religion pops up or a believer has a seizure at us because he thinks we aren't respecting his beliefs?

It's an interesting question. I think that I don't have a hard time respecting Christians themselves--if I don't see them as "crazy" or over the top. I think I'm certainly tolerant of Christianity and Christian beliefs, but I have a hard time respecting individuals. Respecting Christianity (or what it's supposed to be) isn't hard--but what IS difficult for me is respecting the interpretation of Christianity and it's application.

The other problem is that Christians (fundamentlist Christians who have all the answers anyway... ) don't always respect the non-Christian and his/her beliefs. Sometimes they treat Christianity as a club that non-believers or questioners are not invited to join!

 

[Tricky]

I personally do not think that respect should be "given" to all beings. They should be earned/deserving of it. Now, the criteria of that is another discussion. But I do not automatically respect everyone, nor should I feel that I should do so. I also had a father who I loved but was not a very honourable man, or even a terribly good one, or a good father. I loved him, but I could not respect of honour him. I later came to understand that I simply could not "honour" a man who was not "honourable." I can also substitute the word "respect" here.

I understand completely what you are saying. For me, respect is something where you start with a perfect score and can only lose points. A total stranger, I respect completely until the point where they start losing my respect. Sometimes they gain some back too.

But yeah, pretending to respect someone who has, by their actions, lost all their respect points is ridiculous. That's why I contest that biblical commandment "honor thy father and mother". Total BS. Honor them if they've continued to earn it, but not "under any circumstances". I know kids who were raped by a parent. Are they still suppose to honor them after that? That's a complete crock.

 

[Darth Rotor]

So, by necessity, Christians tacitly condone my eternal suffering

Which is a result of your choice to not wish to be with God.
So, you'll be elsewhere. You may not even suffer, if you don't want to be in His presence. I think some of the presumption of suffering is based on the idea that all people more or less want to be in God's presence, but won't do the hard work to get there.

That presumption gets a little pear shaped when people (and even a few of the angels waaaaaaaaaay back) simply want nothing to do with God.

So, you are the one condoning your own suffering, if that suffering is to be had.

For stilicho: for that post, you are my hero for the week.

 

[Trakar]

Thanks, everyone, for your responses. It's too late to respond to all of those that I'd like to respond to, so I'll respond to one and get to the others when it's not 4:00am on a Wednesday.



That's a very semantically clever way of dodging the issue. I don't care if you hold the same standards to yourself as you do to me, because I'm not a lad of faith. I've no chance of making it to heaven by any biblically consistent method of judgement, but my endless torture is a just outcome for my atheism under your system of belief. For you to think that is completely repulsive.

And God's put in a really lame amount of effort to "put me in touch with him", but let's just leave that discussion at the door.

The primary torture of hell, the torture and agony all the biblical analogies refer to, is the suffering endured by those who wish to be joined with God and are prevented from doing so as a result of their actions making such a union impossible. If you don't believe in, or want to be united with God, being seperated from Him would not be the same for you as it would for someone who sincerely desired that outcome. But, those are my particular christian beliefs.

 

[Tricky]

Which is a result of your choice to not wish to be with God.

It's not a coice to "not wish to be with God", it is a conclusion that there is no God to be with. Atheists don't hate or reject God, they just don't accept any of the descriptions of Him.

So, you'll be elsewhere. You may not even suffer, if you don't want to be in His presence. I think some of the presumption of suffering is based on the idea that all people more or less want to be in God's presence, but won't do the hard work to get there.

Depends on who you ask. Some Christians claim that you don't have to do any work at all. That all you have to do is accept Jesus as your savior. What kind of work is that? You can do it on you death bed. Others say that works are important, but that's kinda iffy too, because many non-Christians are just as good at "works" as the Christians. Can't have those loving and caring athieists into heaven, wot? As for suffering, well, being human, I cannot deny that I have sometimes happily imagined my enemies suffering either temporarily or eternally. When I think about it seriously, I lose such angry thoughts, but I still admit that they are a knee-jerk reaction to dealing with people who piss me off. So that has been incorporated into a religion? What a shock!

That presumption gets a little pear shaped when people (and even a few of the angels waaaaaaaaaay back) simply want nothing to do with God.

The idea that angels are fallable should make one a little skeptical of anything an angel says, should it not?

So, you are the one condoning your own suffering, if that suffering is to be had.

No. The suffering is ordained by some of the the Christian versions of God. Admitting that oneself would be punished by the rules that said version of God decrees is not the same as condoning it. In most cases, it is just the opposite.

 

[Trakar]

It's an interesting question. I think that I don't have a hard time respecting Christians themselves--if I don't see them as "crazy" or over the top. I think I'm certainly tolerant of Christianity and Christian beliefs, but I have a hard time respecting individuals. Respecting Christianity (or what it's supposed to be) isn't hard--but what IS difficult for me is respecting the interpretation of Christianity and it's application...

A most interesting and cogent distinction, between Christianity, and the particular behaviors and actions some seek to support in their personal interpretation of christianity. If I'm not bending or misinterpreting your terms, I agree with them.

 

[Trakar]

Which is a result of your choice to not wish to be with God.
So, you'll be elsewhere. You may not even suffer, if you don't want to be in His presence. I think some of the presumption of suffering is based on the idea that all people more or less want to be in God's presence, but won't do the hard work to get there.

That presumption gets a little pear shaped when people (and even a few of the angels waaaaaaaaaay back) simply want nothing to do with God.

So, you are the one condoning your own suffering, if that suffering is to be had.

For stilicho: for that post, you are my hero for the week.

Affirmation that my interpretation is not unique.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Which is a result of your choice to not wish to be with God.
So, you'll be elsewhere. You may not even suffer, if you don't want to be in His presence. I think some of the presumption of suffering is based on the idea that all people more or less want to be in God's presence, but won't do the hard work to get there.

16:22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;
16:23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
16:24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.
16:25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.

Here ends the reading of the daaayum.

Affirmation that my interpretation is not unique.

Not at all unique. It's a view that's quite popular with Skybeard Christians, who get by pretending the Bible doesn't really say the things it really says.

 

[Mycroft]

What irks me the most is the particularly sinister fact that a believer can't disagree with the whim or the actions of their god. His divine judgement is flawless and to dissent or disapprove would surely be a sinful act of rebellion.

Is that true?

Abraham disagreed with God over his plans for Sodom, even argued with him over it. God loved Abraham so much he made him father of...well, all the Abrahamic religions.

 

[devnull]

More than Vegans?

Or Amway reps perhaps?

 

[JoeMorgue]

I have weird ideas about what respect and tolerance are and they generally don't jive with the "Live and Let Live" attitude.

The people I deeply respect (notice I didn't say like, I think it is often forgeotten that those are two seperate concepts) are those I am willing to argue with.

As Penn Jillette said the whole "Believe whatever you want, that's okay" is rather condesending. That's how you speak to a child not someone you consider an social and intellectual equal.

The closest thing I have to a distilled moral code is the idea that the single most insulting thing you can do to someone, a slight so terrible that to me it is almost literally dehumanzing, is to have absolutely no expectations of them. Not holding someone else to the same standards you hold yourself to is to me probably the greatest evil you visit upon someone. It's condesending, it's hypocritical, it's pandering, and it provides no benefit other then a smug sense of self superiority.

For me saying "I don't care what you think" to someone you claim to respect is a total mindscrew. It is basically saying "I think so little of you that I have given up on your ability to improve" or "I think so little of you I don't think your opinions can survive in an open exchange of ideas." To me "I don't care what you think" is simply an overtly polite to the point of dishonesty way of saying "Not only are you wrong, but I've given up hope of you ever being right. Not only do I see you as wrong I see you incapable of ever being right."

 

[Orphia Nay]

Compartmentalize. The vast majority of Christians that I know don't wear their religion on their sleeves. If you don't want to talk about religion, you normally won't have to. Most have many things you can respect them for. Focus on that.

But if the discussion turns to religion, let them know how you feel and agree to disagree. You can still respect a person without respecting all their beliefs. I'd venture to say that there are few people in the world who share all your beliefs.

This. Well said.

 

[Flo]

What about a believer whose concern is about your future and well-being and wants to share that with you? Do you consider that to be "bugging" you?

Definitely :

"You can't go around building a better world for people. Only people can build a better world for people. Otherwise it's just a cage."
{Terry Pratchett, Witches Abroad}

So the follow up question would be: Do you try to convince others that their beliefs are bogus under the same premise that you have a concern about their future and well-being and do you it the same way (that is, if they say that they are perfectly happy with their religious convictions do you stop trying to present proof about why their beliefs are illogical or contradictory)?

Stating why I'm not going to share their beliefs is enough, trying to change theirs would be "bugging". Trying to change (parts of) their behaviour towards those who don't share their beliefs is another matter, though.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Yes, Hell is the appropriate consequence of your rebellion -- and mine, too. We're no different on this point.

I'm not happy about it; neither is God. That's why so much effort has been expended in trying to put you in touch with Him to fix it.

So I'm not sure why you would have a problem respecting me. I'm not judging you any differently than I judge myself, and I'm no more interested in your suffering than in my own.

Isn't god Omniscient though? So he knows that Legend and I will both fail to believe in him and therefore be sent to hell, and has always known this from before the start of the universe.

So...how is it our choice? It was already predetermined by the fact that god knows how absolutely everything will pan out right up until the eventual end of time/the universe/whatever. There can be no choice because our destination is already known.

 

[Flo]

So, by necessity, Christians tacitly condone my eternal suffering, ....

More wish than condone, given the fact that the existence of god(s) and eternal punishment(s) aren't attested, to say the least.

Yes, Hell is the appropriate consequence of your rebellion -- and mine, too. We're no different on this point.

I'm not happy about it; neither is God.

Another version of "beating you hurts me more than it does you", which has served bullies well over the ages. Works only on those who believe in hell, though.

Which is a result of your choice to not wish to be with God.

[snip theological considerations].

So, you are the one condoning your own suffering, if that suffering is to be had.

The only result and/or suffering that I see in this line of arguments is having to put up with the covert wish for punishment-cum-blaming-the-potential-victims against those who dare not share the believers' religion, whatever it is.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

That's a very semantically clever way of dodging the issue. I don't care if you hold the same standards to yourself as you do to me, because I'm not a lad of faith. I've no chance of making it to heaven by any biblically consistent method of judgement, but my endless torture is a just outcome for my atheism under your system of belief. For you to think that is completely repulsive.

And God's put in a really lame amount of effort to "put me in touch with him", but let's just leave that discussion at the door.

Wouldn't a lot depend on a particular Christian's beliefs? For instance for the lot that I was born into hell is simply life apart from god, and god - because he sacrificed his own son - will forgive us everything and anything so we all get everlasting life in the presence of god. My lot abhorred those "non-true-scot" Christians who believed that god would condemn anyone to everlasting suffering and who would pass judgements on others e.g. "only god can judge you".*


(Of course all that comes with the usual denial of reality, logical fallacies and outright contradictions that infest the many flavours of Christianity.)



*ETA: Apart from Roman Catholics of course - my lot were very explicit that they could not be forgiven by god, or anyone else or be left in your best room without checking their pockets when they left for stolen cutlery - my lot really didn't like the RCers!