Respecting Christians

[Tricky]

I respect people. Unless they give me some reason not to. Their religion has nothing to do with whether I respect them or not. Their behaviour does. Some of that behaviour may be informed by their religion, some of it perhaps not. Regardless, it isn't what they believe that I take into consideration. It's how they act.

Exactly. This talk about "respecting beliefs" is codswhallop. "Beliefs" are not cognizant being that seek or deserve respect. You can only show respect to the people holding those beliefs, and you do that by listening to what they say, not by agreeing with it. In certain situations (like a religious discussion) letting their comments go without challenging them shows a lack of respect. You are saying essentially, "I don't even think enough of you to discuss your beliefs." True, we all do it. I know people who go nuts when you challenge them, so I don't. But then, I don't much respect those people either.

Earlier in this thread I invoked Darth Rotor as a Christian I respect. Then only a few posts later, I argued (politely) with what he said. That's respect.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

If I'm not saved by Jesus, I'm a sinner. Sinners deserve Hell because God deems it so for some reason. God's judgement is flawless and perfectly just. You, therefore, as a follower of your god, condone my and anyone else's suffering based on the whim of your deity.

...snip...

You missed out a "according to some self-labelled Christians" at the start of that.

 

[Legend]

Yes, I'm aware that you gave yourself an out -- so that, again, you can tell Christians what they believe and then refuse to listen to them.

Prejudice isn't any better when you do it, you know.

But that's exactly the thing: I'm not telling them what they believe. I'm giving them an out, not me. I'm doing the polar opposite of what you're saying I'm doing. That was the entire purpose of that whole paragraph. You're like the 100% direct inverse of correct.

ETA:

You missed out a "according to some self-labelled Christians" at the start of that.

Like I said above, I addressed that directly in the OP.

Exactly. This talk about "respecting beliefs" is codswhallop.

I cannot respect someone who tries to justify the eternal suffering of another person based on blind faith or some other thoughtless religious conviction.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Exactly. This talk about "respecting beliefs" is codswhallop. "Beliefs" are not cognizant being that seek or deserve respect. You can only show respect to the people holding those beliefs, and you do that by listening to what they say, not by agreeing with it. In certain situations (like a religious discussion) letting their comments go without challenging them shows a lack of respect. You are saying essentially, "I don't even think enough of you to discuss your beliefs." True, we all do it. I know people who go nuts when you challenge them, so I don't. But then, I don't much respect those people either.

I strongly agree with this.

I was one of those for whom, in high school, many onlookers thought my very closest friends and I couldn't stand each other -- but the whole point was that we were comfortable questioning each others' beliefs because we respected each other.

None of my close friends were devout Christians, so we always had plenty to talk about.

 

[Darat]

So if I'm understanding correctly, you're saying that hypothetically, an atheist could be admitted to heaven or avoid hell (whatever reward/punishment you believe occurs in the afterlife), and never believe in the divinity of God or Jesus or worship them?

I expect that in practice, even if a Christian agreed with that, the follow-up would be: but no one can live a life so perfectly that they could get into heaven on their own actions, so they need to accept Jesus to be forgiven for their sins.

Then we'd be right back to the idea that non-Christians deserve torture in the afterlife simply for not believing in Jesus, even if they're far above average in good behavior.

Do you think a better-behaved atheist, who still isn't perfect, is more deserving of punishment in the afterlife than a worse-behaved Christian, who has done whatever you think is necessary to have his sins atoned by Jesus?

Nope - as I said my lot (a form of primitive methodists) held that everyone would go to heaven - that was the reason for Jesus being sacrificed - whether they are baptised, know the lord's prayer or the worse sinner imaginable god's love is infinite and so he will forgive us our sins.

(Don't ask me to argue how they get to the above, there was a reason I stopped going to compulsory Sunday school!)

ETA: This is a problem that comes up time and time again, generalisations about "the Christians" do not really work as there are hundreds of different kinds of Christians and most denominations hold different things to be true, some will hold that other people who label themselves "Christian" are heretics and so on. What I try to do when I want to make more general comments about "the Christians" is to specify the denomination I am talking about. The RCC is a good for this as it has over a billion folk who say they are RCers and it is a heirarchal, centralised religion so we can make statements about what a RC does believe (according to their own church).

 

[arthwollipot]

I strongly agree with this.

I was one of those for whom, in high school, many onlookers thought my very closest friends and I couldn't stand each other -- but the whole point was that we were comfortable questioning each others' beliefs because we respected each other.

None of my close friends were devout Christians, so we always had plenty to talk about.

And this is why I respect you, and your beliefs have nothing to do with that.

 

[Legend]

ETA: This is a problem that comes up time and time again, generalisations about "the Christians" do not really work as there are hundreds of different kinds of Christians and most denominations hold different things to be true, some will hold that other people who label themselves "Christian" are heretics and so on. What I try to do when I want to make more general comments about "the Christians" is to specify the denomination I am talking about. The RCC is a good for this as it has over a billion folk who say they are RCers and it is a heirarchal, centralised religion so we can make statements about what a RC does believe (according to their own church).

That seems awfully tedious. What I'm saying really isn't any mad biblical interpretation; actually, it's rather consistent. To disagree with the "Jesus saves" premise would contradict pretty much the entire idea of Christianity and make defunct the purpose of Jesus's sacrifice, but if you want to explain it to conform to modern, civil ethics through implementing an "hermeneutic magic trick" then your morals probably aren't as fundamentally savage as biblically consistent morals would be. This is, as I've said, outlined in the OP.

 

[A'isha]

I cannot respect someone who tries to justify the eternal suffering of another person based on blind faith or some other thoughtless religious conviction.

The thing is, as you yourself pointed out, this is only true in the most abstract, theoretical sense. Sure, if you really think about it and focus on it (like the Westboro bunch does), it's problematic.

But, in my experience, most Christians don't even consider it in the most vague of fashions. I live in the Deep South of the United States of America (called the Bible Belt for a very good reason!), and I can count on one hand the number of times anyone, even strangers, has told me (or probably even thought) I was going to hell. My friends and coworkers have certainly never given any indication whatsoever that they've even considered that, much less been worried about it.

Going around and refusing to give anyone even nominally Christian any respect just because you think that, deep down inside, they're totally thinking about you roasting in hell for all eternity, simply because they're Christian and that's what you tell yourself that Christians really believe about people is, to me, just paranoid nonsense.

Because I can pretty much guarantee you that if you're in a room full of Christian friends, family members, or even average strangers, the only one in that room who would be thinking about your eternal torment would be you.

 

[LarianLeQuella]

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

In other words: This gawd fellow is an impotent twat...

 

[Legend]

Going around and refusing to give anyone even nominally Christian any respect just because you think that, deep down inside, they're totally thinking about you roasting in hell for all eternity, simply because they're Christian and that's what you tell yourself that Christians really believe about people is, to me, just paranoid nonsense.

Because I can pretty much guarantee you that if you're in a room full of Christian friends, family members, or even average strangers, the only one in that room who would be thinking about your eternal torment would be you.

Whoops, ignore what I had written here, I missed the "as you yourself pointed out". Apologies, sir. (If you missed it, it wasn't anything sinister, don't worry.)

(P.S. From which anime is your avatar? I only just started on the genre, and I've gotten through three animes and I enjoyed them.)

 

[A'isha]

(P.S. From which anime is your avatar? I only just started on the genre, and I've gotten through three animes and I enjoyed them.)

The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya (the specific character in my avatar is Yuki Nagato).

It's one of the best and most popular anime series of the '00s, but it also plays heavily with the common tropes and cliches of anime (especially harem comedies), so you'd probably enjoy it more the more anime you've seen.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Not to my knowledge.
Feel free to correct me if you have Scripture, but my understanding is that disbelief in the Bible is presented as an excuse to allow people to justify their sins, not a sin itself.

Oooh! Oooh! That's my cue!

12:31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.
12:32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.

Nope - as I said my lot (a form of primitive methodists) held that everyone would go to heaven - that was the reason for Jesus being sacrificed - whether they are baptised, know the lord's prayer or the worse sinner imaginable god's love is infinite and so he will forgive us our sins.

(Don't ask me to argue how they get to the above, there was a reason I stopped going to compulsory Sunday school!)

It just takes some weasel-wording. Basically, although Jesus explicitly mentions and describes Hell, he never actually says anyone in particular is going to go there, the way he does with Heaven all the time (thief on the cross, Moses, Elijah, etc). He just kinda handwaves it in a threatening way, the way a parent might scare their children into obedience. It's theologically possible that no one at all is meant for Hell.

This argument does require a considerable amount of semantic lawyering, which was the problem I had with it. It's a very short and well-greased slope from there to full-on Skybeard.

 

[Legend]

The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya (the specific character in my avatar is Yuki Nagato).

It's one of the best and most popular anime series of the '00s, but it also plays heavily with the common tropes and cliches of anime (especially harem comedies), so you'd probably enjoy it more the more anime you've seen.

Thanks. I did watch Clannad and enjoyed it for the most part, particularly After Story. The problems came with the last episode, which left me really bloody disappointed.

 

[A'isha]

Thanks. I did watch Clannad and enjoyed it for the most part, particularly After Story. The problems came with the last episode, which left me really bloody disappointed.

Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya was actually done by the same studio that did Clannad, Kyoto Animation, and they even had the same series director, Tatsuya Ishihara.

Clannad is far more straightforward in terms of storytelling and genre than TMoHS is (the Haruhi franchise is really hard to peg as any one genre - it has the outward shell of a slice-of-life harem comedy, but it's not), but if you liked Clannad, you're almost certain to enjoy TMoHS.

 

[Legend]

Coolio Julio. Thanks for the info. I have a few friends who have lists of recommendations for me, but I'm trying to be strategic with what I watch.

 

[Darat]

That seems awfully tedious.

The real world often is! But the choice is a bit of tedium or a generalisation that simply fails at the first hurdle.

What I'm saying really isn't any mad biblical interpretation; actually, it's rather consistent. To disagree with the "Jesus saves" premise would contradict pretty much the entire idea of Christianity and make defunct the purpose of Jesus's sacrifice, but if you want to explain it to conform to modern, civil ethics through implementing an "hermeneutic magic trick" then your morals probably aren't as fundamentally savage as biblically consistent morals would be. This is, as I've said, outlined in the OP.

Out of curiosity which Christian denomination do you belong to - yes I am being sarcastic but all you are doing is telling people what they believe rather than addressing what they actually do believe.

 

[JoeMorgue]

And herein we do hit a problem. The generic term "Christian" is used by so many wildly varying ideologies that it's pretty much useless at this point.

 

[Legend]

Yes, its malleability makes it a hard term to use, and I often talk about that with people who use the word as a badge of honour. However, I think I've been pretty clear and we're letting this discussion completely sidetrack the salient point.

Along with anime. I blame ANTPogo. And Lisa.

The real world often is! But the choice is a bit of tedium or a generalisation that simply fails at the first hurdle.

I'm taking Christianity as it is, how is that generalising? I'm loath to reiterate, but I will: if someone falls into one of the categories I mentioned in the OP, then this problem doesn't really exist. For the purposes of having any form of fruitful discussion, things have to be simplified. So, if we can get past the endless search for petty exceptions to the rule and talk a little on the rule itself and how it applies to a great number of Christians, that'd be great.

AvalonXQ doesn't want me to burn forever, and that's very kind of her, but she still sees it as what a sinner ultimately deserves and a just, swift swing of God's gavel. (See here.) That is a very common approach to the issue ("What if you're wrong?", preachers, most clergymen, anecdotal examples), and one that makes me more than a little uneasy.

Out of curiosity which Christian denomination do you belong to - yes I am being sarcastic but all you are doing is telling people what they believe rather than addressing what they actually do believe.

No, I am really not doing that. I'm exemplifying Christianity by taking a rather solid interpretation of the Bible, and making a point about the people to whom that interpretation applies.

And I have no idea why you highlighted that part or how you could argue against that statement.

 

[Craig4]

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.

What effort? I've never even had so much as a text message from a god. If a god is that interested he could at least send me an e-mail or try to friend me on FB.

I'm singularly unimpressed by gods who can't speak for themselves.

 

[A'isha]

The problem is that if you want to address what Christians believe, you have to actually address what they believe, as described by them in their own words, not what you think they should believe based on your own reading of scripture.

...why does this conversation seem so familiar?