"You get more hate for being a Moderate Christian then a zealous one." Do you believe this is true? Pages 1 2 3 NEXT | |
The people in the middle get to be attacked by both sides. Also, well, there's no point arguing with someone you think is totally wrong, they have to be right enough to listen, but wrong enough to condemn, I guess. But I wouldn't have thought it was much of a thing, really. | |
No. "Thou Shalt Not Be A Dick in My Glorious Name, thou art making me LOOK BAD" isn't a Commandment, but it should've been. | |
In moderate internet communities, people with radical ideologies are dismissed as either being trolls or living in a separate plane of reality. Unsurprisingly, no one takes the guy saying that women should be treated like property seriously. As a side note, most of the gays I know are moderate Christians. | |
Reviled and hated? | |
I'm a Christian. Most of the bible is a load of Bullshit. Oh common, a book that is compiled over a 2000 year period, which was actually put together by a Papal Select Committee set up by the Roman Emperor Constantine... the bible is word for word truth and accurately the word of God... what a load of bollocks. Its corrupted and manipulated for the purposes of many different men over the ages in terms of population control... I mean bestiality, homosexuality are illegal because... if you're fucking either of those then you are not getting your wife pregnant. Also masturbation is a sin... as you're not fucking your wife... Most is a load of shit. Frankly even if the rest is real... just... it's almost futile... Islam is no different. Muhammad said some stuff, and then it is built upon by following generations that changes his original teachings completely. I'm a Christian, but I'm not a fool. If there is a God then considering what that book has been through I am sure said God will be happy if people follow the line "Love thy neighbour" and choose to avoid the rest... it's not as if God has covered us all in Sulphur like in Sodom and Somorrah so far >.> | |
They are lying hypocrites, claiming both to submit to the absolute will of "god", yet waving away whatever they don't like from the canonical source material. They are simply trying to deify their own personal views, which earns them due contempt for arrogance and hypocracy. Furthermore, they answer for the crimes of christianity in full, since you cannot become part of something greater than yourself without assuming responsibility for it. A catholic answers for the catholic church he has voluntarily joined and choose to support every day, meaning that even if his own views are tolerable, those of the official church condemns him. But in the end they're just the ones who happen to be in the middle of the battlefield. Secularists and fundamentalists have nothing to say to each other anyway, living in different worldviews, but the so-called moderates claim to be religious while supporting traditionally secular positions, making them potential converts and/or traitors to either side. | |
In some ways 'moderates' are just hypocrites. At least fundies follow a large majority of what they have been told. You can't have all the good stuff and ignore the bad stuff. It is just hypocritical. Either follow Christian teachings or don't. Another aspect is that they still associate themselves with the nutbag Christians and they continue to let them speak on behalf of Christianity. If you have people causing trouble within your organization you don't just smile and nod your head, you disassociate yourself from them. | |
...would you call me a hypocrite? I'm curious to your reasoning with my senario. -my see post above- | |
Since you explicitly state that the bible is bullshit, no. I also wouldn't call you a Christian though. Religion is a set of canonical beliefs, and you just shat all over the canon, by performing a secular analysis of it. | |
I kind of see it the exact opposite way: Religion is extremely vague, malleable and badly defined and thus up to personal interpretation. [1] Maybe something along the lines of "Jesus was a great guy" and self-identification as Christian. | |
The term to be Christian is a self selecting committee of Christian sects. Jehovah Witness's ar not accepted as Christians by the self selecting committee as they believe in the Bibles teachings word for word, which is something no other faith can seem to tollorate... they are Christians clearly but not "officially". Buggur officially. I believe that if there is a God then it is the one Jesus spoke of but even in Islam they recognised that the Holy Texts have been severely corrupted. Of what Jesus did or said could have ben altered therefore a literal reading is out of the window for most cases but if a phrase was to sum up his teachings then it would be Love thy neighbour. To believe in the Torah is to be a Jew and the old testiment is in the bible for the purpose of to tell the precurser to Jesus' arrival and not its teachings, therefore that can be thrown out the bloody window in one. Everything written after the death of Jesus is written by others, therefore out the window with that also. This leaves the teachings of Jesus which if added togeather form the message love thy neighbour... Would you say I'm not a Christian just because the others who claim that title would not call me a Christian? | |
Hmm.....*looks at this thread*. Yeah thats not a stretch. It seems even if you denounce extremist, there are people on here that will hate you regardless. | |
I'd agree that the vague and general dogma allows for considerable wavering of where the outer limits are, but those aren't all that's found in the bible. There are some very clear and specific teachings and condemnations in it as well. And wherever you'd place the outer limits for what "Christianity" can be, it must encompass such clear and specific "dogmatic islands". Take for instance Romans 1:26-27, which is an extremely clear and specific condemnation of homosexuality and idolatry. No reasonable interpretation, be it linguistic, historical, hermeneutic etc. can come to any other conclusion than that this passage condemns these practices. And since it is part of the authoritative dogma, any form of "Christianity" must encompass it, whatever its outer borders might be (unless it's a denomination that has officially denounced the book of Romans as being part of its canon). It is a basic rule of and logic to interpretation that a clear and specific text takes precedence over a vague and generally formulated one. And within Christian logic such clear and specific condemnation is easily compatible with the general and vague "love thy neighbor"-dogma, as you're really saving them from the wrath of god. There's no way to dogmatically harmonize the two the other way around though, since the whole "clear and specific" gets in the way. So apart from the vaguest and broadest of outer limits, there's also certain insular criteria which must be met, since not every single part of the bible is vague and malleable. That still leaves room for a vast spectrum - an interpretative ocean around these island of certainty - and you might never be able to know the exact shape of the beast; but you can know certain anatomical details which must be present on it.
No, I'd say you're not a Christian because you've denounced the bible as bullshit. Also, you seem to have forgotten the other part of the central tenant beside "Love thy neighbor": "Love god". So even if you practice only the absolute core beliefs, your stance is still condemnatory towards those who don't love (your) god, such as Atheists or Buddhists. Unless of course your form of "Christianity" is somehow totally OK with people not believing in god, in which case you've thrown out the core of the religion. | |
Look who has decided he's the pope of Christendom again. -------------- As for the OP, Imperator_DK adequately demonstrates exactly how the OP is correct. Extremists who harm others of force their beliefs upon others (arguably the latter is just a variety of the former) deserve scorn and criticism. But they aren't easy to come by. When was the last time you met someone who seemed to be an extremist and didn't come off sounding like a troll. Most of us meet these sorts of people very rarely. And if we do meet them, then unless we're already in the moderate camp of their religion they probably aren't too interested in what we think of them. Does anyone here think Rick Santorum goes to bed at night worrying about whether or not the gay community thinks he's being a bit extreme? So some people get upset by the extremism, and lash out at the first person they find who vaguely resembles it - statistically speaking moderates. Of course, no matter how much bullshit Imperator tries to peddle to convince us all that guilt by association is okay when he wants it to be okay, it has always been a fallacy and it has always been immoral. One is guilty of the wrongs they specifically have done. Not of the wrongs some guy in a similar outfit has done. Another set of people attack moderates because moderates are easy targets. Unlike extremists, moderates generally want to be liked by all. That's why they're moderates. So accusing them of being hypocrites becomes an effective way to hurt them. It's bullying pure and simple, a malevolent need to feel good about yourself by causing pain to another. It's childish, it's wrong, and sadly it's rife on this board. I've wanted to comment on Extra Credits' Harassment episode for a while but I've been too busy to make a full post, but now is the perfect opportunity to comment. The EC crew frame harassment purely in the confines of dumbasses on teamspeak playing XBox games and shouting slurs. But the vile behavior they describe is qualitatively no different from the hateful attacking that takes place here. Both ultimately are the same thing- insecure children trying to feel good about themselves by hurting others. The only difference is the style. The harassers in the video do it through vulgarity. The harassers here do it through faux-intellectual arguments. And this difference is really only a difference in how the aggressor would like to be perceived. The harassers in the video want to be perceived as strong. The harassers here want to be perceived as smart. But in the end it all boils down to the same thing- trying to hurt innocents. A long time ago I asked a question on this board: would you rather be thought of as a hard worker, or would you rather be thought of as smart. It's very telling to me that so many people on this board voted for smart, commenting that they couldn't even imagine how anyone could want anything else. I think there's a deep intellectual insecurity in this community, and it manifests in very ugly ways. And unfortunately, this ugliness is supported by the moderators when they refuse to punish people who engage in it, or punish only in a biased way. | |
...I actually think you'd find Ratzinger's approach to the contents of Christian dogma rather similar to mine. Only he loves the stuff.
Care to elaborate on how one is not at all responsible for the actions of organizations one have specifically chosen to join, remain in, and voice support of? Anyway, I'd be seriously concerned if someone who insist that ideology and ethics live in separate worlds didn't disagree with me to no end, so obviously from that basic premise nothing I say will ever make sense. Do understand that other views on that matter exist though, and that opinions based on them are not necessarily born of an unfulfilled desire to "be leet by pwning zum noobs". There's really no need to psychoanalyse the entire board, for which I doubt you're particularly qualified anyway. If you find the arguments made unpersuasive, expose their flaws for all to see, such should be easy enough for someone too good for this wretched hive of scum and villainy. | |
You get hate in general for occupying middle-ground positions in highly polarised debates. | |
I've thought about that, and it seems that it serves the purposes of both poles to pretend that there is no middle ground. It lets you say "its Us or Them, and you don't want to be Them do you?". There's also the fact that if you are at a pole, it is assumed that you are basically unpersuadable, whereas the people who try and be understanding aren't. This makes it natural for both sides to pick on the centre, but of course in order to work it is desirable to give the impression that the centre ground is untenable, hence the hate. | |
I guess so on the hate, I can only really speak for myself. Despite my being a weak-atheistic antitheist now having formerly been a moderate Christian, I've found I tend to occupy middle ground positions generally. In the evolution/creationism debate I was a theistic evolutionist, and I reject both feminism and the men's right's movement. I call myself an equalist for lack of a better word. So in this particular debate, the Christian/atheism one, I can at least sympathise with someone trying to occupy some more middling stance although I'm likely going to disagree with it. It's tough to do sometimes, but I generally try and respect the right of people to self-identify as whatever they please, even if the word they use can have lots of undesirable baggage or even a conflicting definition with another individual or group of people. But sure, I think you're right to some degree. The tendency is for the polars to try and either claim you as one of their own, or shun you entirely. | |
Well, yes and no. If you are in the middle ground in a dispute, you are giving some support to the wrong side, should there be one. Not the same as being in their camp, but closer to it than you should be.
Er...responsible for supporting them, you mean, not for their actions unless they are only possible due to your support. Though, in practice that might not make much difference. | |
I think the problem is that the moderates are tied to the radicals, and as much as they would like to cut all ties, they can't do so without forsaking the religion entirely, which I imagine would be very hard for them. I think the other aspect is that the radicals are often hilariously inept. FSTDT is all the proof you need for that. Whereas moderates are often more "normal", with maybe one or two views that are deemed unacceptable. The hate most likely stems from the disbelief that an otherwise sane, kind, logical (to an extent) person can have such an outdated thought process amongst all that normality. | |
Oh, only most of it :)
What is God? Or what is a God. What God is or could be nobody knows, we assume. And my assumption is not to make an assumption about what said God would be like. A lot of personal though has gone into this and the only one assumption that is made is that there is some truth in the bible about Jesus... and to be honest if its a different God you I won't have gone far wrong and if there is no God, at least I didn't blow myself up in the hope of 72 virgins xD | |
According to Christianity? The Holy Trinity, part of which is that Jesus dude. No love for the Jesus dude? Well, no salvation for you, since he's pretty clear that he's the sole travel agency for that destination.
And hence it's not religion. A religious approach would base itself in extrapolating from the dogma, interpreting its original intent as closely as possible. Your approach quite obviously has a different goal from the start, namely to accommodate to your own personal values, to not have it clash with modern secular norms. Thus you're doing nothing but deifying your own personal views. If you've already personalized the hell out of it, why do you even need "god" on board? Aren't you own views and justifications for your stance good enough? Do you somehow think adding some layer of weird delusions from the ancient middle east is going to add legitimacy to it in this day and age? If you have personal thoughts, stand up for them yourself. Surely there are actual real world reasons why you like "what Jesus said", so why not name those reasons, rather than say "because Jesus said so!", and leave it at that? | |
No, radical groups are the ones that most of the hate is aimed at. Moderates are generally either liked or tolerated by atheists and other religions, if nothing else for the fact of what a large percentage of the world's population is some form of a moderate Christian. | |
Why are personal feelings and religious dogmas mutually exclusive? You are making an "ideal" image of religion that is literally not applicable to the vast majority religious people in the functioning society, all so that you've got it rigged where you can "win" either way. People who mindlessly follow religious dogmas with no personal reflection are mindless sheep and a detriment to society, and people who believe in a religion but find ways to weave it into their own lives and conditions aren't doing it right. Your image of religious people isn't how religious people work, hell that isn't how people work. But I must congratulate you, this is the most elaborate method I've seen to finding superiority over both negative and positive religious peoples. Usually people who want to do that just settle on calling them all idiots. | |
I think it's a "bawwwwwww! I'm trying to strawman and you're making it h-h-h-haaaaaard!" | |
It's called "adherence" for a reason. The very idea of it all is that you submit to an absolute entity, which is greater than yourself, and which then gives you direction in life. But if you're simply making up what "god" is telling you, then that is not "adherence", and the core purpose is lost. Plus, there's a certain annoying arrogance to calling what is simply one's own views "divine", as though that somehow made them more important or worthwhile.
So? The one who's important in religion and religious logic (theology) is "god", not humans. When dealing with the internal structure of a religion, "Word of God" is everything, and human behaviour nothing. That only matters from a secular perspective, I'm only interested in what the dogmatic and logically stringent religious one is; What quite possibly impossible things does religion demand of its followers? So if you find my views inhuman, then it is only because they reflect the inhumanity of religion: But unlike the religious, who actually have to live by that crap, I have no need to "weave" the dogma in any way, but can pursue it to its logical conclusion. I'd agree that most religious people are in reality more human than they are religious, but only the religious aspect is worth discussing. | |
So, if your example does not apply to reality, then it's irrelevant. It doesn't matter. You are arguing the merits of a situation that does not exist in the first place. The very definition of a strawman argument. Religious people are PEOPLE, and are as diverse as that title implies. To lump them into one group and say they must adhere to one set of behavior and one way of thinking is not only nonexistant in reality, but ignorant, and completely ignores the most basic traits of human nature. Sure you can speculate and use it as a hypothetical example, but to actually argue that real people are like that, or SHOULD be like that? Ridiculous. That's like saying all physicists should be like Sheldon from the Big Bang Theory. If what you are arguing for doesn't exist, then no matter how hard you argue its merits it simply doesn't matter. | |
I detest the pick and choose mentality even so called hardliner Christians. If you are Christian, then the Bible is the Word of God. Everything in there is therefore equally binding to you, either that, or nothing is. I don't see devoted Christians stoning disobedient children. I don't see Christians shunning clothing out of more then one materials. But on the flipside, Homosexuality is obviously sin. Says so in the Bible. And don't give me you have to see it through a cultural lens, or some parts are obviously to be ignored. If you believe in Christianity, then the Bible is your church's Dogma. Who are you deciding what parts of God's word you take seriously? | |
Well first you have to understand the difference between Christianity and the Bible. Christianity didn't start with the Bible, it started with Jesus. Christianity existed for a good 300 years before the earliest versions of the Bible came around. Jesus said "follow me," not "follow me and whatever other writings you find and arbitrarily shove into a book along with the documents of my presence on earth." So the very argument that Christianity somehow inherently needs the Bible is fundamentally flawed, unless you're going to argue that the 11 original disciples who went on to preach the word after the resurrection were doing it wrong because they didn't have the Bible to look from yet. It's in the name, really. Christian. CHRIST-ian. From the Greek christianos, literally "Follower of Christ." Not follower of the Bible. Secondly, context IS important. The Bible was written by different people at different times for different audiences, and for different reasons. Yes, the Bible does contradict itself, because the documents contained within were neither written together nor intended to be examined as a whole and treated as some sort of rulebook. That isn't what I think, that is a fact. Here is what I do think: I think of the Bible as less of a guide and more of a compilation of important histories, events, people, stories, and documentations which are important to knowing about not only what happend while Jesus was around, but also where the people of his age came from and the culture in which they lived. | |
The "You have to believe every part of the bible" thing is mostly only enforced in very evangelical protestant groups, so don't say "You aren't a christian unless you follow the bible fully." Following each and every word in the bible is nigh impossible because it contradicts itself at MANY points. It's not a single book with a single author, it's composed of several other books and countless other authors. How can someone hate gays when Jesus tells us to love our enemies? How can someone "stone children" when Jesus said "Let he without sin cast the first stone."? In the Catholic Church, new ideas are constantly being added to canon law, and it's official that no Catholic has to follow "The Laws of The Jews" (aka the majority of the Old Testament... Even today the books are used mostly for context) So don't say that you can't question the Bible or have to follow each and every passage in it, that is pure and simple bull crap. The only reason you say this, is because, in my opinion, you have such a hatred for the Christian religion that you can't stand the mere concept of Christians being morally upright citizens. You want to see the faith undermined and destroyed, you want to have your faith, whatever it may be, have a monopoly on all that is Moral and good. I mean no offense to you, but you're not a Christian, don't try and tell me that I'm practicing my religion wrong. | |
I don't hate the Christian Religion (I personally don't believe one needs Religion to lead a morally upright life). I loath the Catholic Church and the Vatican for, very well documented, covering up pedophilia in their midst. And noone seems to care. That has nothing to do with my point, though. How can the Bible contradict itself? We know it's the work of many authors, but isn't it the Word of God anymore? Refuting the Word of God is no different then refuting God. Is that still a sin, or is that in one of the scrapped passages that are not binding anymore?
So the Bible is not the Christian Church's dogma? You never stop learning I suppose. I have vivid memories visiting Bible school, and getting taught that I should live my life according to the Bible, but hey, could have changed, right? And wouldn't you agree then that the idea of, say, homosexuality as a sin makes little sense in the context of the modern world, where we are fighting with overpopulation almost worldwide? Same with the rejection of preservative measures and abortions. And premarital sex for recreational purposes. All those rules are maybe not based on the old testament, but they are based on a about 2000 years old book. Let me illustrate with a kind of contrived picture:
Maybe I could get behind the idea of Christianity if that's how it presented itself. But that's not the case. I've never encountered a more judgmental, vocal, and influential group of people | |
Well that's probably what you were taught and what they believe, that doesn't mean it's true. Yes the current Christian churches rely heavily upon the Bible, but that isn't how it started and a lot of it is definitely not in the spirit of Jesus' ministry. Yes the Bible is basically our only record of Jesus' existence, but within that is no indication that he went around making sinners feel worse about themselves and driving away people with hate and bile. The only people he really got pissed at were people who claimed to be humble followers of God but weren't. And, again, the disciples and all the other Christ-followers in those first 300 years seemed to get along without the Bible just fine.
Me? Personally, I have no problem with gays and can't wait for the day we get a national amendment making their marriages legal in all states. I'm also pro-choice, don't have a problem with contraception, think abstinence-only sex education is ridiculous, and don't see why God couldn't use something like evolution as a conduit for creation (I mean, he created the laws of physics, why not evolution?). Most of my friends are also on this, abortion may vary a bit more, but I'm a part of the Methodist church and the ones in my area are particularly interested in making sure it's known we welcome all. The Methodist church my brother goes to actually had some meetings a while back to discuss how they should try and welcome gay people into the church. Not to change them anything, just to make sure they know there's a church out there that accepts them for who they are.
FIrst, I want to say I have seen that picture before and I LOVE it. I wanted to post it to Facebook so bad, but my family has a problem with swear words and I figured for them it would distract from the message. Anyway, whenever you get the time I highly recommend you watch this movie, Lord, Save us from Your Followers. It's a guy who examines how we as a nation (in the US, that is) communicate, specifically when it comes to religious beliefs. He starts out in a suit covered in bumper stickers with all sort of pithy comments, and ends up at a gay pride festival hosting a reverse confession booth where people go in and he apologizes for how the Christian community has treated them, and even how he did in the past. It is very interesting and features a broad range of both Christians and non-Christians (and a bit with Rick Santorum that doesn't make me want to headdesk, though I this is pre-Presidential campaign Santorum). It's an extremely fascinating watch. Also, after all this time, everything we saw, everything we lost, I've only one thing to say to you. BYE! Oh...wait. Your name is Davroth, not Davros. Never mind~ | |
In that case, I'm truly sorry that you get associated with the rest of Christianity. And I didn't address you in the first place, then, because obviously your specific church is not of the hyper-judgmental type, and though that wont make me a believer, it's at least a hopeful prospect. I'll give that movie a watch, sounds interesting enough. Also, always glad when someone catches the reference. ^^ Finally, I saw versions of that picture without the f-word, and it just didn't have the same effect, but they are out there. | |
Isn't that verging on No True Scotsman? Regardless of the original truth of the matter, if a massive slab of Christianity defines itself in relation to the Bible, can they be dismissed as wrong? | |
| Pages 1 2 3 NEXT | |
So, after browsing the Religion and Politics sub-forums of not only the escapist, but other sights as well, I've noticed a similar trend in them all and have come to an interesting conclusion.
Moderate or Liberal Christians are more hated and reviled by Atheists and Non-Christians then the actual zealots and evangelists.
It seems strange, with the way society is becoming more liberal and open minded, that the Christians that take the bible with a grain of salt or lobby for tolerance towards homosexuals end up being more harshly criticized then their Evangelical counterparts. I visited a few forums, saw the token "Moderate Christian" on their, and noted that any time they speak about Tolerance or that oppressing people based on sexuality wasn't what Jesus would do, they'd be berated by people on all sides of the political/religious spectrum for what they say. They'd have dozens of passages in the old testament thrown at them, and the argument against them would almost always sound like. "Well, yeah, but according to Leviticus, 'Group X is an abomination'! So you're disobeying the bible! You aren't a true Christian at all!"
However, that could just be standard hatred for Christians right? They'd probably hate Extremely Conservative, Evangelical Christians even more right? Well, one of the forums I visited (The WoW OOC forums are a hive of scum and villainy) happened to have a Conservative Baptist that was following the "If we allow gays to marry, we have to allow animals and children too!" line of logic... The person had maybe one or two people criticize her for her zealotry, and was immediately passed off as being unimportant.
So, I must ask, what is with all the hatred towards Moderate Christians? Why, of all groups, are they the ones most criticized for their faith and ideals?