|
29458. judithathome - 6/23/2009 3:18:33 PM You do have a point that people try to tell others about Jesus and that this might be an annoyance to you, but we all are proselytized to in some form or other about things with which I might vehemently disagree or find annoying, but different opinions add a good and necessary flavor to life, I find. I can certainly disagree with you, which I most definitely do, without hating you or having the type of prejudice to which you admit.
Ah yes, it must get tiresome having all those atheists come to your door, trying to dissuade you from your Christian ways and leaving tracts about "not" being saved.
As to not hearing sex is evil...there is a tacit implication from the pulpit that sex outside of the holy bonds of matrimony is evil...it can send you to hell! How much more evil could it get???
Sounds like you have mistaken a political movement for a theologically-conservative Christianity. Whatever the case, only you allow your self-confessed prejudice to perpetuate. No one "makes you" be prejudiced.
The Christian Right these days IS a political movement. Many preachers are using their pulpits to influence voting for candiates pandering to their views. That's political.
29459. pelty - 6/23/2009 4:11:14 PM "Ah yes, it must get tiresome having all those atheists come to your door, trying to dissuade you from your Christian ways and leaving tracts about "not" being saved."
Right, because that is the only form of proselytization these days... and I said nothing about atheists. Atheists amuse me, so I have no problem with their ilk. In fact, they are quite enjoyable to watch...
"As to not hearing sex is evil...there is a tacit implication from the pulpit that sex outside of the holy bonds of matrimony is evil...it can send you to hell! How much more evil could it get???"
Ummm, clearly you did not read my post nor the OP. S/he said that the horrible, nasty Christian Right teaches that sex is evil. I said that, in truth, this is not the general message found in the pulpit but, rather, that sex is a good thing. I also said that outside the context of marriage it is viewed negatively, NOT because sex itself is evil but because there is a context in which it is spiritually harmful. That being said, you are certainly free to live it up and shag away to your heart's desire. I have no interest in stopping you legislatively from doing that, but I think it would be wrong of me, given my worldview, not to mention the possibility that such behavior (or any behavior that would be deemed "sinful) may have long-term deleterious effects. If you choose to ignore me and wish to live your life in a way contrary to biblical morality, so be it.
"The Christian Right these days IS a political movement. Many preachers are using their pulpits to influence voting for candiates pandering to their views. That's political."
So, undoubtedly, you are vehemently opposed to the same sort of activity being found in the "Left" churches, right? So there must be some sort of Christian Left as well, but they just have an agenda with which you find more to agree? Surely, you hate it when the Dems go into the black churches (funny how they are never found there outside of an election cycle) and sway and clap, usually out of rhythm, to the gospel music and then stand up and peddle (or should that be "pander") their wares to the willing masses? Or is that OK because you like what they have to say in those instances?
That said, I actually agree with you and find it detestable that the Church gets involved with politics. Historically, little good has come from that. 29460. Ms. No - 6/23/2009 5:00:50 PM Pelty,
You've done some selective reading of my post. I'm very aware of the fact that I'm talking about what amounts to a political movement. I'm also aware that the vast majority of Christians don't belong to it.
What I am saying is that this small number, proportionally, of Christians has usurped the name. They are so loud and so ubiquitous that they tend to overshadow the majority. They do this in order to try and show that they are the majority when they most certainly are not. I am disgusted by them in the way that I am disgusted by anyone with polarizing views who claims to speak for a vast group of people.
They are at every turn shouting about how they are Christians so it makes me leery of those who would offer this information up to me without prompting.
Think of it this way: the vast majority of dogs do not bite people. Let's narrow it down even more: the vast majority of Pit Bulls do not bite people, but if one were to have been bitten or know someone who was it might color your view when next you encounter a barking Pit Bull.
The vast majority of Christians are not who I am talking about. However, when someone comes up to me and out of the blue announces his status as a Christian I am leery because in that context my experience has been that such folk tend to be of the politically motivated group.
I also find it a bit odd that you feel the need to sneer at me for being an atheist. I did not sneer at you for being a theist. 29461. pelty - 6/23/2009 6:18:26 PM "I also find it a bit odd that you feel the need to sneer at me for being an atheist. I did not sneer at you for being a theist."
Not sure where I sneered at you. If you are referencing my point about being amused by atheists (in another post), I should have been more clear about about whom I was speaking. I had in mind the public atheists in the Dawkins/Harris molds, not your good self.
As for the rest of your post, fair enough, but you have to go to the fringest of elements to find the sort of racial prejudice of which you speak being preached from the pulpit. Mainstream evangelicalism is vigorously devoted to racial equality and has been for some time. It makes me wonder about who you are listening to or from which media outlet you are gathering your information. It seems more than a little outdated, unless you consider the fringe to represent accurately the whole "Christian Right." 29462. judithathome - 6/23/2009 6:47:23 PM That being said, you are certainly free to live it up and shag away to your heart's desire. I have no interest in stopping you legislatively from doing that, but I think it would be wrong of me, given my worldview, not to mention the possibility that such behavior (or any behavior that would be deemed "sinful) may have long-term deleterious effects. If you choose to ignore me and wish to live your life in a way contrary to biblical morality, so be it.
This may come as a shock to you but I am an atheist and have been married to...and shagging with...the same man for more than 27 years. We are together not because of some holy sanctified matrimony or what some God or book says but because we love one another and respect one another. We were married in a civil ceremony and are just as married as anyone who married in a church and we maintain probably even more fidelity toward one another than some Christians do.
So, undoubtedly, you are vehemently opposed to the same sort of activity being found in the "Left" churches, right?
You bet your ass I am. I am opposed to most things people do "in the name of God" be it your God or anyone else's. I think organized religions have been the cause of some of the worst things that have happened in this world...but maybe by that I mean some of the people involved in organized religions.
The overall message of "love thy neighbor as thyself" would be cool by me if people really lived by it but few seldom do. 29463. pelty - 6/23/2009 7:47:09 PM "This may come as a shock to you but I am an atheist and have been married to...and shagging with...the same man for more than 27 years. We are together not because of some holy sanctified matrimony or what some God or book says but because we love one another and respect one another. We were married in a civil ceremony and are just as married as anyone who married in a church and we maintain probably even more fidelity toward one another than some Christians do."
I find this not at all shocking and congratulate you on your long and happy marriage. If you did not catch my attempt at light humor, then my apologies. I did not mean to imply that atheism = a multiple-partner shag-a-thon. But you obviously have me confused for something I am not. I never would claim that you are somehow "not married" as the result of a civil marriage as you clearly have a sheet of paper that identifies you as married. I am not at all clear why you think that Christians who get married are not married for the same reasons you married your husband - respect, love, etc. - as opposed to because they were forced into it by God, "some book," or what have you. What a strange, rather uninformed, understanding of Christianity, or perhaps religion more generally, you hold.
"You bet your ass I am. I am opposed to most things people do "in the name of God" be it your God or anyone else's. I think organized religions have been the cause of some of the worst things that have happened in this world...but maybe by that I mean some of the people involved in organized religions."
A worthy caveat, but if committing evil is your standard of the veracity or righteousness of a given religious stance, then surely you must be alarmed by your atheism and feel the need to jettison it at once!!! I mean, look at all the evil done under the banner of atheism - Stalin alone must be enough to make you blush. Given your standards, I am more than a little perplexed by your willingness to associate with such folk. But as you say, maybe it is the people who are to blame and not the dogma, eh? 29464. judithathome - 6/23/2009 10:31:54 PM I am not at all clear why you think that Christians who get married are not married for the same reasons you married your husband - respect, love, etc. - as opposed to because they were forced into it by God, "some book," or what have you
I never said anyone who does things differently than I do them is not married, did I? I merely explained why "I" am married...does that automatically imply all others are WRONG?
You have to at least admit than many Christians are fighting for the defense of marriage act because they feel it should be only THEIR way...I was explaining that I don't feel that way about my beliefs or lack thereof.
And if you think these abstinance people....saving oneself for marriage only...aren't obeying some rule book, then I fear it is you who have the problem understaning Christianity, my friend.
I don't have to aoplogize for nor defend Stalin...anymoreso than YOU have to apoligize for or defend the Crusades. So let's drop those smug little attitudes, why don't we?
29465. arkymalarky - 6/23/2009 10:54:15 PM Hey Pelty!
Unfortunately racism is alive and well in at least some churches in the South and probably elsewhere. They're not overt, but a Baptist preacher near here was let go because he was having black kids from the community at his kids and youth programs, and it's not uncommon in churches I've seen. Where I teach isn't like that, which is one reason I like it there so much. The main two churches there have very diverse youth groups, but that's not common around here. Of course people congregate where they commune, so I'm not referring to the community segregation of lots of churches, but to practicing segregation policies. The worst I ever knew was a former classmate whose church told her when she got married her black friends couldn't be in the wedding. They could only come as guests. Of course she didn't stay at that church, but she had no idea it was like that until that point because the issue had never come up. I quit my local church and I suspect but don't know that they're like that. I thought about going to the black church up the road from it, but that would just be using them to try to gig my white neighbors. Like I told my MIL, I've found that my faith is more solid when I stay out of church. 29466. Ms. No - 6/24/2009 3:23:06 AM Pelty,
I think you misread me. I am quite aware of the fact that I disdain a small minority of politicized Christians. That is at the root of my post. There is a vicious minority of self-identified Christians who have usurped the name as if they are the only Christians in the world and all Christians think and feel as they do. They have made it difficult for less politically and socially rabid Christians to receive an open welcome from non-theists or theists of other faiths.
I liken it to the Rush Limbaughs and Anne Coulters of the world giving Republicans a bad name.
Part of my irritation --- a very small part --- is the passing into memory of denominational identifiers. Nobody much says anymore "I'm a Lutheran" or "I'm a Methodist" and those distinctions really aren't useless.
I think the habit of dropping those identifiers has been triggered by the far-right Evangelical movement's attempt to own the word "Christian."
It results in stupidities like claiming that Catholics aren't Christians. 29467. pelty - 6/24/2009 2:49:36 PM J@H
"I never said anyone who does things differently than I do them is not married, did I?"
Not sure where you got this. re-read what I wrote, please.
"You have to at least admit than many Christians are fighting for the defense of marriage act because they feel it should be only THEIR way...I was explaining that I don't feel that way about my beliefs or lack thereof."
I do admit this, yes. My take, though I know it will not win many fans here, is that Christians should worry more about introducing people to Jesus, who is capable of changing hearts on social matters (not to mention some other pretty important stuff!), than trying to force it on people.
"And if you think these abstinance people....saving oneself for marriage only...aren't obeying some rule book, then I fear it is you who have the problem understaning Christianity, my friend."
I did not say that there was no "rulebook," but you brought it up in regards to marriage and there is no injunction stating that one HAS to get married. As for abstinence, for those who identify themselves as Christians, this is what is required, but the choice is made by people as a response of obedience and gratitude to the one they believe saved them. Abstinence should not be enforced on those who are not Christians, though I do think it is a good idea to promote it alongside other forms of contraception as a) it is pretty effective and b) can help one to avoid diseases that can accompany promiscuous sexual behavior.
"I don't have to aoplogize for nor defend Stalin...anymoreso than YOU have to apoligize for or defend the Crusades. So let's drop those smug little attitudes, why don't we?"
YOU are the one who brought up how you dislike Christianity, or those who profess it, because of the bad things done in its name, not me. I simply made the point that of all your arguments, this is one of the weakest as crimes of a far greater magnitude (statistically speaking) have been done under the banner of Atheism. 29468. pelty - 6/24/2009 2:52:48 PM Arky,
Thank you for your post and, sadly, I stand corrected. Racism clearly remains an issue, though I still would affirm that it is a minority (no pun intended) position within theologically-conservative churches. 29469. judithathome - 6/24/2009 3:05:28 PM I did not say that there was no "rulebook," but you brought it up in regards to marriage and there is no injunction stating that one HAS to get married.
Well, it's pretty much implied...if one is to have sex and thus procreate. Sex is saved for after one is married, according to your faith...so it's either get married or do without sex, right? Where am I misreading anything?
YOU are the one who brought up how you dislike Christianity, or those who profess it, because of the bad things done in its name, not me.
I did not start this discussion...YOU responded to MsNo's statement. I admit I don't like what has been done in the name of religion...I agree with her...but you seem to be more exercised over me chiming in to the discussion.
I can fix that easily enough...but here's a hint: don't tell people they just don't understand Christianity and the Bible if you don't know facts about their lives. I wasn't BORN an atheist, any more than I was born a Christian. But I was baptized and taught the faith and went to church and studied the Bible, just like I assume you did. I simply came to different conclusions than you.
as crimes of a far greater magnitude (statistically speaking) have been done under the banner of Atheism.
I'm not sure if you have all those facts straight...but whatever. I am talking about religion...overall. That is larger in scope than just the Christian sects.
And this is a joke...where can I obtain one of those atheist banners? I didn't know we had a flag....
29470. Jenerator - 6/24/2009 3:15:12 PM Last Saturday I got a massage at a spa. My girlfriend who was getting one for her 40th was in the same room as I was while I was getting mine. Her masseur was a tall guy with pink hair.
Midway during the massages, he brought up going to yoga. He suggested she start taking yoga as a way to relax her muscles. Because she didn't answer in the affirmative fast enough he said, 'Unless of course you're one of those crazy Christians who thinks that yoga is eeeevil!" and proceeded to laugh.
Sometimes atheists don't need to knock on doors to make their opinions heard. 29471. Jenerator - 6/24/2009 3:17:03 PM Judith,
What church ruined your childhood? Now correct me if I am wrong, but weren't the 50s more conservative overall than today? 29472. Jenerator - 6/24/2009 3:24:39 PM My mom was a child in the 50s too, and back then girls were not allowed to wear pants. That was the socially accepted norm. The Church didn't create that norm.
29473. pelty - 6/24/2009 3:25:07 PM Ms. No,
"Part of my irritation --- a very small part --- is the passing into memory of denominational identifiers. Nobody much says anymore "I'm a Lutheran" or "I'm a Methodist" and those distinctions really aren't useless.
I think the habit of dropping those identifiers has been triggered by the far-right Evangelical movement's attempt to own the word 'Christian.'"
I agree that the denominational distinctions are not useless as there frequently are found in them theological differences that can be of some importance, and you may even be right that Evangelicalism has co-opted the word Christian. At the heart of the matter, though, is the question of definition: What is a Christian? Is a Christian someone who holds to an orthodox position on issues of Christology (bodily death and resurrection of Jesus, atonement of sin) and biblical authority, a more "liberal" Christianity (in which Christological and authoritative questions are less important than focusing on social issues), a mix of these, none of these? I think the Evangelicalism of the 80s-90s probably wanted to nail down an orthodox definition of Christianity as a response to a blurring of the lines. Those who identified themselves with this perspective found a political/social voice and attempted to use it to craft a political form of Christian morality which was always going to be unsuccessful. That said, I DO think they have the right to voice their concerns on social issues with which they disagree since they live in a society that gives them that right. If they can persuade the public that theirs is the correct perspective on a social issue, then that is just the way it goes in a democratic-republican system. One could argue that this is what happened in the 90s and, if this is the case, it is a legitimate activity within the US political system, but the Christians missed the problem that can arise from the identification of Christianity, and thus Christ, with politics. People become opposed to the gospel message, which is supposedly central to the orthodox Christians mentioned above, because they identify it with those who, in the people's minds, seek to limit their freedoms.
More recently, I think we are seeing public Evangelicals possess a form of Christianity that incorporates a more balanced approach, maintaining the orthodox doctrines while embracing certain social issues that previously gained little public attention from this faction - environmental issues come to mind specifically. 29474. judithathome - 6/24/2009 3:38:33 PM My mom was a child in the 50s too, and back then girls were not allowed to wear pants. That was the socially accepted norm. The Church didn't create that norm.
Where on earth did THAT come from? Yes, the 50s were a more conservative time and no, the church didn't create the norm of young girls not wearing pants to school.
I was turned off by the Church of Christ...a very specific one. And the church DID create the norm for that congregation and that norm included no musical instruments, no girl/boy swimming, no dancing, no this and no that...no socializing on church grounds, even.
29475. judithathome - 6/24/2009 3:42:02 PM It also included threats of burning in hell if you sinned...very precise and voiced very often. 29476. pelty - 6/24/2009 3:44:58 PM "Well, it's pretty much implied...if one is to have sex and thus procreate. Sex is saved for after one is married, according to your faith...so it's either get married or do without sex, right? Where am I misreading anything?"
You are not misreading anything, but this assumes that a) one wishes to get married at all and B) one wishes to have sex at all. As I also said, Christians who choose to abstain from sex prior to marriage do so, ultimately, out of obedience and gratitude to the God who they believe saved them. Do they believe that this is his will because of what they read in a book? Yes, but their response to the book is born out of a relationship with and love for their Savior. If that relationship was not there, then I would venture a guess that the book would not hold them back from doing whatever they wish. I simply mean to suggest that it is more complicated than your rather simplistic "rulebook model."
"I did not start this discussion...YOU responded to MsNo's statement. I admit I don't like what has been done in the name of religion...I agree with her...but you seem to be more exercised over me chiming in to the discussion."
I am not at all exercised, believe me. Happy to have you chime in. However, you wrote,
"I think organized religions have been the cause of some of the worst things that have happened in this world...but maybe by that I mean some of the people involved in organized religions."
Nothing that I can recollect had been said about this aspect until you included it. My response is simply that it is a rather unsubstantive position to hold if one applies it to all religions, including the religion of No Religion.
"but here's a hint: don't tell people they just don't understand Christianity and the Bible if you don't know facts about their lives. I wasn't BORN an atheist, any more than I was born a Christian. But I was baptized and taught the faith and went to church and studied the Bible, just like I assume you did. I simply came to different conclusions than you."
I do not think I ever said anything about your knowledge of Christianity, did I? If so, I did not mean to as I know nothing about your background (well, now I guess I know a little bit about it...).
Ironically, I think Wal-Mart sells Atheist banners! ;-) 29477. judithathome - 6/24/2009 5:17:19 PM I'll have to check that one out...I have a feeling all the people who have the fish symbols on their cars (a majority of those in the parking lot at my local WalMart seems to have them) might protest if this were so. ;-)
Just so you know, I don't have one of the fish with legs on MY car...heh.
|
 |
Go To Mote #
|
|
