An FAQ on Christianity for the Unbeliever
There’s a brand new thing out there that has been confusing and frightening people lately: Christians. The first prominent Christian anyone ever heard of was probably Tim Tebow, and his appearance on the national scene was quite alarming to many, as his “Christian” behavior was seen as quite odd and new. More recently, people have learned about Dan Cathy and are disturbed to discover that some businesses may possibly be owned by Christians who express Christian-type views. And then there is Olympic champion gymnast Gabby Douglas, whose constant profession of faith in God is so frightening that an extremely bewildered author wrote an article about her in Salon.
Since ignorance is what leads us to fear something (unless we’re talking about platypuses, as the more you know about them, the scarier they are — did you know they’re poisonous?), I thought I’d write an FAQ about Christians to help explain what these strange new people are, so everyone won’t be all freaked out about them.
CHRISTIANS FAQ
How long have Christians been around?
While many people see Christians as a brand new and quite scary thing, records show Christians have been around since at least the 1950s, and maybe even much earlier.
What are their beliefs based on?
It’s a book called “The Bible.” It’s full of thousands-of-years-old religious writing, which Christians believe to have been written by men inspired by God. It’s very long.
I see many Bibles are labeled “Holy Bible.” What if I got a non-holy version?
Immediately return it for a refund.
The Bible is full of really old values, with lots of outdated views on things like sex. Do Christians actually follow this thing?
Indeed they try. Their view is that while society and technology change, the fundamental nature of man doesn’t, and neither do the values God gave us. Thus, the Bible is something they find relevant and expect people to read and follow many years into the future, like Harry Potter.
Don’t Christians know how weird and old-fashioned following the Bible makes them? Everyone else is fine with swearing, sex on TV, and abortion. Why do they have to be so different?
To Christians, following the ways of God is more important than fitting in with societal norms. Thus they are gladly counter-cultural.
So they’re like hipsters?
Yes, except everything they do is unironic.
There’s some really weird stuff in the Bible, like [quote of strange-sounding rule from Leviticus or Deuteronomy]. The Bible sounds stupid, and people shouldn’t listen to it.
Parts of the Bible can sound weird in isolation, but it takes lots of study to understand the Bible and how the Old Testament relates to the New Testament.
But don’t Christians just pick and choose what parts of the Bible they want to follow? Like [quote rule from Leviticus or Deuteronomy that Christians are unlikely to follow].
Christians do not follow much of what is known as the “Mosaic Law.” Much of the reasoning for this is addressed in the book of Hebrews.
Okay, so if I just check that out, I’ll find the answer and… wait a second! You almost tricked me into reading more of the Bible! I only need to know enough about it to mock it!
Almost got you. When trying to trip up Christians with quotes from the Bible, just be aware you’re unlikely to find anything they aren’t already aware of, since they read that thing religiously.
And don’t Christians know we now have science, which has replaced religion, and that there is no more need for Jesus, since we have lasers and rockets and other science stuff?
Science covers physical and temporary things, while religion covers spiritual and eternal things, so Christians still feel religion is very important — even more important than science.
That’s blasphemy! Nothing is more important than science! How can they think such things?
Maybe they didn’t watch Beakman’s World when they were young.
Why do they have to talk so much about their religion? Why can’t they just be silent about their religion and be Christians quietly in the corner or something?
Christians get great joy from their religion and the sense of love and purpose it gives them and thus want to share it. In fact, the Bible says Christians should spread their faith. It’s sort of like how I want to tell everyone about Arrested Development so they’ll all enjoy it, too
Why are Christians always judging others?
Because Christians are a subset of people, they share the faults all people have and tend to get judgmental at times.
No. This is something unique to bad Christians. They are all closed-minded, ignorant, hypocritical bigots who are stupid and dumb. And they judge people.
Again, these are faults all people have. Christians often fall short of their goal, but the point is they keep trying.
I’m pretty sure they’re judgmental. Like that Tim Tebow, I’m pretty sure he’s judging me.
I’m not even sure he’s aware you exist.
Yeah, but the way he lives his life all “holy” and “nice” makes me really feel like he’s judging me for not doing the same.
I’m pretty sure Tim Tebow is just trying to do his best in the eyes of God and isn’t try to make you feel bad by it.
Still, I’d really feel better if he was caught doing something really licentious. It would make me feel less bad about myself.
You should write a letter to him telling him that. Maybe he’ll listen.
Are Christians allowed to own businesses?
Under current understanding of the law, they are in fact allowed to own businesses, and many do.
But they’re not allowed to talk about all their weird Christany stuff while owning a business, right?
Most people would consider that to fall under our First Amendment rights — those protecting both freedom of speech and religion. Thus, people should be allowed to talk about their Christian beliefs without fearing government reprisal, such as politicians trying to block them from opening businesses.
Are you going by a strict constructionist interpretation of the First Amendment where the words actually mean things?
Yes.
But what if it’s a super hateful thing the Christians say, like being against gay marriage?
While homosexuals have often been treated hatefully (and hatefulness is certainly not a Christian value), there’s nothing hateful in opposing gay marriage. Christians simply believe that the Bible clearly states what God intends a marriage to be and want to respect that and not replace it with their own wants or judgments.
No, it’s hateful. So hateful, I’m going to write NoH8 on myself and put tape on my mouth for inexplicable reasons.
If you want to believe it’s hateful, you can, but that will prevent any rational discussion on the issue.
Hate! Hateful! Hater hate hate hate!
Now you’re just… let’s move on.
Time travelers, on their way to kill Hitler, have stopped by in our time to tell us how the gay marriage debate ended and have let us know that gay marriage is inevitable. So why won’t Christians get out of its way? Won’t they feel bad and stupid when gay marriage is here and everyone likes it?
Whether or not society accepts gay marriage, many Christians will continue to oppose it since, again, the Bible seems pretty clear on marriage. So expect opposition to continue far, far into the future.
But if Christians continue to be hating haters who hate by not supporting gay marriage, won’t people stop being a part of their religion?
Christianity has survived violence and persecution of its adherents for thousands of years, so it’s unlikely the gay marriage debate will do it in. The Bible has always had a lot to say about sex and marriage that has made a lot of people unhappy in the past, but Christians will continue to teach the Bible in the future. It’s like how sex outside of marriage has become okay according to society, but Christians still teach against it, even if they are a minority voice on the subject.
Hating haters hate hate hate!
You’re doing it again.
And what’s with the opposition to making insurance pay for contraception? Do Christians really want to send us back to a time when fundamentalists controlled everything and people were burned at the stake for being witches and women had to go to Walgreens and spend their own money to get contraception?
There are numerous Christian views on contraception, but Christians universally support freedom of religion and don’t think people should have to fund what they morally oppose.
So they think that freedom of religion is more important than free contraception?
They would argue that, yes.
And what’s with Christians’ constant opposition to abortion?
I have no idea. It’s hard to imagine how anyone could find anything wrong with that.
I think you’re mocking me.
I wouldn’t do that.
Despite your explanation of Christians, I’m still afraid of them and their Christiany ways and know they’re just waiting to judge me.
There is nothing to fear from Christians. They’re people, just like you and me, who are trying to center their lives around God instead of the ways of this world. Also– AHH! DON’T TURN AROUND! TIM TEBOW IS BEHIND YOU, AND HE’S SHAKING HIS HEAD IN DISGUST!
What? Where? I don’t see him!
It was a false alarm… this time.
I still maintain that, of the hundreds (if not thousands) of religions, cults, sects, schisms, and whatever else out there, all of whom claim to be the One True Religion, the only one that actually is valid is the one practiced by a thirty-seven member pygmy tribe somewhere in the depths of the Amazon basin.
Why not? If they don’t have a Hell, I’ll make it thirty-eight.
Why do you say that? You want to see hell in zero gravity? Look up at noon.
Actually, there are only two religions in the world. One in which there is a prescribed formula to follow to get to heaven and the other one in which God as a free gift, welcomes you into Heaven simply for believing that His son, Jesus, died for your sins. The first one contains all religions except Christianity. The second one is Christianity.
taxguy, actually, Christians so have a formula for getting to heaven. Just believing in Jesus isn’t enough. You have to strive to emulate his life. Follow the commandments and be kind to others. Simply believing isn’t enough. You can’t just talk the talk, you’ve got to walk the walk.
Actually CS,faith is what it’s all about. Genuine faith leads to conversion or gradual, fundamental change where we are able to see life from God’s perspective and choose to “walk the walk.” Faith is how our relationship with God, which was lost in the fall, is restored and how we are saved, not by works, “lest any man should boast.”
I agree with most of what you say,momhusfam, except for the last. A true believer will do good works, or he isn’t a true believer. I think of the parable where the master gave money to his servants. Those that used the money to make more were praised. The one who buried his money was scolded. This is a clear call from God to use the talents he’s given us to help others. Burying them and not using them to create more good in the world is a sin. I’d say true faith leads to good works. And I’d certainly never avoid doing good for fear of “boasting”. It is possible to do good without seeking credit, spotlight or reward.
Common Sense – wait, so you agree with everything momhusfan says except the part where he/she quotes from Ephesians 2:8?
At Leigh- Yes.
“Faith without works is dead” (James 2:20).
James 2:24, “You see that a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone.”
In other words, if you see a samaritan hurt on the side of the road, Jesus commands us to stop and help (works). A person who has “faith” but doesn’t stop doesn’t truely have faith.
Right, but it isn’t the act of helping that man that results in salvation, it’s the salvation that results in the act. Jesus did all of the work needed for our salvation, so we can’t take any credit for it.
“A true believer will do good works, or he isn’t a true believer.”
True but it’s good works brought about by a desire to follow God.
Doing good works alone won’t do it. Faith must come first then works.
So many just decide to look at how often they help a church, and the homeless, and any other charity they deem worthy and decide that they are already doing good and view having faith as secondary.
Likewise many christians will work hard for a great many charities but have horrible faith but will put themselves over someone who only has faith.
The argument between Salvation by Faith or by Works strikes me a little bit like the argument about how many angels can fit on the head of a pin, one of those headache-inducing intellectual conundrums that hard-core Protestants and Catholics deliberately use in order to promote mutual grievance, while completely missing the larger issues.
The whole point of the Parable of the Good Samaritan was that the Samaritan did not “believe” correctly, was largely ignorant of the Law, yet he pleased God more than the ideologically and intellectually perfect Pharisee who was ostensibly fully observant of the letter of the Law and thought he was being strictly obedient to it by ignoring the wounded man.
The idea is that our intellectual understanding of God is not what pleases God, but our actual conformity to His Will. The Samaritan knew little about the Law, but in his heart he wanted to help someone who was suffering. That, in fact, is the true Law, so in effect, the Samaritan was obeying God’s Law without knowing it at all, while the Pharisee was violating God’s Law, even though in his human mind he thought he knew it well. The Samaritan had “The Faith” written in his heart, and so he pleased God without even knowing it.
Think of Faith like a soldier in battle, surrounded by death and certain defeat, who feels a tremendous urge to abandon the field and run away, but forces himself to stay and fight to the end. In his mind there is nothing but fear and despair, and he may not even “believe” (in the ordinary human sense) that victory is possible, but still, he “kept the Faith”.
This discussion comes from the erroneous and modern misconception that the term “Faith” means “belief” or even “philosophical school of thought”, and therefore that “True Faith” has something to do with “studied ideological correctness”. I suspect this is yet another problem stemming from only knowing the Bible through English-language translations and without adequate knowledge of common usage in the original languages.
actually momhusfam, the sermon on the mount makes it clear you need works, and James 2:14-26 makes it clear faith w/out works is dead.
@tinsmith I thought the reason for the Good Samaritan story was to show us who are neighbor is…We are to show kindness to all people, not just those we agree with.
also baptism is also required, that is why Jesus got baptized. doing that is also an action, therefor “work”.
Common Sense,
I would urge you to check Romans 3:3-5:6. Righteousness is imputed to us by faith, not by works. Righteousness by works is righteousness under the law and you are free to try that if you like, but I prefer grace. The faith by which we are saved is God’s faith in us, not our faith in God, so even that salvation through faith is not a work of ours.
The works we do are to confirm that we have accepted God’s sacrifice for us and our gratitude for it. Baptism does not convey salvation, it only stands as a declaration of our salvation to the rest of the world.
True – Believing is not enough. You have to CHOOSE (make a choice – a verb – meaning action) to accept the gift from God of salvation by accepting His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior. THEN, being a changed creature – one with Holy Spirit – you live your life in Christ – emulating Him – to show a good and proper example to others so they know HIM through you.
as a follower of chriat, I try to do as he taught. thats not easy and I fail miserably often, but I keep trying. I think he knows my heart, and whatever happens to me when I die, I will be OK and happy
I’m horrified by the whole “sola fides” argument. I love Christ and want to please Him; there are many passages in the Bible that compare our relationship with God as a spousal one, that we have a covenental relationship with Him. So to brag that Christ won’t abandon you no matter how you treat Him might be true, but you’re not impressing anyone with your relationship with Christ; Gomer probably bragged the same way about Hosea!
Now it’s time for another huge, A-or-NotA generalization:
There are only two religions in the world, Judaism and shamanism. All others are evolved forms of shamanism (in the case of Zen Buddhism, evolved a VERY long way) or modifications of Judaism. (I use “modifications” instead of “heresies,” as it’s fairer.)
This is adapted from C.S. Lewis’ observation that the only two religions were Christianity and Hinduism. “Islam is merely the greatest Christian heresy. Buddhism is merely the greatest Hindu heresy.” A pity such a great man had a certain unavoidable historical blind spot…
C.S. Lewis was spot on. Would God create more than one religion? If God IS he is One and He revealed His Truth in one way. That Way is The Word of God. Abraham was the first monotheist and God made a deal with him for he and his seed to bless the entire earth. When God incarnated in human form he did it once and Judaism became Christianity.
You can rule out every other religion on purely logical grounds. You can trace their origins, as Lewis did, to either Hindu or Hebrew. Hinduism is polytheistic and non logical. Either the Jews or the Christians are correct in their understanding of God. It’s an easy choice if you look closely. And if you think the idea of God is illogical … you probably don’t pay much attention to modern physics or quantum theory. The universe, reality, we ourselves … are not what we perceive with our five senses. Something like 99.999 percent of the universe is empty vacuum. Including our bodies and all matter. Reality is about information not substance. It just so happens and we all will understand one day, God controls the information.
So you can trace the traditional native American religions, traditional Chinese religions, the old religions of the Germans, Romans, Egyptians, Arabs, Persians (Zoroastrianism), Slavs, Saami and Finns, Celts and the traditional religions of the Africa and the Australian aborigines to Hinduism or Judaism how?
Thank you for proving my point. “Judaism became Christianity”? I beg your pardon, but then just what the %$#@ has my community been practicing and living by all these centuries? And looking at a different, more recent development, why didn’t all the Christians recognize a true prophet, bearing a new, true, miraculous Scripture, when Joseph Smith came along? Oh, but those teachings flew in the face of the body of ancient tradition: you would say that what was new in them was not true, and what was true in them was not new. Think about it.
Nueces,
The universe isn’t an empty vacuum. It is filled with light. Light is invisible unless you look directly at the source or at something that reflects it. Kinda like God.
Otherwise I agree.
Actually, sir, the first monotheist was Adam, and his wife Eve learned about God after she was created from a rib taken out of Adam. Sadly, after Adam and Eve were kicked out of the Garden of Eden, some of their children and grandchildren began to worship fallen Angels, demons and even other men. This resulted in polytheism. In time, this polytheism degenerated even further, and the people of earth became so violent and evil, that God decided to destroy them all by a huge flood that would cover the whole earth. There was, however one family that was still following God. God told this man, Noah, to build a huge vessel called an Ark, whereby God would save all 2 of each kind of animal, and any humans who would believe what God had to say enough to want to be saved from the coming destruction. While building the Ark, Noah also preached to the people about the coming judgment for about 120 years. When the Ark was finished, God brought the animals to Noah, and Noah and his family, and the animals all entered the Ark, and God closed the door to the Ark, and began His judgment.
His “greatness” finished when he argued that christianity is not anti-semitic and if it was, he would stop being a christian. Take up faith and logic goes out the window.
BTW, islam is more like judaic rather then christian “heresy”.
What? Your statement to “take up faith and and logic goes out the window,” is TOTALLY illogical here. You know that, don’t you? Christianity actually is NOT anti-semitic, and if it was, I would stop being a Christian as well. That is a pure, unadulterated LOGICAL statement.
Christianity was born from Judaism and I have a difficult time understanding how any so called Christians ever used it to justify anti-Semitism. The Old Testament Scriptures Christians believe and the patriarchs are the story of how the Hebrew nation brought forth the Messiah for the salvation of the nations. The New Testament is also full of Jewish people, not to mention the fact that Jesus Christ was Jewish. The first Christians were Jewish, and there are still Jewish Christians today.
That sounds so unamerican and so wrong. Basically, the American thought is that if you work hard, you’ll eventually get there. But how is belief in evidence more important than deeds? Isn’t it better to judge people for what they actually do, not what they believe?
God is not an American.
Judging by deeds rather than words is better for imperfect human beings, because that’s the best evidence we have. But God knows the innermost thoughts of our hearts, so you need not fear He will judge you falsely. It is not other people, including Christians, who are doing the judging.
Besides, if God judged us on our imperfect deeds, who then could be saved?
that is what repentance, and forgiveness are about.
Ah yes! The house of Christ and the House of War. That sounds familiar, where have I heard that before?…..
Oh, I don’t know about this…
There are so many doctrinal differences among Christians themselves you can hardly divide religion into “Christianity” and “everything else”.
Some Christians, Catholics, for example, have very rigid rules and dogma regarding who will go to heaven and who will go to hell, and then even Catholics themselves are always bickering over everything, so all I can think is no one really knows anything for sure.
I doubt Tim Tebow is the most public Christian out there. Plenty of others who’ve been very publicly Christian have done plenty to make Christianity look about as hypocritical as it gets — the Westboro Baptist Church, the Catholic sex abuse scandal, the name-it-and-claim-it, prosperity gospel televangelists, etc.
Christians aren’t hypocritical – we are human just like everyone else. And like everyone else we are not perfect – but we strive to be the best we can be and if (WHEN) we fall we pick ourselves up and start over again.
The other things you mentioned are sins within the church. Abusing children is bad enough – not confronting the sin and discipling the sin is worse. The Catholic church should never have allowed homosexuals to become priets. The TV people are just as guilty with adultery.
As for the westoboro people? Well, it’s one family – democrats – who apparently really like dead soldiers. Go figure.
Lot’s of people “people pick themselves up” after they fall, whatever that means.
Some of us acknowledge when we’re wrong, learn from our failures and go on to do better.
Has nothing to do with Christianity per se.
Christians often are hypocritical — as are all humans. Your hypocrisy is not something else because you’re Christian. If a church is preaching chastity, and one of its priests or ministers molests a girl, and the hierarchy of that church covers up the crime and passes the molesting priest to another parish where he molests another girl, all while continuing to preach chastity and claim the punishnment for mortal sin is hell, then they’re hypocrites. Has nothing to do with homosexuality (heterosexual men are still the most likely demographic to be child molesters and rapists, not gay men) and everthing to do with willful criminal behavior, which, in turn, has nothing to do with Christianity.
In other words, saying you are a Christian, joining a Christian church, even being baptized a Christian means nothing on its own.
Your actions mean everything, regardless of the labels you either choose or eschew.
Even Jesus Christ acknowledges this.
Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers! ~Jesus Christ
@Nora – I reject you and your definition of Christians being hypocrits. I find atheists the most hypocritical people on the planet – believing in nothing and feeling superior enough to judge everything – the GALL. You, on the other hand, are hypocritical in your hypocrisy.
I don’t find atheists any more or less hypocritical than anyone else. I do find it vastly amusing that all it took was someone to disagree with you for you to turn into one nasty, unChrist-like piece of work. Hmmm…
@Nora – You’re just like the rest of the lib’s – no sense of humor. You can’t even tell when you’re being made fun of. Sad.
I’m not a liberal — I’ve expressed no particular political views here at all.
Also, can you show me how Christ makes fun of people in the Bible?
You are showing your true colors, DEAR. You’re a hypocrite, through and through. And a complete narcissist, to boot.
Remember…self-absorption is Hell. Careful…
I agree with you, but I’d say it a little differently. What God offers is actually not a religion, but a relationship with Him. Eternal life is to know Him. Religion is an enemy to that living relationship. Remember, it was the most religious that crucified Jesus. Religion says, “I do the work, God accepts it, I get the glory.” What God offers is “Jesus did the work, I accept it, God gets the glory”
I like this!
THIS!
You basically said that Christianity is not a religion as much as a relationship with God! VERY WELL PUT!!! All the arguing seems to show “judging.” As Christians we are told to “Judge not, lest ye be judged.”
Congratulations Tom, you’ve found the point of agreement between Nora and Lolly
Lk.10.25-28 says we must love God and neighbor to be saved. Mt.7.21 says we must do the will of God to be saved. Heb.5.9 says that Jesus saves those who obey Him.IJn.3.14 says that we move from death to life because we love the brethren. Jn.14.15 says we must love and obey Jesus.
Your evangelicalism is far from christianity; in fact it is a demonism which will damn all its followers.
I am fascinated that no one here seems to recognize that there are actually TWO different types of “Christians.”
1. is actually an “evangelical”…a la Jerry Falwell, Tim Tebow, Pat Robertson, Mike Huckebee, etc. These Christians are actually members of the “Southern Baptist Convention”, (not to be confused with mainline Baptists.) Never heard of them, have you? That’s because many considered their beliefs extreme…so they dropped “Southern Baptist Convention” and changed their name to “Christians” or “Believers.” This group believes Catholicism is a cult. This is the group that this author is discussing.
2. is actually made up of “mainline” Protestants and Catholics. They believe that Christians are believers in Christ. They believe in “good works” and behaving in a “Christian way.” Tho hard to explain, there is a HUGE difference between the 2 groups who call themselves “Christians.”
Rusty Bill,
How many times are you going to make that same point? We get it already! We get it!
Huh? I left a single, one-sentence comment. What are you on about?
Speaker- Hello, newcomers, and welcome. Can everybody hear me? [taps the mic a few times] Hello? Can everybuh-? Okay. [the crowd quiets down] Uh, I’m the hell director. Uh, it looks like we have about 8,615 of you newbies today, and for those of you who are a little confused, uh, you are dead, and this is hell, so, abandon all hope and uh yada yada yada. Uh, we are now going to start the orientation process, which will last about-
Man- Hey, wait a minute, I shouldn’t be here. I wa a totally strict and devout Protestant! I thought we went to heaven!
Hell director- Yes, well I’m afraid you were wrong.
Soldier- I was a practicing Jehovah’s Witness.
Hell director- Uh, you picked the wrong religion as well.
Another man- Well, who was right? Who gets into heaven?
Hell director- I’m afraid it was the Mormons. Yes, the Mormons were the correct answer.
Crowd- [disappointed] Awww.
hahahahahahaha!!!! South Park. This is hilarious, dude.
I’m with you, Rusty. I lived in New England and went to a mainstream “Christian Church” when I was growing up and never did believe the stuff in the bible. The current “Christians” were called Holy Rollers at that time and did not mix with the rest of us. I didn’t know anyone who belonged to one of those sects and I really didn’t care to adopt any of their beliefs. I am not at all interested in their explanations and am very much opposed to their push for creationism.
It disgusts mee that they push for theirs being the one true religion and they think their beliefs and religion is the only one.
It’s all about faith.
http://uselections2012blog.blogspot.ca/
The word Christian has been drained of all meaning, please find another word or cut bait. This article was not funny, humorous nor interesting.
Drained of all meaning by whom? I must not have gotten the memo. I did, however, get a Holy Bible and I am pretty sure that the drain plug is firmly in place there. One is left with a very clear understanding of the faith by the time you turn the final page.
Why would followers of Jesus Christ want to find another word to describe their faith? Should they suddenly say that “we’re dropping all of the references to that Christ guy – let’s go with Homer Simpson instead. From now on we’re Homerians… or Simpsonians…”
Contrary to your assertion that the article was neither funny, humorous (kinda redundant there, don’t you think?) nor interesting you found cause to comment upon it. Hmmm… The incongruity of your argument is telling.
Perhaps you didn’t think it funny because it was aimed at you.
That’s OK. I’m praying for you anyway. God bless, my friend.
Yuck, someone get me a bucket. Your defensive, hotheaded reply to Blazon is “telling,” turfmann. You’re of the paranoid variant of Christian, I see.
Which brings us to Blazon’s point: “Christian” as a sociological/anthropological term is indeed being distorted and warped these days by people like you who so angrily and blindly attack a simple argument, nay, observation, because it doesn’t jive with your own insecure schema of beliefs. It’s hard to know what a “true Christian” is, with the intellectually stillborn blather that so often comes from so many bearing the title.
Do us a favor. Stop wasting your time praying for us; try some constructive thinking instead.
Projection much? Poor thing.
You need a bucket? The one on your head will do nicely. You’ll also find your long-lost eyeglasses up there there, too.
Blazon had no point, of that it should be obvious, and you had even less – all those wasted keystrokes… Pity.
Thanks, Frank J. I must admit I was puzzled. Now I get it!
[stands, holds up lighter yelling "Freebird!"]
best comment so far!
Thanks Mr. Fleming. What you said about Christians is true. The whole thing about being a Christian is, as you say, getting up when we fail, and we all fall short, and trying again. That is the secrete behind Christianity. We try and serve Jesus Christ but because we are imperfect beings, we learn from our shortcomings and rely on God as the potter to mold us into better human beings. And that free will thing, works for everyone, but secular society does not get it.
secrete indeed – what crap
Watch it, ace. Someone who doesn’t use capital letters or correct punctuation has no business calling out someone else for a typo.
wha-ever….. I’m pointing out the freudian typo
Re: Lonnie Wild-Now look who is being judgmental……
King Solomon:
“Seven times the rightous falls and gets up, but the wicked with one…”
Although to me that’s Judaism.
Actually, as a Jew I would agree with almost everything above. (Most of the Mosaic Law, as is obvious if you read it, was never meant to apply to Gentiles in the first place. Of course, a lot of it is misinterpreted.) I certainly have a lot of sympathy and empathy for what Christians have to go through.
That lady who has trouble with Gabby is simply an irreligious Christian, who feels guilty because she isn’t her. Believe me, we Jews are all too familiar with the type (not most, thank Heaven).
Reminds me of the story of the late Hubert Humphrey, who was trying to arrange a kosher component to a food program. His colleage asked,
“Why are you bothering with all of this. I’m Jewish, and I don’t keep Kosher.”
And Humphrey replied,
“I have enough trouble without having to save your soul also.”
Hubert Humphrey was the last good Democrat.
Thank you for your supportive comments and clarity about the Mosaic law. Do you think that people would believe that Christians weren’t named by themselves, but by the other citizens in Antioch – simply because they were connected with Jesus Christ?
I’ve been looking for Jewish prospective on Mosaic law applied to gentiles. an honest Torah obedient view as I don’t believe Talmud to be any more inspired than Catholic Cannon law. Both being the words of men whereas Torah and Mosaic law is inspired of God. As far as I Understand, Christians are merely grafted into the covenant. and bound by the same laws with exception of the sin sacrifices as that debt has already been paid (no offence).
http://www.discoveringthejewishjesus.com/
I love to learn from this Rabbi, he has a Gentile partner, and I think he really brings the rich history of Jews into context for the New Testament. Anybody else thought about how the only commandment that starts with remember, was the first commandment to be forgotten by most people? Ps.. Scientists that study the Bible are the ones to make great leaps of knowledge, archeologists that study the Bible are the ones to make the exciting finds. The Bible told us the earth was a sphere way before men confirmed it, the same with the belt of Orion and the Pliades constellation and many more things. It’s amazing that people that consider themselves so smart are so unwilling to learn. Amazing really. Enjoy the link
Some people consider themselves far too intelligent to subscribe to a rather restrictive set of beliefs and moral precepts, mostly because those rules impinge upon their desire to do what they want when they want. They usually tell me that they can craft their own “morals,” because they are so educated and smart. That leaves the majority of us who are a whole lot dumber than them. So dumb, in fact, that we will probably subscribe to some form of religion. Now, if they really were so smart, they’d think about the religions out there that we might choose from. Hm. Let’s see, one of those religions commands its adherents that its deity is all there is, and to kill the infidel wherever he might be found. The other admonishes that church and state should be separate, and that adherents should turn the other cheek.
Which one do you smart atheists want us dumb folk to follow? And why are you trying so hard to eliminate one of the choices?
Hmmm…I’m an agnostic, but not because I want to create my own morality or do whatever I want to do.
I’m not an atheist, and I’m not all that smart, but I don’t see how Christians can claim they’re following a God who believes church and state should be separate, but who want the state to adhere to a definition of marriage that comes from their God/church.
The state should offer civil unions to all citizens as it so deems legal — if that means between same sex partners, fine, and if it eventually means between three or more consenting adults, fine.
Churches should reserve “marriage”, this God-created union, for their members only — and those members should abide by their church’s laws regarding marriage.
Seems like people want separation of church and state when it serves them, but do a complete about face when they stand to gain from the state getting involved with what they otherwise claim is church business.
They’re all about this sacramental, God-defined union called “marriage”, but when they want a divorce and their half of assets, they’re all about the state making the rules.
If marriage is a sacred union between one man and one woman, which no man shall put asunder, fine. When Christians actually live out that one without dragging the state into it, I’ll listen to them regarding gay “marriage”.
“but I don’t see how Christians can claim they’re following a God who believes church and state should be separate, but who want the state to adhere to a definition of marriage that comes from their God/church. ”
There is a difference between a statement of a religious belief, and desiring that the State follow that belief. A religious belief is just one argument in favor of one-man-one-woman marriage.
Marriage pre-dated the country. It predated all countries, most likely. Not sure. It does not belong to government. However, government has a real interest in it.
Children who grow up in a “nuclear family”, where the man and woman are committed to each other and the children, tend to become happy, well-adjusted members of society. Those who don’t… don’t.
So, government moves to protect marriage, as a means of promoting an orderly society, and a future for the nation.
For example, trust is an absolute requirement of marriage. You need to be able to tell your spouse things about yourself that you wouldn’t tell anyone else. You might not do it, though, if you thought the government could squeeze it out of your spouse. So, we rule that you cannot be forced to testify against your spouse. We all like thus rule. This is just one example.
The thing is, there is a difference between protecting marriage and dominating it. Marriage is too important an institution to be used politically as an experiment in social engineering. It is not a toy for liberals to play with, only to discard after they have broken it, like they break all their toys.
Government gets to protect marriage, but they do not own it. Government does not get to re-define it.
The only time they can is when there is clear harm to society. Polygamy is very bad for society. It causes a shortage of wives for young men, and the children grow up a bit… dysfunctional. Besides, a polygamistic divorce would be a legal nightmare.
Besides, it is not about marriage for gays, anyway. In countries where gay marriage is allowed, only 4% of gays get married, and the marriages do not last, and the incidence of domestic violence is very high. Real harm. No, it is about the normalization of homosexuality. It is about convincing people that some kind of sexual perversion is normal and acceptable. It is propaganda.
It is also just a tool for political power. You are being played.
I agree with you more than you think. I’m just saying it seems an awful lot like religious people want to eat their cake and have it too.
Heterosexual people have done more harm to society, to marriage, to family with their own actions than gay people have done. No-fault divorce, contraception, lax sexual mores of their own, the glorification of single-motherhood…
And yet religious people are saying marriage is one man + one woman, it’s the foundation of society, etc., while they themselves are divorcing at the same rate as non-religious people, contracepting at the same rate, and having children out of wedlock at the same rate.
This is where it kind of pays to actually live the morals you’re promoting. You can’t use one set of morals as an argument for something, but live another set entirely and expect anyone to take you seriously.
Sounds like you’re describing Catholicism; practicing Catholics (those who follow Church teaching on contraceptives) have a divorce rate of around 5%
There’re more religions than Christianity and Islam, you can follow neither…
islam is not a religion, it is a political system disguised as a religion.
One thing that I’ve noted about the “Christians”….if one does not adopt their beliefs or does point out discrepancies,invariably the label of ATHIEST is attached..then comes “baby killer, murderer and other choice adjectives.
When I encounteered a group of these christians at a Republican meeting, I was very impressed by their total lack of manners or civility.
nonsense. some “christians” have the same habits as non-christians. they are human. don’t make up false standards for christians.
Hello – what is the reference to the separation of church and state got to do with Christian beliefs? That was a term coined by Thomas Jefferson, who was more deist than Christian, and was not a particularly Christian notion per se. It is not incompatible with being a Christian, but all Christians don’t agree on the meaning these days. Can people who are apparently NOT Christians please avoid telling other people what Christians supposedly think?! Let the Christians speak for themselves!
I think that religious freedom is uppermost but why we care what unbelievers think is really not important. God gave man his free agency and they are free to believe or not believe. It is not my job to save them if they don’t want to be saved. Let them do, say, engage in any sin they wish and even make fun of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Siks, etc. for following their beliefs (not to include the crazies amoung them). Only God can touch the heart of man and all the preaching and explaining can make them believe or understand. They, the atheist, are at risk and if they don’t care we can’t fix them. It is fair to defend ourselves but let’s not worrying about unbelievers, they are God’s problem and I have faith that he will solve it during this life or the next.
I do believe that people who do believe in God who hold different views should be less critical and more loving with each other than I currently see demonstrated. Christian seem to be harder on each other than atheists.
The people who judge Tim Tebow are not Christians and therefore cannot be judgmental. Only Christians can be judgmental.
Atheists believe that the default human condition is Godless. Many more people, including Christians, believe that the natural condition of all people is a God-created world.
Actually the default position is godless, at birth a child’s brain cannot even conceive in a god. Hard to believe in something you cannot conceive.
….how do you know that?
I would be hard-pressed to believe a newborn’s brain can conceive of quarks, positrons, or sales tax either. You speak many words, but they are as empty as a barrel with no bottom, and nothing but wind.
Spot on, PsychoDad. The fact that we all have to learn about God, or anything else, like quantum physics, has no bearing on the truth-value of such knowledge. Being born ignorant is the means by which God gave us freedom.
God does not exist because we — including “a child’s brain” — believe He exists. He exists; a fact that atheists cannot accept. Only atheists insist that He exists only because we believe He exists.
Oh, good! So religion is not something irrational and hardwired after all.
Glad you agree.
Actually, the default position is with God until they become old enough and self-important enough to declare themselves otherwise.
at birth a child’s brain cannot even conceive in a god. unverifiable nonsense, for all we know at birth a child is full of the spirit of God.
Since most of the readers of this site are righties, the are also mostly Christian—and should know this information already.
If you trying to convert the occasional atheist—like me—that frequent this site, we have all been exposed to this info and rejected it.
So, essentially, this article is just cheerleading for believers.
I’m an atheist too. The author forgot one question: do you have evidence?
Because the universe around us exists…and is pretty magnificent, and we don’t have enough blind faith to believe that it just created itself.
Atheism = The belief that nothing exploded into everything for no apparent reason.
There is plenty of evidence, your problem is you inability to accept it.
for example: over 500 people observed and interacted with a resurrected Jesus.
The point of this article wasn’t evidences, but just to clear up some misconceptions about Christians. If you two missed that, it probably calls into question your analysis skills about other things…
Frank…..excellent attempt you made to try to use the tongue-in-cheek method to reach our contemporary uber-short, monosyllabic attention spans….
…..alas, for too many of these hip snarksters, you need a good editor to translate all of this into the Newspeak called “Texting”….using no actual words, just a very few letters strung together [not unlike Hebrew] which really reaches out, using that elusive “cool” factor so essential for everything today.
If it aint “cool”, man…. it simply ain’t anything, anywhere.
It requires only two thumbs with a very small handheld thingy with a thumbnail sized [no pun intended] picture-screen.
Any pre-teen is qualified.
A neo-Gutenberg need not apply.
LOL! Man, that made me laugh so hard. I liken it to a teacher telling one of his students that God did not exist because you cannot see him. The child retorted “Do you have a brain?”, the teacher said “yes, of course I do.” The child said, “How do you know, have you seen it.”
“……No, because it’s smart enough to hide behind my eyes where I can’t see it. That’s how I know it’s my brain, ’cause it’s smart, see? haw, well……. maybe when you grow up, you can get a job as building material, don’t put an eye out er nuthin’ in the meantime………”….XDDDDD………..
So…if the brain behind the creation and sustainment of the universe can’t be seen by us, it therefore must not exist?
“The single greatest cause of atheism in the world today is Christians, who acknowledge Jesus with their lips, then walk out the door, and deny Him by their lifestyle. That is what an unbelieving world simply finds unbelievable.” ~Brennan Manning
“I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” ~Mahatma Gandhi
It’s not that skeptics have misconceptions about Christianity. It’s that they’ve encountered too many Christians who say one thing and do another, all while they’re judging others. And when they’re called out on it, they play the “we’re all sinners” card.
How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye. ~Jesus Christ
Are you done beating that dead horse yet, dear?
This has been explained to you and yet you persist. Methinks thou art an agent provocateur.
No, you didn’t answer it at all. How nice of you to use the condescending “dear”, the ugly tone, and the nasty comeback, though. So Christian of you…
Yes – I did explain it to you. As have others. It’s not my fault you refuse (yes – I said refuse) to see.
And you can try and insult me all you want – I am a Christain and it doesn’t bother me a bit. It’s what you people always say.
Lolly, you and your words are why people reject Christianity.
You have not “explained” anything at all about anything. Maybe you don’t understand the meaning of the word “explain”…?
You disagree. That’s not the same thing as “explain”. Look it up.
Funny how the two most strident supposed Christians here are the most appalling examples of Christ-like behavior here.
One is a shameless liar, the other is just an obnoxious little witch-with-a-B.
Oh, well…
The single greatest cause of religiosity is atheists. Atheism is fine, but it is all those atheists, with their mass murders and genocides and infringements of private property that drive people to religion. They preach that here is no God with their mouths, then they all run off and act as if they are Gods, or the government is God. It’s like they are hypocrites.
Enough of this kind of silly argument. The difficulty of achieving the ideals of a religion have nothing to do with the validity of that religion. By that standard, particle physics must be totally wrong, because only a handful of people have any idea what all those equations mean, let alone how to solve them.
But one can believe without being religious. I think religious hypocrisy (something that ticked off Christ to no end) certainly is what’s driving the growing number of those who consider themselves SBNR.
Hey, Nora
People who” talk the talk,” but do not “walk the walk” are not actually true Christians. Unfortunately, these fake Christians hate on non-believers, which, in return, pushes them away from having a relationship with Christ. I apologize on behalf of true believers for the bad taste you are left with form the battering you receive from fake Christians.
Though you do not believe, I will pray for you still. God bless. Oh, and for the people who are mean to you Nora, I have a special verse for them…
“Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it. (Matthew 7:13, 14 NIV)
Nora,
you are exactly right. Because people go around and do not walk the walk other people say why bother to learn about Jesus if we all just go around acting the same. I am guilty as charged. I wish that I could be that perfect, but the truth is Jesus knew we could not be perfect and that is why he came to offer grace and salvation. Christians are often times their own worst enemy in the endevour to lead others. I try not to judge and I try real hard not to be a hypocrite. And that is the key to being a Christian. To learn from your mistakes and become more Christ-like. You could certainly make the argument that people who do not believe do this on their own. And, that would be true, but the gift of working with God in that endeavor is enernal life with God. So I will stick with what I know in my heart is true and believe and press on..
I guess Brennan Manning was perfect in all things, thus he was translated and went directly to heaven. No? Then his comment was hypocritical BS.
Mahatma Gandhi, soldier in british army, wife beater, abusive father, dirty old man. another hypocrite.
we are all sinners, dummy, that’s the point. We need Christ.
How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye. ~Jesus Christ
That quote from Christ applies to both your poor examples as well as to yourself (and to me).
Well said. These arguments about who is the worst “hypocrites” are the pot calling the kettle black. Also, it doesn’t make much sense to quote Jesus’ words about judgement about others while one is in the middle of doing it. Jesus next comment is barely ever mentioned, which is telling. “Don’t throw your pearls before swine. If you do, they will trample them underfoot, and then turn on you and rend you.” Perhaps that means “Don’t bother to argue when there is no understanding of what is being said. All it does is provoke more and harsher attacks.”
in addition:
“The single greatest cause of atheism in the world today is Christians, who acknowledge Jesus with their lips, then walk out the door, and deny Him by their lifestyle. That is what an unbelieving world simply finds unbelievable.” ~Brennan Manning”
the premise is BS. Atheist are atheist because they want to be atheists – those who try to blame bad Christians on their own atheism are nothing but brainless, spineless, cowards.
“Dummy”?
F*ck you, asshole.
You know, the more I read from “Christians”, the more I think the atheists have the right of it.
No, it’s just poking fun at those who seem panicked by the notion that Christians are still around.
Actually, this article isn’t necessarily only for atheists. I know of a leftist former friend who still professes to believe and yet his personal politics lead him to behave much like the so-called unbeliever asking the questions in this article.
I would actually say that this article is more for leftists than it is for atheists, per se. I’ve seen atheist conservatives come up with perfectly rathional arguments against both abortion and gay marriage. I often use those arguments myself, even as a devout Christian, when arguing with leftists because so many leftists happen to be atheists and you know the Christian appeal won’t work even if they profess to be Christians.
You could come an argument against gay marriage or abortion. But you couldn’t come with a rational argument for using the government to prevent gay marriage or to prevent a woman removing a few unspecified cells in her body. There’s no reason at the point of a gun.
But that’s part of this whole argument. The left – for close to a century now – has been using government (that barel of the gun) to FORCE their religion down the throat of an unwilling populace. They’ve openly targeted children in schools they force us to send our children to be indoctrinated into rejecting their parent’s beliefs and value systems.
It has been the left that has forced all of this and they yelp like a wounded animal when we try to take a little sanity back. Shoot – as this parody of an article displays, they are shocked and offended that we still even exist.
But the short answer to your post is no – the government has NO business in ant of these issues. And none of them have anything to do with new madeup human /civil rights. At the most it should be a States rights issue – on the ballot and then people can vote with their feet. The problem with the left is they never take NO for an answer.
But you couldn’t come with a rational argument for using the government to prevent gay marriage
Do you realize how irrational that statement is? The argument isn’t about making a law prohibiting a church from holding a marriage ceremony but about expanding access to divorce courts to people who in no way should ever need it.
Not (necessarily) trying to convert anyone. However, since many atheists naturally have little interest in religious matters, too many argue from information gleaned from pop culture (movies, TV, etc.) and straw-men found in anti-Christian and Christian sectarian polemics. Since many religious people (but by no means all, or even a large majority) are better informed about religious matters, it causes frustration when they regularly encounter arguments based on false premises, or “popular knowledge” which is not actually factual. Even worse are Biblical mis-quotes, or entirely made-up pseudo-quotes. Anyway, this is what prompts Christians to respond to atheists (or each other). More often than not, it is not an attempt to convert, just to get both sides arguing from actual facts instead of pop-culture misperceptions. And yes, this works both ways, although, obviously, it is the religious side, with its enormous history and diversity, that suffers from the greater amount of dis-information and mis-information. And this is not always the fault of the atheists. Most of the worst disinformation about religions was created by rival sects. Sometimes the atheists have been most useful in penetrating this cloud of bad information, to the benefit of the religion in general. After all, it was mostly atheists who verified the historicity of most of the Bible.
Thank you. I have been mocked and ridiculed my entire life for my beliefs and this was a fun read. I’ve sent it to all of my children who I know will appreciate the humor and irony therein.
It may very well be that the reason some Christians become liberals is that after all that mocking and ridicule, they want to be in a group where they will receive some ego stroking and back-patting. A good friend of mine who is a professor in the unholy world of Academe and yet is staunchly pro-life told me that in order to be in the “in-crowd” you have to adhere to a strict set of “beliefs”. Ironic, isn’t it?
I also find it ironic when I tell a non-believer I am a Christian and they respond by saying “oh my ‘God’, are you stupid?”
Hah! (or lol, if you prefer:)
Good for you. Believe me, any practitioner of a conservative belief, that does not rewrite its morals every five minutes, should understand.
This article was an attack on bigotry. I wonder why some cannot understand it this. Maybe they should look in the mirror.
Neither are you. Stalemate.
This imaginary chit chat between a Christian, and a non Christian was somewhat entertaining. For me, anything requiring ‘faith’ including the atheist position is a leap I won’t take without one tiny piece of evidence. Atheism is the negative, and can never be proven, but still requires faith. Meanwhile, I’ll be on the side observing both sides jawing about it.
Wrong! Atheism doesn’t require faith. An atheist doesn’t believe in god. An atheist doesn’t necessarily believe that gods don’t exist. In the same way, it doesn’t require a leap of faith for not believing in Santa, Allah, the Indian monke-elephant god, Nessy,…
The position that God may or may not exist is the agnostic position, not atheism which is defined by the assertion that God does not exist.
Atheism is therefore a faith based position in formal logic sense because the position that something does not exist can not be definitely proven.
Thanks for the definition, Brian.
I’m pretty agnostic about Atheism (but downright Atheistic about agnosticism.) Atheism requires more faith than anything else. It is the assertion of an inherently unprovable universal negative proposition. The “I dunno” agnostics are cleverer, though the case could be made they are a bit cowardly in the same sense of a Frenchman who waited until after D-Day to decide he was on the side of the Allies.
As for evidence, how about John Lennox?
http://www.veritas.org/Talks.aspx#!/v/1165
It’s a great talk, but what I mean is Lennox himself. He is the evidence: world class in the most inherently rational discipline, mathematics, and a believer. He is not proof of God, but he is evidence.
An atheist is by definition one who BELIEVES there is no God. Conceivably, there are some people who ask the question, “Is there a God?” But they ain’t atheists; they’re just dumb.
Believers tend to relate everything to belief, so an atheist who isn’t a believer *must* therefore believe in something, eh? i.e. if you don’t believe in god, well, that can only mean you must believe in not-god! Yours is a common made-up definition that unsurprisingly is shared by religious folks, and just as unsurprisingly, few if any atheists.
More than one atheist holds what to you might seem as an agnostic view, which is that if you stipulate that god exists, then it’s still a big so-what, a god simply isn’t relevant. In this POV god existing or not isn’t meaningful. A lot of what you guys think of as atheism isn’t atheist so much as apathetic.
Meanwhile a lot of what you guys call atheism is about is a rejection of the rather silly CHRISTIAN concept of god, the one near enough that they pray to it and the one that apparently has some skin in some sporting events (especially with NFL footballl and car racing.) Lots of atheists have no problem with the idea that perhaps a god exists somewhere; hey, the universe is a HUGE place, and who knows what’s out there. But they outright reject the big guy in the sky that many christians seem to think is reality. That could be where you guys come up with the “atheists believe that god doesn’t exist” horsepuckey. No, genius, we don’t believe in and reject YOUR deity.
Mostly though atheists reject christian ignorance which is gussied up to make folks seem smart and modern. Take evolution for example. Christians of the modern bent like to show they’re cool and smart and all that and say they believe that the earth is NOT 6000 years old and sure, evolution took place. Sounds fine. But then when you discuss the fact that morals and ethics are emergent properties of sentience… all the sudden this goes against ***every*** christian precept like free will being handed over by god and so on. What this means is that no, christians DO NOT accept the reality of evolution (reject the permutations, you reject the totality), and then they get pissed off when you point out that theirs is an untenable, illogical, and ignorant position.
And you wonder why some of the snarkier atheists think you’re dumb. It’s the gift that keeps on giving.
Standard definitions are that an atheist actively rejects the existence of any God, an agnostic doesn’t know, a Deist believes that “God” caused the Big Bang and the universe but generally keeps out of human affairs, and someone who specifically rejects the Judeo-Christian God is called a “non-Christian”, though this term applies to all of the above categories also. You can do your “Queen of Hearts” thang all day long, but if you want to understand and be understood by English-speaking persons, you might want to use the same words the same way we do.
Of course being an atheist requires faith. To believe that everything came about without direction and solely by material causes is obviously faith and a rather delusional and anti-scientific one.
Scizzorbill: I agree with you. How can anyone believe in a phantom God? And what is it with this Jesus thing? I mean, what did he really accomplish? Was he a great conqueror, like Alexander or Caesar? Did he invent something great, like penicillin? I mean, he was just some guy, born into a really poor, pleb family. He wasn’t even from anywhere famous, he was born in some crappy backwater of the Roman empire. He wasn’t like Sean Penn, who was born in Beverly Hills. And what did he actually do while here? Walk around with twelve other guys and purportedly raise the dead? Big deal!! Yet here we are, talking about this nobody from 2000 years ago. Millions of people know his name and talk about him. And millions of other follow his example. This nobody, this nothing, from nowhere, from nothing, who has this expansive impact on millions and millions and millions. No armies did he lead, nothing did he conquer, he was assailed by a mob and nailed to a cross. Hah! No evidence of divinity there. I’ll stay on the sidelines with you, waiting, just waiting for this so-called God to show me, little me, some proof of his existence. I deserve that. I’m so special. I deserve better from my so-called Creator! We should get together for a margharita and talk about all this stupid people who have “faith”.
Love the irony. Actually, the whole point of Christianity is that it does not believe in a phantom God, which is precisely why it drives the hard-core anti-theists crazy. Christians believe in a God who physically entered the world and spoke directly to us in the form of a historical human being. And that’s precisely why it drives the hard-core believers in pure-phantom Gods crazy. Hence the natural affinity between radical western atheists and radical Islamists.
Atheists have nothing in common with islamists. Nothing. You just don’t get it. Atheists view ALL religion as wrong, sport, not just yours.
It appears that “affinity” is another word you use differently than Engrishmen do.
you both believe in a false “god”
“atheist don’t believe in any religion”
Actually, you are the one who doesn’t get it. By definition atheist don’t believe in a higher deity (God). Not all religions believe in God. for example you could be a Buddhist and be an atheist at the same time.
“Atheists have nothing in common with islamists. Nothing. You just don’t get it. Atheists view ALL religion as wrong, sport, not just yours.”
Actually, “sport” you are the one who doesn’t get it. By definition atheist don’t believe in a higher deity (God). Not all religions believe in God. for example you could be a Buddhist and be an atheist at the same time.
Therefore islam and atheism do indeed have something in common, neither of them believe in the God of Jews and Christians.
I do believe it’s ‘platypodes’ and not ‘playpuses’.
Cute article, but there is one glaring error:
Why are Christians always judging others?
There is nothing wrong with judgment, better referred to as discernment countless times by those inspired to write the ‘Book.’ Just be careful that you are both fair and loving in your judgment. Without judgment, we could never decipher right from wrong, nor good from evil.
Tex, you should not judge someone because they sin differently than you. We should strive to judge internally, not externally.
Accusing others of being judgmental is often the worst form of being judgmental, as it adds the element of hypocrisy. It is nothing but a sophomoric tactic for evading the issue at hand; a high-school debater’s trick that would get an “F” anyway. It is not being judgmental to advocate one’s own views of right and wrong, or to point out potential flaws in another’s argument.
Having a debate, pointing out perceived errors in fact or logic, is not being judgmental. It is communication between two or more parties at least some of whom are interested in finding either the truth or at least some mutual understanding.
Thank you, tinsmith, for that burst of clarity.
Then I suppose we should never call anyone out on being judgmental, lest we become hypocritical; Jesus-plank-eye et al (though I am loathed to reference the bible in this).
Nobody was talking about having a debate, a peer level exchange of ideas. Loving or not, pronouncing a deliberate opinion upon a person (let’s not use the word judgment) based on your understanding of a book is usually unwelcomed, and unnessary. I think Frank did an excellent humor piece, but in this day and age, is there really many out there that don’t know what is right and wrong in a Christian context, that never heard of Jesus and company?
My statement, while internally and admititly hypocritical, is simply stating that you can hold a religious judgment (OED: a form of religious opinion or belief), but you are better off as a person (in my judgment/opinion/conviction) keeping quiet and apply it to yourself. People’s mileage may vary in interpretation of the bible, koran, book of Mormon &c.
Sorry, I was speaking generally, not directly at you. It’s just that your post triggered the thought. It was a reply, not a counter-attack.
I don’t get the concept of “pronouncing an opinion upon” someone. Opinions are “expressed to” people. If one person thinks another is making a mistake of serious enough consequence, failing to point it out would be an act of malevolence. Yes, of course, tactfulness is unfortunately in very short supply these days: one should not point out another’s failures in a way that causes humiliation, and yes, one should always be aware that things may not be what they seem (i.e., stay humble).
As for “understand of a book”, I don’t see the point there. I learned math, physics, chemistry, literature, history, all from books. Lots of them. Can’t remember half of it all, but even most of what I have forgotten came from books. Your college professors learned what they know from books. When they gave someone a “B” instead of an “A”, they were judging the student’s work based on what they learned from books when they were students.
Finally, when it comes to “keeping quiet”, I would agree that directly accusing people of moral failings should be done only in private, only when one believes that the consequences of not doing so are worse than the doing, and always with great reluctance and humility (willingness to be proven wrong). But if you mean that religious people should simply shut up about their general beliefs because others might not like it, you are very wrong. It is the religious people who have been quiet for too long, while irreligious people have been doing the offending. Religious people have just as much right, and even obligation, to make their case (for example) for traditional marriage, as gays and their allies do for the newfangled varieties of marriage. Unless you are arguing that religiously-derived arguments are invalid and intolerable merely for being religiously inspired. In that case, I am prepared to argue that gay marriage is itself a religious concept, as is environmentalism, Social Security, Medicaid, etc., in which case they should shut up too, then.
There is a difference between judging the sins of another and judging the other. It is perfectly acceptable to judge another’s actions as sinful. If we cannot judge an action as sinful, how are we to guide our own actions as right or wrong? However, we all sin. So, just because another human sins and we are allowed to recognize that doesn’t mean that we “throw the baby out with the bath water” so to speak. Do you judge yourself as a horrible person because you sin? I’ll bet you don’t. This is loving others as you love yourself. I’ll bet you don’t always like yourself or the things you do (I hate it when I do bad things – sin), but those bad things you do don’t make you love yourself any less. You are commanded to treat others the same. It’s acceptable to be angry when they do the wrong thing like you’re angry with yourself, but you are still to find a way to love them like you ultimately love yourself at the end of the day.
You make a false assumption. You’ve judged me and don’t recognize it. See how that works? Frankly, I find your reply on par with the legality of the Pharisees and about as truthful.
Have no fear – it was this false piety I found in most churches that decided for me to leave the church. Your reply reinforces why I believe most churches are darkened and poorly attended today. The sanctimony stinks to “High Heaven.”
You also provided a false premise that I don’t consider myself a “bad” person, so you’ve already contradicted yourself, because once again not only have you assumed incorrectly, but cast judgment about my character.
But since you replied, I live my life by this verse: All our righteous acts are like filthy rags. (Isaiah 64:6)
That still doesn’t mean I don’t judge every day, measuring only that I’m willing to be held to my own standard of judgment – the true meaning of the popular verse if you’ll bother to read down a couple of lines.
You’re the one making the assumptions. I don’t know you, so how can I presume to be judging you? I am answering the question of how you can judge an action without leveling a judgement on the person.
We do it for ourselves all the time. If I am in the company of a recovering alcoholic, I don’t drink even though it might be my norm to have a margarita with my Mexican dinner. I can judge that while it’s not wrong at all for me to occasionally drink a single drink, to do so on the presence of a recovering alcoholic is tantamount to cruelty, so I don’t do it (or at least I shouldn’t). Similarly, if another person in my dinner party knows that there is a recovering alcoholic in the group and proceeds to have their margarita or corona anyhow, I can judge their action as insensitive/cruel/wrong. That person might be a very fine person and someone I’m very fond of hanging out with, but in that one action, they were wrong. It doesn’t make them a bad person, but that one action was wrong, and I can judge it as bad.
Why don’t you reread your first statement and try again?
If people start listening to poor advice, there would be no such thing as a morally defensible position. Good grief. And your analogy above was specious and irrelevant.
You think these 1st century Christians burned as torches were there because they were some wall flower like you submit Christian’s must be? It’s obvious you don’t have a clue as to the meaning of Christ’s message, so let me give you a head’s up. Something for you to chew on so you’ll get off this holier than thou routine you’re trying to sell.
Remember John the Baptist? The same John the Baptist that Christ called the greatest man who had ever lived until that time? Some heretic like you probably would have criticized John as “judgmental” because John openly and loudly condemned King Herod for being an adulterer. John lost his head for it too. Do you see anywhere in scripture, anywhere, where Christ condemned John the Baptist for his clearly judgmental actions? Look hard, because you’re going to be looking for a long time.
It’s not the lost or even the hostile that make me retch. They are simply lost sheep. It’s the holier than thou critic, professing to be Christian and not understanding a thing. Either be hot or cold, friend.
If I really thought this was all there was. That this was the sum total of the pinnacle of existence, I would cheerfully throw myself off the nearest tall building. The sheer amount of hate, destruction and debauchery masquerading as civilization is almost too much to bear, even believing in a higher plain of existence.e.
Joe we all have to judge for ourselves. We judge things and people everyday. We need to judge righteously because otherwise we’d never be able to make a decision.
It’s Platypi (it’s Latin – us (one) i(more than one).
OMG, “Christian”, I get it now. I always thought they were referring to some Chinese guy, Chris Chan. I knew the guy in high school and now he runs a chinese deli in New Jersey with some guy named Al Lah.
I wonder if they know my friend Bud? Bud Dha.
This is cleverly written, and you’ve made some good points. Mr. Chik-fil-A is allowed to say what he thinks. And he did. And any politician’s attempt to stop Chik-fil-A from doing business is wrong (and stupid and never had a shread of a chance of succeeding), and those politicians backed off from their stupid statements.
And, sure, it’s a damned shame that businesses have to fund, even if indirectly, contraception even though it goes against the business owners’ religious beliefs. I’ll bet you’re really steamed about how Christian Science business owners have had to fund blood transfusions all this time.
But I think you should be aiming some of your satire at the fundamentalist Christians who are indeed giving all Christians a very bad reputation.
For nearly every one of your points about how Christians really are reasonable and inclusive, I can find you numerous examples of fundamentalist groups and individuals who make outrageously ignorant statements about evolution and other scientific principles and demand these medieval notions be reflected in public schools; Or Christians who actively try to limit the freedom of Muslims to practice their religion; Or Christians who infamously call for homosexuals to be kept in concentration camps; And Christians who insist on the need to display Christian symbols or quotations in public places that are collectively owned by people of all religions and no religion.
Instead of mocking those of us who oppose these sorts of offensive and ignorant behavior in the name of Christianity, maybe you should be mocking the ones who make Christians look so foolish. Furthermore, I though I fight attempts by some Christians to impose their interpretations of what is and isn’t moral onto our laws, but that is not religious persecution.
And Tim Tebow most certainly has the right to express his faith. I have the right to think he’s an absolute tool.
I’m not quite sure, but it seems as if you are toying with the idea that because one sub-group of Christianity that behaves boorishly, or holds an inaccurate version of Christian teachings, or fails to perfectly conform to Christian moral standards to your satisfaction, “proves” that the whole thing is a total sham and can be safely ignored or even suppressed (primarily through mockery).
Well, if that is true, let us consider the record of atheism, which being more recent, is much better documented. Let’s start with the French Revolution, the first openly atheist political movement, and continue to the present day. On second hand, the unbroken chain of mass atrocities perpetrated by atheists, any one of which exceeds ALL the atrocities perpetrated by so-called Christians in the past, would make this post far too long for a blog. Besides, it is all too well known to repeat here.
The atheists, for the most part, are being too clever by half. They are not really a-theists, but anti-Christians. It is only for Christianity that they reserve their worst venom. They are trying to deflect the reality of the disaster they have wrought by projecting their crimes onto others. They accuse us of being judgmental, but in fact the judgement they feel is not coming from us, but from their own inner voice – they are in denial.
That was a nice synopsis of Chesterton’s “Conversion and the Catholic Church”.
Saying that you are going to look at atheists records as some evidence of something is ridiculous. It’s similar to saying that you’re going to look at the record of people who didn’t believe in Santa and than say :”See they did all those terrible things because they didn’t believe in Santa. And if you take a look at what the people who believe in Santa did, you wouldn’t find anything bad.)
Atheism is just a rejection of theist claims. It isn’t a base for any philosophy or for any action in the same way as the non-belief in Pikachu is not a base for a philosophy or actions.
Sorry, but atheism is not “just” a denial. Theism could just as easily be called a “denial” of atheism. Both are assertions. Atheism, like the various forms of theism, has its peculiar consequences. The notion that there is no higher moral authority than man’s own mind, or even that there is no such thing as moral authority at all, has measurable results. Those results are in. It ain’t pretty. The fact that atheism has resulted in catastrophic ugliness does not by itself mean atheism is incorrect as a proposition. Just as the fact that religion has here and there had unfortunate consequences does not make a religion invalid. Atomic Theory has had some nasty consequences, but that has nothing to do with its essential truth value.
I do dislike the “atheists” who are mostly just “anti-Christians”. I’ve even seen one claim that Islam is inherently progressive compared to Christianity.
But, that’s their right under the COTUS. So long as they don’t force their beliefs on you by making you believe like them, so what? You don’t like it, don’t believe that way. You similarly have no right to force them to believe like you do. It used to be that a person’s business was their private property and their’s to do with as they chose, including their rules. If you didn’t like it, no one forced you to go there or work there. Well, now, no one forces you to go there or work there, but apparently, it’s everyone’s business what rules a person operates his or her private property under.
I didn’t know that Christian Scientists have been forced to provide coverage for medical treatments they consider “sinful”, but I AM upset about that, if it’s true. I would have assumed, had I attempted to become employed by the Christian Science Church, that I wouldn’t have medical coverage for very much at all (pre-Obamacare).
“But I think you should be aiming some of your satire at the fundamentalist Christians who are indeed giving all Christians a very bad reputation” – unprovable non sequitur.
” I can find you numerous examples of fundamentalist groups and individuals who make outrageously ignorant statements about evolution and other scientific principles and demand these medieval notions be reflected in public schools” – I can give numerous examples of highly intelligent people who don’t believe in darwinian evolution. exactly what scientific “principles are you referring to?
“Or Christians who actively try to limit the freedom of Muslims to practice their religion” – islam is a political system disguised as a religion. sharia, an un-rejectable part of islam is completely anti constitution. islam should be rejected in this country. (try paying attention to the rest of the world where islam is active)
“Or Christians who infamously call for homosexuals to be kept in concentration camps” – nonsense, no christians call for that.
“And Christians who insist on the need to display Christian symbols or quotations in public places that are collectively owned by people of all religions and no religion” – which fits right in line with the 1st amendment. try reading (comprehending) it sometime.
“Furthermore, I though I fight attempts by some Christians to impose their interpretations of what is and isn’t moral onto our laws” you do understand that all the laws in this country are based from judeo-christian beliefs don’t you? (see previous statement concerning islam)
“Tim Tebow most certainly has the right to express his faith. I have the right to think he’s an absolute tool” – again, pointless non-sequitur
the previous “anonymous” comment was from me.
Thank you! Humor is good medicine and provides a great way to communicate ideas. I laughed. I smiled.
May the Lord bless you and keep you,
Kim
Another thing about Christians g8mrs might appreciate. If you play a level and you beat it and you can neither go to the next level nor save your accomplishments, that game is a total bowl of turd and you pull it out of your console and you stomp on it and you never play that POS again. Fair nuff?……………
Actually, the English language still uses the word “faith” in a sense closer to its original meaning.
When we say someone has been “faithful” to us, we mean they have been “loyal” in a higher sense than merely obedient. We do not mean that they have studied us and mastered our thoughts and ideas correctly.
Having “faith” in God means something closer to “being loyal to God”. Knowing better the words of His prophets and the teachings of His Only-begotten Son, of course, should make “being faithful” a whole lot easier than just relying on the fickleness of our own imaginations, but in the end, the extent of our “faithfulness” will be measured by He Who Knows what we have done and what was in our hearts when we did it.
That’s a totally miss-use of the word when you use it like that. Faith is a belief not based on evidence (and sometimes against evidence). So in order to have faith (trust) in god you need to have faith (belief without evidence) in god (unless you can demonstrate the existence of god.)
I think we are confusing faith-in-general with blind-faith. I’m not sure, but I think the notion that “faith” demands the absence of evidence is a modern concept and I do not think it is a logical necessity either in general or in the theological tradition. Those who try to treat religion as a mutually exclusive alternative to what we call “science” like to use the word “faith” that way. On the other hand, scientists depend entirely on mathematics, which is founded on numerous concepts that must be taken on absolute blind faith. Go figure.
Believing and having faith are not used interchangeably in the Bible. Yes, people who believe “without having seen” are probably happier than those who believe but have seen. But why? Because believing without having seen demonstrates a faithfulness that endures even without the support of belief. You see, their “faith” preceded and supports their “belief”, as opposed to “belief” that does not depend on “faith” at all. I do not think that the term “faith” was meant to mean merely “believing without having seen”. Faith, I think, has more to do with having the fortitude to adhere to God’s Will through times of tribulation. Like in the army, a general does not need a soldier to understand his orders, or to believe that the general has the best plan possible; he only needs the soldier to just go take out that machine gun nest. Of course, that’s hard to do if you don’t “believe” in what you are doing, but it is not exactly the same thing. The soldier who takes out the machine gun without needing to be convinced it is a good idea shows faith that doe snot depend on belief than the one who only does the job after independently convincing himself that it is the best course of action. One soldier’s faith is given unconditionally, while the other’s is subject to approval on a case-by-case basis. Which is more likely to serve win the battle for the general?
ANON
You are confusing Faith with Dogma. A dogma is a belief that is accepted with out question or investigation. Can apply to lots of commonly held opinions. Evolution, global warming, some religions might even apply
Fun column to read. Thanks!
A clarification, though. Besides the Sacred Scriptures which reveal morality, we also have the natural moral law which is the design which God placed into the human nature he created. We can know this natural moral law through reason.
The natural law lets us reason with people who do not (yet) accept the testimony of divine revelation on moral questions.
I am of the opinion that most of the posts here have missed the point of the article entirely. My sense is that the author ‘attempted’ to present a solid informative front on defense of Christianity while in truth mocked it. As a believer, I was discouraged by the FAQ and answers as well. The questions were absurd and if that is representative of what non-believers truly think of Christians, the bible, freedom of speech, etc than I see that this country is in far worse shape that I originally believed. Also, based upon the answers, it is obvious the author also only read specific exerts from the bible in the attempt to answer imbecilic questions.
Geeze, the entire article was a slam/joke/mockery of God’s Word, teachings, followers, etc.
I have another question. Why do Christians talks so much about gay marriage and abortion, and do not talk about other things, like what Jesus said in his Mountain sermon: “turn another cheek”, “love your neighbor”, do not try to be rich? This is kind of nice staff, completely forgotten by the Christians, as far as I can tell. Why do they always blame other people for not being Christians enough (like gays and women who do abortions)? Do Christians already acknowledge that people do have right not to be Christians? Some people even can be Christians and interpret the Bible differently, without damning gays. Some people even can be atheists, and it should not be a business of Christians. I think.
Well, you asked…..I have an answer…not sure it is the answer you are looking for. As a believer, I will suggest the reason for Christians speaking out against homosexuality/gay marriage/abortion is because our politicians and liberals have made a point of forcing these life-style choices on those of us who take the Word of God as truth for today’s living. These issues have become political which affect the lives of those of us who believe these life-sytle choices directly go against the Word of God. I for one do speak out against adultery, and the other sins the bible lists but these issues have yet to make political headlines. Whether a specific sin goes viral politically or not they are still sin. Sin is sin whether you, I or the homosexual ‘chooses’ to turn their heads the other way. The fact remains that sin brings consequences whether we choose to accept it or not. God Jehovah IS God regardless of what you think/believe. Sooner or later, you will be faced with making the decision to accept/change your thoughts…..if you haven’t already. If so, then I say ‘may God Jehovah have mercy on your soul’ as you and others are/will be condemned. Not because I say so in ‘judgement’ but because I can read the Word and the Word clearly states the consequences of sin is death. That is spiritual death and oft times physical death as well. Like it or leave it, the fact remains. You can deny till ‘the cows come home’ but God will have the final WORD and judgment is HIS.
Thank you for your direct answer.
Being Jewish, I am fine with accepting God’s judgement.
It is people’s judgement I do not wish to accept.
My sins should be my problems, not some Christians.
Thank you for your direct answer.
Being Jewish, I am fine with accepting God’s judgement.
It is people’s judgement I do not wish to accept.
My sins should be my problems, not some Christians.
Then you are at odds with God, who commands we chrictians to “Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to observe all things I have commanded you”; Mt.28.18-19. To fail to do so is to deliberately disobey God and so incur damnation. You may not want to go to heaven but is our job to do our best to persuade you to the contrary; whether you like it or not.
My replay on gay marriage at least is this – I do not want to keep gay couples apart. I also do not want to deny them equal treatment under the law. However, I do not want marriage to be forcibly redefined for everyone, one way or the other. I believe that government should remove itself from marriage entirely and only issue civil unions, and I further believe that had the gay lobby confined itself to civil union, this debate would largely be over. However, they went for marriage. I think for many, they believe it will force people to accept them fully socially, and I don’t think that will happen. but I digress.
Spiritually, my main objection to the re-definition of marriage for everyone is that everytime the Bible talks of marriage, it speaks of man/woman. God blesses man/woman and joins them spiritually as one flesh. I believe that we invite all kinds of spiritual trouble when we start to redefine what God has defined and start to decide that God will likewise bless unions composed of same gender couples when everywhere the Bible speaks of homosexuality, it is not at all complimentary (to put it kindly). Who are we to decide that God has suddenly decided to bless unions that are based in sin?
Now, to be clear, it isn’t about stopping others from going that route. That’s why I don’t think government should define marriage. If the Unitarians want to believe that God has changed his mind, that’s up to them. I’m no Unitarian. But, I do not want to be forced into having to toe some line and parrot some belief that is not mine to avoid being charged with hate speech. Good heavens, someone just attempted to shoot up the Family Research Council because they believe in traditional marriage like I do. We should be free to hold to our traditional spiritual beliefs, and not villified for them.
@Marina: for quite a while, say, several thousand years, marriage was understood to be between one man and one woman. Then, some people decided to change thousands of years of understanding, almost entirely via the courts, in isolated instances via the legislatures. When yet other people push back against those court decisions or legislatures, that is not “talk so much about”. A much more convincing argument can be made that those who filed those court challenges, or motivated those legislative changes, were “talking so much about”.
Once upon a time, it would have been inconceivable that anyone would argue that a child didn’t deserve a loving father and a loving mother, both, one to give the love and care that is uniquely male, and one to give the love and care that is uniquely female. Two men, two women, one man, one woman, cannot give a child all that a child needs, all that a child deserves, all that a child received for thousands of years. But suddenly, a child doesn’t need a father, can do just fine with one or two mothers, or doesn’t need a mother, can do just fine with one or two fathers. You believe that? I don’t.
Are there awful father+mother households? Yes, of course. Are there loving single parent or same sex households? Yes, of course. But that is not the point. The point is that the best environment for a child, and we are seeking the best, is with the love and care of both sexes. Everything else is second best.
Marina, if you think that Christians do not talk about other things, then you are getting too much information from ordinary newspapers and TV, which only report on current controversies to sell advertising space. Christians talk all the time about genocides in Sudan, China, Burma, and elsewhere. They work all over the world, supplying hundred of thousands of volunteers (who get killed regularly) and offer billions of dollars to charities fighting hunger and ignorance and disease. They struggle to support Israel from destruction by the Islamists. They offer aid to widows, orphans, the handicapped, drug addicts, abused women, and the elderly. They run schools and hospitals. While doing all that, they try to preserve the message of Jesus Christ as intact as humanly possible. They also pray a lot.
Rather, it is the news media that talks too much about gay marriage, which in some ways is really only a debate about whether the word should be redefined to be something other than the customary contract between two ostensibly fecund people to protect the rights (property, inheritance, family status, reasonable care, etc.) of any potential offspring, and thereby protect the rest of society from the effects of abandonment of either the offspring or the economically handicapped primary child-rearing spouse. Actually, the real argument against gay marriage isn’t even a religious one; it is the argument from anthropological utility. However, it should be no surprise that religious people make the religious argument. Should I be able to “marry” someone with whom it is not even theoretically possible to produce offspring? Should I be able to get a “mortgage” without buying a house? Is it “discriminatory” that homeowners should be able to have mortgages while we renters cannot? Who do they think they are, being so judgmental about renters?
Has anyone else noticed that the person who almost always initially brings up “gay” issues is pro-gay, and may or may not be Christian, may even be “anti-Christian”? The church did not start the argument about marriage, those who want to redefine sexuality did. It was not the church that made the state create laws concerning marriage and family life, the state became involved to limit the damage of NOT loving your wife and caring for your own children. The church did not encourage easy divorce, adultery, etc., “secular” society adopted those positions. When I was born, marriage and family life was respected, then it was trashed by liberal feminists, then it was changed to mean romantic fulfillment – not of this was promoted by Christians. Our society worships romance, and tries to neutralize sexual differences. Christianity has by and large tried to maintain a standard consistent with agape (self-sacrificing) love instead of self-fulfillment. Let’s give credit where it is truly due and stop the church-bashing.
The concept of marriage predates the bible, and is remarkably consistant across all cultures (with the exception of a couple of warped micro-societies that sociologists like to obsess over). The Congress of The United States has neither the authority or the power to redefine this concept. They tried to outlaw polygamy, but the law is flaunted and the issue is still debated. Increasing so, as more middle-eastern immigrants seek to practice their cultures here (one man, one wife is more of a European thing than biblical). Pass a law, legalize gay marriage. It will always be “gay” marriage, complete with air-quotes, never marriage. Are you going to also pass a law requiring churches and temples to preform and recognize “gay” marriage? Does Congress claim that power? The three major religions just might yet find a common cause.
This is a bot off-topic (the marriage debate), but I’ll take the bait. Our problem is that we use the term “marriage” to refer to several different things, so we argue past each other.
Marriage is a contract between a male-female pair that secures the property rights of any offspring that might be produced. The contract is, ideally, entered into before any children are produced, and most often acts to retro-actively protect the rights of pre-existing children, at least those produced by the same male-female pair. The contract also protects the rights of whichever parent bears primary responsibility for child-rearing (historically the female), since this vocation incurs significant economic risk.
This can be inferred from the traditional ease with which childless marriages could be dissolved (even treated as scandalous or tragic).
In polygamous societies, particularly societies in which no other means of public support for widows and orphans existed, a man could have several wives, often “adopted” from deceased male relatives, but each was bound by an independent marriage contract, preserving the primacy of the original wife’s offspring in their inheritance claims. So, in reality, each male-female bond was a separate marriage, and hence the one-man, one-woman rule still applied, and each such contract had to be dissolved separately.
Since the only purpose of marriage was to provide a legal framework for reproduction, there was never any concern or need to apply marriage to non-reproductive associations. Non-reproductive partners can enter into any contract not otherwise prohibited by law. These contracts may strongly resemble traditional marriages, but unless they provide protections for naturally-produced offspring, the debate about “gay marriage” is really only a debate about whether the government should abuse the English language to comfort gays, as it has nothing to do with the rights of gays, which they already have.
Exactly, recently through the aid of popular media, I’m sure, we’ve allowed marriage to be “defined” as something that happens between two people who love each other very much, and if you simply think of marriage as something that solely happens in that context, then there is no reason to think of it as anything that can’t happen to any two adults. However, marriage has historically been something bigger, a contract between a man and a woman to provide a stable, permanent, loving environment for the begetting of and rearing of children and for the passing of their property to those children someday. It represents stability, permanence and continuance to society at large which is why governments support marriage. Gay couples cannot provide that element of continuity and any permanence they offer is short-term at best. If we were a society on a survival footing, this would not be a debate at all. Gay marriage is solely a first world problem.
Religious Perverts are thee scourge of this earth.
Yeah, the atheist perverts are much better.
tinsmith,
Consider: When a coach, teacher, skating rink operator, scout leader or neighbor abuses a child, it is very harmful. But there’s an added tragedy when a child is abused by a priest or minister, in that the child often grows up to reject Christianity or Theism altogether. The priest or minister represents God to the child so many many people leave Christendom due to being abused by a Christian leader. I’m just about the only priest-abuse survivor I know (other than Juan Vaca and Jose Barba) that hasn’t left Catholicism. So yes, I think it isn’t quite as evil when a child is abused by an atheist.
Jeanette, priest-abusers should be arrested and punished, of course, and while their crime against the Church may add to the spiritual damage (which I think will send them straight to hell, with no pit-stop in purgatory), I don’t want our government doing anything different to a criminal just because he offends the Catholic Church. Some policemen take bribes from the mob, or cover up for drug dealers. Some doctors kill people either with malice or indifference, and hospital administrators cover for them. Politicians tell us they want to help the poor and working class, then take bribes from giant corporations as they move operations overseas while they make regulations that prevent domestic competitors from replacing them. Soldiers go berserk and shoot their comrades or innocent civilians. And so on… But that does not mean that the mission of the police is invalid, or the medical profession should be abolished, or the army disbanded.
These priest-abusers, who, by the way, all came from the same few seminaries and all from the roughly same age-group, have nothing to do with the validity of the Church’s original mission. After all, Judas was a full-blown Apostle, and he got Jesus killed, and at that time Peter did not yet have the guts to admit he knew Jesus. Yet it never occurred to the other eleven that Judas’s treachery and Peter’s cowardice nullified the original mission.
Also of interest are the statistics, which show that the odds a priest is a child-abuser is well below the odds in the general population, and even farther below that among ordinary secular school teachers (male and female). This does not reduce the severity of the crime when it occurs, but it does rebut the notion that the Church is unusually guilty of this. The Church recruits its priests from the same depraved population that we all come from. Families used to have many sons, and it used to be traditional for the youngest to become a priest. In the modern nuclear family with its “2.1″ children, the seminaries were drying up and the Church relaxed standards, too much so, as it turned out.
The majority of the priests who are guilty of child sex abuse came from many seminaries around the world, were ordained pre-Vatican II, and are represented at the same or slightly higher percentage of the population as any other molester.
The law should treat all child sex abusers the same, and should treat all those who knew of the abuse and failed to report it the same. Bishop Finn belongs behind bars every bit as much as Jerry Sandusky.
There is a common misunderstanding that the Church is a monarchy, and the Pope can issue orders like Henry VIII and expect people to jump. The Pope cannot issue orders to other bishops, nor can he fire them. All bishops are equals when it comes to disciplinary authority. They can’t even get some nuns to stop dating and performing abortions these days. They can’t even get a priest to say “Dominus vobiscum” any more. The ideologies of personal fulfillment and anti-authoritarianism have ruined Church discipline. Restoring it will take many decades, even lifetimes.
The child-molesting priests did mostly come from or pass through certain seminaries that had become notorious gay communities in which straight priests were tormented to the point of quitting. This problem peaked during a certain decade or two in the mid-20th century, and although there are not as many gay priests any more coming out of the seminaries, the cult of liberalism persists. There is no room to go into detail, but read “Goodbye, Good Men” to get the full detail (google it), and the names of those responsible.
No gay or child-abusing priests came from African seminaries. Or Asian seminaries. Or South American seminaries. And those seminaries produced the majority of priests during the last half century. Nope, all the gay priests were from Western Europe or North America, clearly a reflection of something happening in those local cultures and the seminaries that recruited therein, and reflects the cultural liberalism of the bishops in those areas. No African bishop would tolerate a gay priest for more than the time it took to toss him out the door. But a North American bishop worried about getting bad press in ultra-Liberal California or Massachusetts, in a part of the world where families only produce one son whom they expect to get married and make money, will loosen the recruitment standards quite a bit, and tolerate a lot more nonsense.
This is not a defense of those bishops. Being a bishop demands guts and a willingness to do combat with the prevailing culture, and if you haven’t got the kahunas you should retire to the monastery and pray for the next guy to do better. But if you create a super-liberal society with an “if it feels good do it” attitude, you are going to get what you asked for.
Can you please cite your evidence for your statements that no gay priests came from African, Asian or South American seminaries and that all gay priests come from North American and Western European seminaries?
Because the priest who molested me and other young girls in my parish and was later indicted on charges of child pornography back in the 60s was from a South American seminary. So I’d really, really like to see this evidence you have…
Oh, gay and child abusing — where’s this evidence that no gay or child abusing priests came from North American or European seminaries exclusively?
Because I’ve got a sheaf of court transcripts that say otherwise.
Why do people like you lie to cover up for these kinds of crimes? Why are you protecting child abuse and excusing child abusers?
What’s in it for you?
Also, you are completely ignoring the FACT that the majority of known child abusers among the priesthood were ordained PRE-VATICAN II and were actively abusing children at a time when most Catholic families were pretty large.
You’re just making stuff up out of whole cloth to defend, protect and excuse child abusers, tinsmith.
Why? Who and what are you really protecting?
You’ve already been caught in one glaringly filthy lie — that no child abusing priests came out of South American seminaries — why are you lying about this?
Nora, for some reason your posts do not have a “reply” option.
Maybe it is the half-crazed psychotic violence you exhibit in your posts. By the way, I am disappointed that you forgot to call me a Nazi racist.
Child molesters should be dealt with as harshly as we are legally permitted. I made that clear. My point was that sexual perversion is a society-wide phenomenon and that no institution is immune, not even the Church. I cite one important reference. This is not a scholarly journal, so I do not waste characters with exhaustive footnotes.
Wow, you dug up one priest from South America who molested girls. One. That practically confirms my point. That is not exactly what I would call a “gay priest” anyway, which is what I was talking about.
Did I say that Vatican II “caused” the collapse of morality in the West? Did I say that Vatican II was even related to any such moral collapse? Did I even refer to Vatican II at all? No.
Am I covering up for child-abusers? To the extent that we catch them without room for error, they deserve to be stoned to death. I don’t think that a gay priest who hooks up with 16 and 17 year old actively gay high schoolers is likely to get stoned to death these days. What do they do to secular public school teachers who have sex with their students? Right, the union covers for them and they get transferred to another school. Sounds familiar. So this is not just a problem with the Church. It is bigger than that. Our whole society is perverted, and no institution is immune from it. No one in authority seriously wants to do anything about sexual perverts, because the sexual perverts have too much political clout these days. I’m not expressing approval of that, just stating what my view of the problem is.
Criminals and the cowards who protect them are everywhere in life. When a doctor kills a patient and the hospital administrator helps cover it up to protect the reputation of the hospital, it is a disgusting wicked double crime, but it does not mean that the entire medical profession is to be shut down.
Now, I will finish with you by saying that I don’t believe for a second that you were molested. You are an atheist troll who is offended that someone did not fall for your trick by apologizing on behalf of every Church or religious person who ever did anything wrong. I will not and could not do that any more than I could apologize for your many sins.
And when an atheist pretends to be a molestation victim in a quixotic attempt to mock religious people, that is also a wicked thing to do.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_sex_abuse_cases_by_country#South_America
Right. Just one. And anyone who says differently is just a liar. That’s the Christian way. Of course.
Because I can disprove your dishonest assertion that no molesting priests came out of South American seminaries, you now claim I’m lying about being abused.
You’re not a human being. You’re completely of Satan. Completely. God knows I’m telling the truth, and God knows you’re lying. You can justify your evil filth to Him in the end. See how that works out for you.
@Nora – wow! You are full of contradictions! You talk like a godhating atheist – then you consign poor Tin (who was being very respectful to you) to hell because he doubts your claim of abuse. Well, I’ll bite. I’m sorry about your ordeal, but instead of thanking God you survived (many don’t) you decided to turn your pain into bate and bitterness against bothGod and His children. I’m very sorry for you. Perhaps you’ll understand some day that the person who abused you was himself of the devil and not of God. I’ll pray for you.
“tinsmith” was not being respectful. It is not respectful to anyone, much less God, to spread deliberate falsehoods about people.
To assert unequivocally that NO child abusing priests (his exact words) came from South American seminaries (among others) in order to promote his gay-bashing agenda is a hideous lie.
Even in the face of FACTS that refute his dishonest claim, he pretends it’s all some kind of typographical error due to having to work from his iPad.
It is evil to tell an abuse victim they are lying, and especially evil to do so because you’re trying to “sell” an agenda and that victim’s story doesn’t fit your agenda.
Funny how both of you claim that I’m an atheist and that I’m being a hypocritical Christian all in the same breath.
I’m neither. Sorry that makes your head hurt, but your lack of intelligence is not my problem.
But thank you, both, for showing me yet again what Christians really believe, who they really are. Don’t worry. Your precious churches are safe from me. You’re free to practice whatever it is you think passes for Christianity inside them without having to deal with anyone who bursts your narrow, hateful, hypocritical, narcissistic little bubble.
Wow, Nora “dug up” one priest from South America?? You’re stomping on several souls here today in order to rail against gay priests (I noticed the dig at Novus Ordo Masses too). This. Isn’t. Catholicism.
Man proposes, and God disposes. That’s all I need to know.
…and I need to know this thermos and this chair, but that’s all I need to know.
Your heresy and ignorance astonish me. All you should need to know are this ashtray and this paddle game. And maybe this remote control.
but stay away from cans, for your own good.
Franco: terrific! Any comment would be like following Frank Sinatra, nobody’s paying any attention, but let me try.
“Why are Christians so judgmental?”
Well, what do you call Michelle Obama [ample posterior] telling Gabby Douglas [not one ounce of fat...or cellulite] that eating an Egg McMuffin is mortal sin?
Everybody makes judgment calls all the time. Just because non-Christians make their judgments in the name of their personal god, i.e., themselves, doesn’t make their judgments any more valid than the judgments Christians make.
It is hard for those who have never known persecution,
And who have never known a Christian,
To believe these tales of Christian persecution.
It is hard for those who live near a Bank
To doubt the security of their money.
It is hard for those who live near a Police Station
To believe in the triumph of violence.
T.S. Eliot
I understand the religious thing.
It’s just much of the organized religious thing that escapes me, the doctrinal competition between belief systems, all claiming a monopoly on the truth. Much of what is claimed in the name of God seems to be claimed in the name of men.
And then there is the issue of so many putative religious leaders falling from grace in their own lives and behaviors.
Anyway, even Mohammed said you didn’t need an intermediary, a religious leader, to worship.
Tell that to 14 centuries of Islamic religious leaders.
*ding* *ding* *ding*
Thread winner.
Then you also don’t “get” why scientists use peer review to study and criticize each other’s theories and work, and make it very difficult for new theories to be accepted, imposing a very high level of evidence and logical argument before anything gets much consideration.
C’mon, complaining about “organized” religion is just a cover-up for rejecting the discipline of a moral code that is inconvenient, considering all the partying planned for the upcoming weekend. I lived through the whole college-dorm thing. I know how it goes. I even used the line myself for a while, until I realized how everybody was being too polite to point out how sophomoric I was being.
Ancient religions were little more than a mass of local customs and mythological folk traditions accumulated over an enormous time. They were poetically beautiful, occasionally instructive, but intellectually incoherent and even easier to abuse for profit than any modern religion. The Jewish faith was more a set of laws that had to be obeyed, with very little in the way of elaborate ideological orthodoxy beyond monotheism, although by the time of Christ it had developed a more elaborate theology, which Christianity inherited and expanded upon (of course, Jews would say “ruined”). If you do not “get” why the Christian Church had to take the time to define an orthodoxy and defend it, then you do not know much about what was happening during the first three centuries AD with respect to the Christian faith, the barbarian mass migrations, inchoate nationalist movements within the empire, the times of persecution, when numerous other pagan faiths tried to borrow and co-opt Christian ideas and imagery, often with imperial assistance. The chaos started even while Jesus was still alive, and within a few years of his death the apostles had to have conferences to make sure the message was not being perverted by charlatans, revolutionaries, anti-Christian propagandists, and do-it-yourself get-rich-quick schemers.
C’mon, complaining about “organized” religion is just a cover-up for rejecting the discipline of a moral code that is inconvenient.
Not at all. I have no problem upholding a “moral code” without the exigencies (not to mention the guilt/hellfire & brimstone) of organized religion.
Since you mention Jesus, I like to think he’d have some of the same reservations about organized religion (and the individuals who propagate it) that I do.
There you go again, making up stuff to suit your own twisted prejudices. You have no idea why anyone rejects organized religion. You claim it’s so people feel free to misbehave.
You’re the one rejecting the humanity of others in order to justify your sick and twisted prejudices.
It’s people like you who make non-believers hate Christianity. Frankly, I don’t blame them one bit. You’re an appalling example of Christianity. You are not anything like Christ. Not one bit, not with your accusations and your lies and your sicko need to defend child molesters.
Nora – No one is defending child molesters. Sorry that you had a terrible experience. Other people have, too, but they do not blame half the world for it. Get some help.
No, dearie…you’ve got it all wrong…
Maybe you should follow along from the beginning, eh?
This POS has an anti-gay agenda and is blaming ALL Catholic Church sex abuse exclusively on gay people. He also made some easily debunked loony claims about the sex abuse scandal. That’s what I’m referring to.
Get it now, “dummy”…?
Oh, I forgot. How do “leaders who fall from grace” have anything to do with the validity of an “organized religion”? Do we abolish the government every time a politician gets caught taking bribes, or abolish the police force every time a cop gets trigger-happy? Do we shut down the entire Internet because a blogger makes a ridiculous post (don’t laugh, your congressman might be considering it)?
While you do not need an intermediary to worship, you most certainly do need an intermediary to learn about the thing you worship. You needed teachers to learn about math, chemistry, and architecture. In fact, you needed hundreds of generations of people – “intermediaries” – to accumulate knowledge and pass it along and improve upon it, before your empty brain could have an opportunity to learn anything at all. Heck, we all needed the “intermediary” of parents just to learn how to brush our teeth. Between you and The Truth lie so many “intermediaries” they are uncountable. Now, once you learn a Truth, you are free to contemplate and appreciate it all by yourself.
Oftentimes, I will see people claim to reject organized religion, simply because they do not wish to say that they have rejected all religion.
Well, that’s a silly assumption.
This guy turns me on
There are no words to express how much I loved this piece.
I laughed. It’s been a while since that happened.
Thanks.
Frank:)
When was it that you did this interview with Obama? I knew he was ignorant of Christian values but wow, dumber than a box of rocks is more like it. I guess they just don’t teach Christianity in Muslim school.
My favorite quote from this article.
Indeed they try. Their view is that while society and technology change, the fundamental nature of man doesn’t, and neither do the values God gave us. Thus, the Bible is something they find relevant and expect people to read and follow many years into the future, like Harry Potter.
My point exactly. Maybe in a few hundred years after countless records are lost due to war (probably caused by Christians) a bunch of idiots will be walking around worshiping Harry and fearing he who shall not be named. If they are super good, and recite all the holy words, they will get a chance to go to Hogwarts.
The Bible is a large collection of different books, each with its own author and written over many lifetimes. It is not something someone found lying on the ground after some ancient war and no one has any idea where it came from. Most of the historical events, places, names have been verified through archaeology. It is not a collection of fictional stories like Harry Potter that someone mistook for history. Not every book in the Bible is intended to be historical (think Ruth, or Job, for example). One is a retelling of the creation myth as understood by the ancient Jews’s ancestors (and the intuition of those ancient speculators is admirable given recent cosmological discoveries). Some are the popular history of the Jews. Some are the polemics of the prophets. Some are wistful remembrances of the past glories of the Kingdom of David and Solomon, or cries for liberation from tyranny. Some are the extended letters of the apostles or their (Greek speaking) assistants telling the story of Jesus. Some are personal letters written by Paul or the apostles to the pastors of the original churches around the empire. One is an open letter to all the faithful using coded Biblical references, urging them to keep the Faith during a time of severe persecution.
Nothing makes an atheist look dumber than when he tries to mock religion. It would be like me trying to refute the Standard Model without bothering to master it first.
Or like you claiming that no child abusing priests came out of South American seminaries when the evidence clearly states otherwise.
…and did grave damage to Nora’s immortal soul. tinsmith, you are NOT helping her recovery.
Nora immortal soul is lost. She is a lost soul and nothing will penetrate the bitterness and hate she cleaves to. Nothing! Her choice. That is what this life on earth is all about and Nora has chosen damnation. NOT my problem nor yours. Movin on.
And that, folks, is a sterling example of Christianity…
Still can’t figure out why people think you’re a pack of repulsive, shallow, narcissistic little hypcrites?
Clean up your own house. Then get back to everyone else about how they’re wrong about everything, ‘k?
“due to war (probably caused by Christians)” say what? try studying history. most wars were certainly not caused by christians.
I suppose it would be a good and wonderful thing if we became a theocracy and ordered that everyone praise God and keep his commandments and add some more commandments that we feel he would much approve of. We could probably get up to at least a hundred commandments in no time. But if we are to become a theocracy I would like better to understand the ways of the Lord. Now I think I may know why He gave Ted Kennedy cancer, but why did He give Christopher Hitchens and Steve Jobs and Dana Reeve cancer and that 10 year old girl I read about last week? To keep them from being bored and make them good? But they all died and so it couldn’t make them good. I suppose it was for some other reason that only God would ever understand. We know it must have been for a good and wise and merciful reason, whatever it was. Did He make the roof fall in on the kindly stranger who was trying to save the crippled woman from the fire? Don’t ask me why, because I don’t know. I only know it was to discipline him or to show him a more enlightened path.
Reverend Burgess said in his sermon that billions of little creatures are sent into us to give us cholera, and typhoid and other sicknesses and the Lord must send them. He must educate and keep us from being bored and discipline us. And then there was the lightning that come last week and struck the new church, and burnt it down. It must have been to educate and discipline the church and make the church better. I suppose so as He always knows what’s best. But it killed a hog that wasn’t doing anything. Was it to educate and discipline the hog? Must have been. Mr. Hollister says wasps catch spiders and cram them down into their nests in the ground alive and there they live and suffer for days and days with the wasps chewing on them to make them feel pain and so become good and religious and praise God for His infinite mercies. I think Mr. Hollister is ever so kind for when I asked him if he would treat a spider like that, he said he hoped to be damned if he would. I suppose he will be damned for unenlightened talk like that.
With all your soliloquy regarding the ills of the world and how could God allow these terrible things to happen you are forgetting the other guy – the devil. Even in the book of Job, God didn’t cause Job’s ills. God was trying to make a point and allowed the devil to afflict Job. When the point was made He restored everything the devil had taken.
Insurance companies refer to disasters as an act of God in their policies. They should be referred to as acts by the devil.
If I were to construct a God I would furnish Him with some way and qualities and characteristics which the Present lacks. He would not stoop to ask for any man’s compliments, praises, flatteries; and He would be far above exacting them. I would have Him as self-respecting as the better sort of man in these regards.
He would not be a merchant, a trader. He would not buy these things. He would not sell, or offer to sell, temporary benefits of the joys of eternity for the product called worship. I would have Him as dignified as the better sort of man in this regard.
He would value no love but the love born of kindnesses conferred; not that born of benevolences contracted for. Repentance in a man’s heart for a wrong done would cancel and annul that sin; and no verbal prayers for forgiveness be required or desired or expected of that man.
In His Bible there would be no Unforgivable Sin. He would recognize in Himself the Author and Inventor of Sin and Author and Inventor of the Vehicle and Appliances for its commission; and would place the whole responsibility where it would of right belong: upon Himself, the only Sinner.
He would not be a jealous God–a trait so small that even men despise it in each other.
He would not boast.
He would keep private His admirations of Himself; He would regard self-praise as unbecoming the dignity of his position.
He would not have the spirit of vengeance in His heart. Then it would not issue from His lips.
There would not be any hell–except the one we live in from the cradle to the grave.
There would not be any heaven–the kind described in the world’s Bibles.
He would spend some of His eternities in trying to forgive Himself for making man unhappy when he could have made him happy with the same effort and he would spend the rest of them in studying astronomy.
Well, too bad. We’re stuck with the status quo. A God who honored his most loved creature with the gift of freedom, the power to obey or disobey without coercion, which that creature almost immediately used to foul up his own existence ever since. A God who intervened to set his creature right in a way that did not impair the creature’s freedom, even knowing that the creature was so depraved that His chosen medium of communication would get killed for His trouble. A God who loves His children and delights in their love and their puny efforts to show it. A God who allows us to sin but is always open to forgiveness, if it is sought. And a God who allows His people to gradually become aware of Him, and to record their gradually improving awareness of Him in books, so that today we can examine the history of man’s understanding of God, even though some people will blame God for not revealing everything all at once, and blame Him for allowing us to be so rotten to each other.
The Bible does not have much to say about Heaven or Hell, actually, other than that Heaven, or Paradise. is some sort of place where one can in some way or another “be with God”, and Hell is where you can’t. I think people who have not actually read the Bible conflate the visions of medieval and renaissance artists and poets with what is actually in the Bible.
Just like you conflate the facts with what you read in some stupid, agenda-driven self-published pile of horse manure…?
Like the one that no child abusing priests came from South American seminaries, something you stated as fact in this very thread?
Right.
Nora, please take a deep breath.
Get a grip on yourself.
Put down that knife.
It’s only a blog.
You made baldfaced assertions above, and Nora’s asking you to back those up.
So you should support your claims, n the name of “truth”, which you purport to be familiar with.
You are low and disgusting and dishonorable enough to tell me I’m lying about being abused and then you tell me to calm down, it’s just a blog?
You are the very personification of evil. You are why people hate Christianity. You are why people don’t trust organized religion. You’re an animal.
tanstaafl,
I am not sure what the difference between an assertion and a “bald-faced” assertion is, and to be honest, I am not in a library right now, or even near my own bookshelf, so I am unable to look up my sources, which I really would love to be able to do, nor am I likely to be in such a position before I must move on and get back to work! I did recall one important reference from memory, but could only remember the title, which I cited somewhere previously, but it was apparently ignored or went unnoticed. Sorry, but as I said to Nora: this is only a blog, not an academic journal. It is always possible, of course, that I recalled my source incorrectly. I’ve done it before. I am eager to be corrected. Politely. But calling me a Satanic protector of child-molesters does not incline me to throw any more pearls to the swine.
Nora is out of control with all the vitriolic remarks. Should Nora provide a link to the medical report that proves her “bald-faced” assertion that she was molested? Of course not. She was talking about child-molesting priests, and I was talking about gay priests and how hard it was for the Church to contain that problem. Some overlap there, but not the same thing. She did not like what I wrote, or maybe it was the “tone” of what I wrote, and so she says I am from Satan and other silly nonsense.
So, I’ve had it with Nora.
Fine you can have it anyway you want.
But you did make certain assertions above which are not supported by the facts.
We’re discussing the questionable claims and ethics of some purveyors of religion, and God just gave us a shining example.
You.
Your words are still there, you lying piece of excrement.
You said that absolutely no gay or child abusing priests came out of South American seminaries. That is a deliberate and willful lie on your part, made in order to sell your agenda that the Catholic Church abuse scandal was really part of a liberal/homosexual agenda.
Then, you take your lies to a really filthy extreme and claim I’m a) an atheist and b) lying about being molested.
And then I give you links to plenty of cases of South American priests from South American seminaries who are guilty of abusing both boys and girls, and you STILL say I’m lying, and you begin your sad, obvious little back-pedal.
You are as bad as a child abuser yourself. You’re filth. You’re an animal, a lying, sick, twisted animal. Go rot in Hell where you belong, you lying pig.
Oh, and the “reference” you “cited” was Goodbye, Good Men, the self-pubbed pile of manure I referred to.
It’s a completely unresearched, unsubstantiated pile of hogwash from start to finish, created to pander to people like “tinsmith”.
Oh, but you have to ALL OF A SUDDEN get back to work, to the real world, you can’t pull references, you aren’t near your own bookshelves. Suuuure…
You freakin’ coward. You’re not just a liar and a dishonorable piece of garbage, you’re a lily-livered, yellow-bellied coward who hasn’t the COJONES (not “kahunas”, you great big ignoramus) to stick around and back up his words.
tanstaafl,
I still can’t figure out why some posts have no “reply” option, so I’m trying to reply by using my own post.
I made no statement at all about how many child molesters came from South America. The South American child-molester mentioned by the overwrought blogger was not even gay, so really it was not germane to my original point, but nevertheless, I will amend my original statement and say that “hardly any” gay priests came from South America, Asia, or Africa relative to the number that came from North America and Europe.
Everyone on this blog has made assertions (how can one even talk at all without making some sort of assertion?), and very few provided footnotes to support them. This is an open conversation, with any luck a friendly one, or at least a cordial one, not a scholarly journal.
If I overstate my case at at times, well, that’s unfortunate. Not intentional, but typing from an iPad does not leave much time for proper review and editing. I’m not trying to get any college credits here, and I do not try to play “gotcha” with anyone else’s unfortunate lapses in typography or choice of words. But the wild trash-talking coming from certain quarters cannot be explained by careless rhetoric or fat thumbs, and I leave this thread for now saying “I forgive you” to that other blogger, who knows who she is. If she really was a molestation victim, then I hope that if the molester was a pilot, she would not think all airlines should be shut down, or if the molester was a plumber, that no one should have running water, or that if he was a priest, that there should be no religions. And that she eventually realizes that when someone says that the Church was unable to cope with the sudden loss of vocations in mid-20th century, and (in hindsight foolishly) allowed itself to be temporarily flooded with gay seminarians, it set itself up for inevitable big trouble, that person is not protecting child molesters.
So good night, and maybe we will “meet” again another day and on another thread.
“Goodbye, Good Men”, by Michael S. Rose.
Published 2002 by Regnery.
ISBN 0-89526-144-8, includes bibliographical references and index.
So now I caught you making a plainly false accusation. Who’s credibility is shot to hell now, Nora?
Checkmate.
No, liar. You SAID — and it’s all still there — that NO GAY OR CHILD ABUSING PRIESTS CAME FROM SOUTH AMERICAN SEMINARIES.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_sex_abuse_cases_by_country#South_America
Refute THAT, dickbrain.
And you “forgive me”. Oh. Right. The Catholic F-U. Right up there with “I’ll pray for you”.
I haven’t done anything wrong. You, on the other hand, have told lie after lie after lie in order to weasel out of the original pack of lies you told. I DON’T forgive you. You can rot in hell with all those South American abusing priests you say don’t exist.
Not checkmate at all. That book is universally scoffed at as a pile of manure by any reasonable, mainstream scholar, including many, many conservative Catholics and Christians. It’s actually roundly rejected as any kind of serious study on the abuse problem. So, no, you little pansy, you’re still wrong.
@tanstaafl – All Tin said was that there was something especially rotten in the European and North American culture that churned out child molesting priests. Here comes Nora to the forfront declaring “WAIT! One from South America molested ME!!!!! So you are a LIAR!!!ELEVENTY111!!!”
She hasn’t shut up since……
No, “lolly”, “tinsmith” stated unequivocally that there were NO abusing priests who came from South American (and other) seminaries.
I refuted his completely unsubstantiated claim with my own experience and with a list of links to a history of abusing priests who came through various South American seminaries.
He then refused to attempt to substantiate his agenda-driven claim, whining about his iPad/chubby finger problems, not being near his books, not having time since he was at work (had plenty of time to spread his anti-gay sentiments all day long though, hmmm…), and finally re-stated the name of that ridiculous book pubbed at a “lifestyle” press run by white supremacists, which has been rejected by even conservative Catholic news organizations as unreliable at best, hokum at worst.
So get YOUR facts straight, you ridiculous female. On the one hand, you probably reject Catholicism, but on the other, you’re willing to defend the worst example of Catholicism in order to personally attack someone who won’t capitulate to your ignorant, uninformed, uneducated, egotistical drivelings.
Oh, but you’re not a hypocrite…no…not AT ALL… Right.
and maybe that is why you are not God.
I am skipping by the long, long, string of comments by people who are attempting to write comprehensive treatises on theology, just to say this:
Thank you, Frank Fleming, for the most enjoyable post I’ve read in awhile.
They say that conservatives have inherently better-honed senses of humor than liberals, because they can see truth clearer, beyond the muck of the present. Conservative Christians, then, have the keenest humor of all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_sex_abuse_cases_by_country#South_America
Right. Just one. And anyone who says differently is just a liar. That’s the Christian way. Of course.
Because I can disprove your dishonest assertion that no molesting priests came out of South American seminaries, you now claim I’m lying about being abused.
You’re not a human being. You’re completely of Satan. Completely. God knows I’m telling the truth, and God knows you’re lying. You can justify your evil filth to Him in the end. See how that works out for you.
Nora – you really can’t evoke God as your witness and then condemn all Christians (His children) as Gil liars. I’m very sorry at what happened to you, but a Christian wasn’t responsible. Evil was responsible and you know who the father of evil is. It’s time you placed blame where it belongs. God still loves you and will bless you. Talk to Him.
Sorry, “lolly”, you don’t get to have it both ways either. You showed me who you are. No going back now.
No problem – I tried to show you compassion and you are too hatefilled to accept that someone is sincere. No skin off my teeth. You mean nothing to me.
No, “lolly”, you were as nasty as you could be when I refused to be bullied into capitulation on previous threads, and now you want me to praise you for your “compassion”?
You clearly do not understand the history of the circumstances.
And that “I mean nothing to you” was evident from your first ugly little comeback.
Of course I mean nothing to you. You’re a Christian, and it’s aaaaall about youyouyou, 24/7/365. Duh.
you really need to calm down. you are making a complete ass of yourself. not to mention you are being a hypocrite.
So what? So are you.
Totally worthless story to be running at this time.
IT’S THE ECONOMY, STUPID
so I guess in all media there should be no stories that don’t talk about the economy?
I enjoyed the article until I reached the end of page 1 where he discussed judging. That scripture interpretation is incorrect. The best interpretation is CONDEMN, not JUDGE. As in “Condemn not”. Scripture encourages judging. How do you know if a thing is good or bad if you don’t weigh it’s components and judge it’s merits? Or when choosing friends, do the same?
Judeo- Christian beliefs evolved over thousands of years, borrowing from Zoroasterism, Sumer, Ancient mystery religions, Phoenicians, Babylon, Egypt, and many points in between.
Beliefs and rituals were considered, borrowed, incorporated, discarded, and this process started again and again over millenniums within Jewish and Christian religions.
We can read Phoenician stories such as Gilgamesh that are later used as framework for Noah in the Old testament, The story of Nimrod and his mother/wife Semiramis and their son Tammuz becomes a template used for holy trinity(s) that comes after , The books of Revelations are based on the sibylline Books, which were the most popular books in Rome for hundreds of years before Christ was born. Even the Bible recognizes there is “nothing new under sun”.
Christ never wrote anything down, never built anything, did not leave a single physical item for people to worship / kill over. Unfortunately his example was not followed by his followers;
A little over three hundred years after Christ walked the earth St Helena is traveling throughout The Holy lands declaring a particular piece of real estate the site of his birth, his death, and all points in between. From that point on wars and invasions become standard operating procedure for Jewish, Christian and later Islamic Religions slaughtering each other over tiny pieces of real estate, the birth sites of their peaceful religions.
St Helena son was the Roman emperor Constantine, whom declared Christianity a state sanctioned religion lest his Mother be also crucified or thrown to lions.
There are many organized religions that came before Judeo-Christian system, they are evolving even in our lives, and will continue to change just as they have in the past.
“Judeo- Christian beliefs evolved over thousands of years, borrowing from Zoroasterism, Sumer, Ancient mystery religions, Phoenicians, Babylon, Egypt, and many points in between.”
This has already been debunked. It was made up to discredit Judaism as a religion and a people so that arabs (and the UN) would be justified in stealing their country from them again.
40. alex
Judeo- Christian beliefs evolved over thousands of years, borrowing from Zoroasterism, Sumer, Ancient mystery religions, Phoenicians, Babylon, Egypt, and many points in between.
Complete nonsense, the argument is equally valid that these religions “borrowed” from jewish beliefs. Jesus was not “borrowed” from anyone. and Christianity let alone Judaism were completely different from proceeding religions – that is one of the point of them.
Christ never wrote anything down, never built anything, did not leave a single physical item for people to worship / kill over. Of course he didn’t leave a physical item to kill over – do you even understand christianity?
Christ’s followers have the God given right to self defense just like the rest of Gods creation.
A little over three hundred years after Christ walked the earth St Helena is traveling throughout The Holy lands declaring a particular piece of real estate the site of his birth, his death, and all points in between. From that point on wars and invasions become standard operating procedure for Jewish, Christian and later Islamic Religions slaughtering each other over tiny pieces of real estate, the birth sites of their peaceful religions.
You have a funny understanding of history – these places were simply officially recognized for what everyone all ready new they were.
St Helena son was the Roman emperor Constantine, whom declared Christianity a state sanctioned religion lest his Mother be also crucified or thrown to lions. except he also converted, must have thought it true. A roman emperor was hardly afraid of the populous.
There are many organized religions that came before Judeo-Christian system, none that were true however.
alex, you also seem to have a nieve understanding of islam. islamists are killing everyone because there “religion” says they must conquer the world.
marc malone,
You reply at #7 was good, plain, sensible, straight talk. I’ll be stealing it.
Christians are supposed to be united by Christ. Regardless of our denomination we have a great common goal. A focus on any dogmatic nit-picking detail is NOT a focus on Christ. Churches splitting over music or no music, head coverings or none, dresses or pants, baptism by dunking or sprinkling, all of that is peripheral.
Keep to the great commandment, the great commission, live your life, share the love, and chill out. It’s not so complicated.
I thought the reason for the Good Samaritan story was to show us who are neighbor is…We are to show kindness to all people, not just those we agree with.
Yeah, well run that one by “lolly” and “tinsmith”. When you people get it right among yourselves, you can get back to the rest of us, ‘k?
You really are all a pack of stinking, selfish hypocrites, every last one of you. Rotten to the core, the lot of you.
says the rotten hypocrite.
Right back atcha…and around and around it goes…
Religion sucks. This is what it does to people. Get out of God’s way and leave people alone. Religion is all about tearing people down, about power plays, about control and manipulation. Religion is a weapon that is used for evil, not good.
Religion sucks. This is what it does to people. Get out of God’s way and leave people alone. Religion is all about tearing people down, about power plays, about control and manipulation. Religion is a weapon that is used for evil, not good.
sorry for your crappy life – get over it – religion didn’t do that to you, no more than God did. -it is life – sometimes good sometimes bad. but the simplest child knows that when you get lemons you make lemonade.
time to grow up.
F*ck you. You’ve shown your true colors, you POS. SO sorry you’re gay and trying to pretend otherwise, but as you and your ilk say, not my problem, kittycat..
If I could have this much ‘horse hockey’ on my garden, I could feed three third world nations from my South Dakota dry land farm!
This excellent explanation needs some accompanying henchmen.
ALL OF SCIENCE RESTS ON GREEK RELIGION, JUDAISM AND CHRISTIANITY
Greek public religion had little impact on science as it had stuff not covered which was sort of under a natural law label and really not worth bothering with. Greek private religion, tribal or something, was secret and verbal. Human memory limited the topics covered and natural law stuff was too far removed to have family doctrine on what would otherwise be under the natural-law-skip-it label. What went on in secret tribal religion is vague as it apparently did not survive the centuries. Greeks with time to speculate in the market place had no restraint on topics and invented philosophy and formal reasoning systems and other things while puttering around the Natural Law pile of useless brain fodder. One could do post hoc propter hoc activity in public and not get arrested. This philosophy stuff went on to correct natural law assumptions that for example women had fewer teeth than men.
Judaism had that same view of natural law. One was not fed to Satan by thinking about why water flowed downhill. No time for that. We had to do the struggle of comparative student interpretations of lines in the Torah while studying it. The struggle of comparative interpretations – hmm – what does that sound like?
Christianity, equally busy, said that natural law stuff, do it on your own time or see what the Greeks or others said.
We fly around in 787s, based on the spiritual unimportance of why water flows downhill.
Other religions are holistic, explaining everything, EVERYTHING. One thing explained is the flatness of the earth (true, else be a blasphemer and see what happens to you).
DEDUCTIVE REASONING IS MORE THAN JUST A GODSEND TO THE BUSY, THINKING PERSON
Deductive Reasoning is a good fit for the spiritual life. There are so many unknowns. If one uses inductive reasoning in spiritual matters, one ends up doing stuff like determining the angel-bearing capacity of pins and other important issues covered in centuries past, leaving observers to wonder what they were thinking of.
Outside of worship at the holy place and spiritual endeavor elsewhere, when one is in the activities of daily living and working, Deductive Reasoning is not a good idea. The unknowns there are different, and many can be resolved by the plodding work of theorizing such as with Deductive Reasoning, sorting, comparing, and destruction testing of various theories to see which ones really describe the real world we can all identify. For example, one can take the terrible risk of approaching a female and negotiating and opening of her mouth in good light with four assistants present so an accurate count can be made of the teeth in there. Then repeat with a non-related individual to develop a trend. The tedium and bother of really finding out once and for all, coupled with having a number of ladies thinking you are nuts, is a gargantuan mess compared with just doing a quick dance from pre-existing conclusions and deducing they have less, and then there is more time for lunch.
Generally, Deductive Reasoning can concretely prove that pigs can fly and perhaps also become bombardiers. So it has problems. It is extremely useful for the busy person in spiritual matters, and wiser experts in holy matters can be counted on to comb out the errors.
Deductive Reasoning’s problem in daily life and work is because everything done has Deductive Reasoning elements which can sometimes be very small and even not noticed. The problem is that the Deductive Reasoning element can be true, false with something not contemplated in there instead or, somewhere in between, or just empty. Whether any of this is important is another matter. Deductive Reasoning is not a good idea for driving on the Freeway.
If one pays attention to the number of Deductive Reasoning elements present, one gets another viewpoint.
America’s heart follows three cities: Plymouth, New Amsterdam, and Paris. New England Puritan ethics were inherited from patrician governance, academia and the Media. The peculiar freedom allowed by the opposing forces of the code of conduct of the United Provinces versus human behavior which is salient enough to annoy Peter Stuyvesant led to a Hen & Chicks effect on the East Coast of the Colonies. The chicks were the little colonies, peeping away about doing the right thing. The hen was the New Amsterdam financial colossus; sucking wealth, commerce, and talent from everywhere else like a mutant vacuum cleaner. The English King, in his usual daily occupation of envy and lust for wealth, eventually found a way to seize the place.
Peter Stuyvesant, backed by his maybe dozen (ho-ho) militia, negotiated with the British warship. He told the British he would fight, but would agree not to if the British would accept continuance of the code of conduct brought from the United Provinces. Stuyvesant’s action was a subdivision of Speaking Truth to Power, called “Hustling a Mark.” In the next century, the NY delegation pushed this little list into the Constitution where all seem to know it as the Bill of Rights.
Most all Americans are not aware they are running around with the New Amsterdam sticking out all over like stuffing out of an over-loved bear. Some Americans are followers of Plymouth and would find no problem under the Patrician governance. Some Americans love Paris, after 1789 where all those new progressive ways of thinking and acting were born as well as the way of dealing with blasphemy and apostasy. The Plymouth folks look at Paris and consider whether some excesses were present, wondering why particular paths did not work. The New Amsterdamites would not be caught in either place.
Put on the leisure mind, slowing down everything to see the structure of reasoning made by the phrases and the words. Identify the Deductive Reasoning elements. They are like little dots marked “not analyzed.”
New Amsterdam things have some Deductive Reasoning elements. Clever people find them and profit accordingly. Others learn they exist because something did not work as it was swatted by the cruel cricket bat of reality. Those of Plymouth have more. The intellectual descendants of 1789 Paris have Deductive Reasoning all over, like B.O. on a wino. No wonder those who mightily toil to improve the working masses with Parisian methods have the worst, most inhumane and wasteful labor policies on the planet. And they do other unsavory things.
The children of Paris have constructed beliefs that are very difficult to distinguish from religions. They have their religious machinery intact. They pursue the Third Commandment with zealotry and joy. While a religious person can struggle in the hallway with Satan after seeing “The French Line” at the movie house, the child of Paris does much better, rounding up those who are satanic capitalist wreckers, hate speech blasphemers, rootless cosmopolitan demons, and sabotaging djinns and send them all to Purgatorial therapy in some kind of a camp.
Atheism is like not being able to carry a tune. The wiring for spirituality is not working. These folks are usually good, but for nothing. Most go with the Judeo-Christian chorus; they just can’t follow the tune like the others can and are tingle-free. Others are just bad as a lifestyle. Atheism which attacks Judaism and Christianity is one of those alternate religions in full deductive mode, pursuing the Third Commandment, and perhaps another child of Paris at work. The question is there as to whether they are just a religious person who has done some re-labeling for personal reasons.
It is a mystery why institutions attacked by Atheists doing lawfare do not post the Bible quotation about the separation of Church and State, mentioned by Jesus. When asked about the religious symbol, the quotation can be pointed at, saying there is the reminder that everyone knows the difference, as shown even by the Declaration of Independence when creative word-meaning mechanics is not present. Would the attackers wish to add the quotation to the list? Now there would be a spur for interesting squabbling.
As a plodder in thinking with the intellectual methodology of an assembler of Tinker Toys, I lack the word-swashbuckling capacity to make things compact; sorry.
I’m a Christian, and I approve of this post (Mr. Fleming’s, to be clear).
There are so many that believe that all one needs to do is believe in Christ and they will be saved. I think these are the same that either have not read the Bible, or having read it, have glossed over several of the passages that they find disagreeable. One of these is so obvious, I just don’t understand how is could have been missed. You know the one…not all those that say unto me Lord Lord…it may have been missed.
There are also PLENTY of passages that teach faith requires works. This is especially true since faith is not a noun, but a “verb”, and requires action on our part. It was not enough to simply have faith to cast out devils…but it required much fasting and prayer. Peter was also chastised for not having enough faith when he failed to stay on top of the water.
Now it is by the grace of God that we are saved…there will never be enough we could ever do on our own to gain salvation. This gift, however, is predicated on our willingness and diligence in following the Savior and keeping ALL of His commandments…not just the ones we find to be convenient. The parable of the 10 virgins is a perfect example of this. All were believers, yet 5 chose to not be prepared, chose to not place oil in their lamps, through their own actions. They were left outside.
It is equally silly to suppose that if you have faith the works will follow, and that by simply saying this we have absolved ourselves from doing works. One such work would be baptism. The Lord was very clear when He said that unless a man be born of the water and of the spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. Keeping the commandments requires work, it requires faith. To suggest otherwise is to expose a lack of understanding, or seeking justification to remain in sin, or both.
An exercise that will do wonders is to separate only what Christ said and did from rest of Bible. Read and study only this for several weeks / months or even years. This is what Christ taught and led by example and frankly should be the only basis for Christianity.
Since we are on this subject there is a question nobody seems ready to ask or answer. In simplest form and with sincere respect ;
The Old testament (Judeo) and New (Christian) religions are almost diametrically opposed in teaching and belief. If the only way to salvation is through Christ, then how are Jews accepted into heaven. And if Jews have special dispensation from God, then Christ is not the only avenue to salvation and the statement is false.
This is a sincere question, as i have thought about this for some time, researched origins of each religion to answer this basic conflict, for it is the foundation of each religion.
I think this is a false dichotomy.
“Love your neighbor as Yourself” – Leviticus
“You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart (mind, ego) and all your life and all your possessions (or might)” – Deuteronomy
Helping the unfortunate is the definition of knowing God – the Prophets
All of this in the so-called Old Testament. The ritual law? That was given to Jews only. (Actually, so were most of the above, but never mind.)
Now certain forms of Christianity (not Catholicism today) teach that someone who does not accept Jesus does not get into Heaven. Judaism does not believe this, althoguh it does not restrict entry to Jews. This is true. But is that all of your Bible?
The answer to your question is found in Revelations. The book is a foretelling of God’s endgame for life on earth. As God is gathering up all His children and skipping to the end the last people to be gathered up are the Jews and God honor His covenant. Because they turned their face from Him they will suffer the longest on earth but God does keep His promise and as they stand befofe Him He tells them that Christ was the Messiah. They are remorseful and then God asks them if they will accept Christ and they all do (like they would say no with God Himself telling them to their face that Christ was IT) to a man.
They are the only people given this second and last chance and they take it and are saved – in the afterlife.
A lot of confusion here….believe in my God is a belief. I do not have a religion….not Baptist, Methodist, Presb, Catholic….I just believe in God and his status as a higher power and his wisdom as handed down in the Bible. Religion and belief in God are two different things.
Every major religion says it is not a religion, the others are.
Reading all these flabby holier-than-thou comments makes it clear: there is so much religious manure around that the growth of atheism is assured! And how could it not grow as long as there are folk around who realize that it’s not faith but the hoe that ensures the harvest – geddit?
The article is an attack on bigotry. I am not a Christina, and I understand. Why can’t you?
Perhaps you should look in the mirror.
I believe that was a “holier-than-thou” comment – hypocrite.
We are all in the same boat, believers and non-believers in Christ.
We have a little problem called ‘death’.
God has done something about it in Christ Jesus and desires that all know about it. Because of our calling and status in the creation, we will be judged when it’s all over.
But the good thing is, the truly comforting thing is, that the One who will judge us is the same One who died for us.
Thanks.
That was great, Frank!
This article seems to be a stupid question contest. I’m pretty sure, judging from the number of times I laughed, that’s it’s not humor. So in the spirit of the article I have some stupid questions too.
I don’t know much about Tim Tebow because I stopped following the NFL quite a while ago. But back in the 1970s coach Tom Landry of the Dallas Cowboys said his success was due to Jesus Christ. So why did Jesus stick with the flex-defense long after everybody figured out how to beat it?
Are Roman Catholics Christians? Are Protestants Christian too? If they’re both Christian why did they spend so many centuries killing each other? Do Christians hate Christians?
Is Mitt Romney a Christian? Mitt Romney might be even more important than Tim Tebow. Some have said Romney isn’t a Christian, but if he isn’t a Christian why does he belong to a group called “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints”. Mr. Romney might want to get this straightened out.
Jesus was Jewish and so were his disciples. Does that mean a good Christian should convert?
A lot of disgraced evangelists have done things “In the name of Jesus Christ”. Can Jesus sue them?
Is there a prize for coming up with the stupidest question here? How am I doing?
There is no such a thing as stupid question. I’m guessing Landry was referring to his personal success rather than the Cowboys. Most Christians who have escaped personal failure would say the the same thing and a Christian who experienced personal failure would attribute that primarily to failing to follow Jesus.
Are Catholics, Protestants and Mormons all Christians? Probably today most Catholics and Protestants would agree that Catholics and Protestants are Christians, although you have many that wouldn’t. Once upon a time, this question involved serious fighting. Now, of course not so much. If you are looking for something definitive the best I could do would be to suggest that you read the New Testament and make the determination yourself.
Regarding Mormons, Mormons call themselves Christians. Many Catholic and Protestants accept that. Many don’t. Again, read the Bible and form your own opinion.
(My own view is that Mormons are Christians)
Do Christians hate Christians? Christians are people and people are capable of hate. Of course, if you hate you are not following Jesus so a Christian who hates is doing something wrong and violating his own stated principles.
It is true that Jesus and the disciples were Jewish. The better you follow Jesus the better a Jew you’ll be so why convert? To get circumcised? To sacrifice pigeons and bulls before an altar? If you follow Jesus, you’ll understand that those things really aren’t important or necessary.
Can Jesus sue disgraced evangelists?
OK, I take back my first sentence. Lawsuits are meant to rectify temporal disputes. Those who do wrong in God’s name face an eternal judgement.
You totally lose the “stupid question” contest; these are really good ones!
I think the “I give glory to God” stuff on TV has to do with Christians recognizing that their talents are God-given. Usually. Sometimes it’s a coy way of proclaiming how reeeeeallly holy you are but I don’t think Gabby Douglas is one of those. Dunno about Tim Tebow but I think I’m gonna have to confess “Impure thoughts” after checking out his magazine pictures (for *research* purposes only, of course).
Catholics consider most Protestants to be Christian but some Protestants don’t think Catholics are Christian. Unitarians and Mormons have some theological differences (having to do with the Trinity, and the “men will be gods with their own planet” stuff) that the Catholic Church considers “non-Christian” so they’re not considered Christian by the RCC. We don’t “hate” each other but humans do tend to get quite pushy about having things their own way so quite often, Protestants and Catholics have mistreated the other. Catholic church teaching has a lot to do with respecting others’ free will so we aren’t supposed to be making people convert on the point of a sword (Spanish had serious “issues” after all the years of Moslem conquest so they demonstrated some of their bad new habits in the New World. See canonized American saints to see how it was supposed to be done, like Isaac Jogues et al).
There’s a big write-up in Acts about Christianity through Judaism/Peter vs Paul but I haven’t seen anyone suggest the opposite, because Paul had a big dream about lobsters and pigs and cheeseburgers in a net. Yeah, I know.
The priest explained it a little better but it’s still kinda goofy.
Bad guys figured out looooong ago that if they pretend they’re religious, it gives them cover and they can keep a scam going a little longer (see “Sodano, Angelo and his disreputable nephew”). St John somebody or another said “The road to hell is paved with the skulls of bishops” because there’s nothing new about it. And Ezekiel 34 has a few words to say about “shepherds who pasture themselves” (a large can of you-know-what is involved). Chesterton said “It’s not that Christianity has been tried and found wanting, it’s that it hasn’t been sufficiently tried”. (going from memory here, gotta go do pesky “real life” so I’m not looking it up right now and I breezed through some bits too).
except catholics don’t get to decide who is Christin or not, Christ decides that.
What happens if there really is a God, and the reason in His infinite plan for giving little children cancer is …he’s a jerk?
God doesn’t give little children cancer. Little children get cancer just like adults because they are part of this world, and this world contains cancer.
tinman
In one of your many posts you write (somewhat condescendingly) that religious people are frustrated by the “cloud of bad information” in which some not so religious people wallow.
#26 above, you write, apparently with the agenda of demonstrating that pedophile/gay priests only come from the ranks of (decadent) North America/Western Europe:
“No gay or child-abusing priests came from African seminaries. Or Asian seminaries. Or South American seminaries. And those seminaries produced the majority of priests during the last half century. Nope, all the gay priests were from Western Europe or North America, clearly a reflection of something happening in those local cultures and the seminaries that recruited therein, and reflects the cultural liberalism of the bishops in those areas.”
That’s a cloud of bad information.
Another point you’ve made several times, when religious intermediaries (aka leaders) are seen to have feet of clay, fall from grace, whatever…You ask… Do we abandon politics, police, plumbers, flying in airplanes…when practitioners of those activities screw up ?
Those kinds of individuals aren’t exactly in positions based completely on personal trust, as is your priest, your rabbi, your minister.
So yes it does damage to the realm of “religious belief” when its propagators and representatives are shown to be scuzz-balls.
Do we abandon politics, police, plumbers, flying in airplanes…when practitioners of those activities screw up ?
Those kinds of individuals aren’t exactly in positions based completely on personal trust, as is your priest, your rabbi, your minister.
I have complete trust in the pilots of airplanes or I would not fly (I’ve flown thousands of time, and have been in 3 helicopter wrecks – but still trust), by the way In also trust plumbers.
So yes it does damage to the realm of “religious belief” when its propagators and representatives are shown to be scuzz-balls. only if you are so shallow as to not know that all people are fallible.
While acknowledging that airline pilots make mistakes and some plumbers don’t do the job right, I don’t accept fallibility of the moral and ethical variety from individuals whose entire gig rests on their own personal and moral and ethical foundation.
Your mileage may vary.
Can you give the priest thing a rest, please? I, for one, am very glad that the God Jesus taught was “Our Father in heaven” did not hold the same attitude that you so loftily claim. He, at least, allows hypocrites to repent.
Some sins are so heinous, so venal, so mortal that “repentance” seems like a moot point.
Especially those perpetrated against children
“I don’t accept fallibility of the moral and ethical variety from individuals whose entire gig rests on their own personal and moral and ethical foundation.”
Apparently you don’t understand Christianity. It doesn’t rest on the moral and ethical foundations of these people. It rests on the moral and ethical foundations of Christ.
” Some sins are so heinous, so venal, so mortal that “repentance” seems like a moot point. Especially those perpetrated against children”
That is why you are not God.
We’re talking about individuals who purport to stand as intermediaries between you and Christ.
We’re not talking about Christianity per se.
Your points are naive, telling me what I do and do not understand.
I understand that professed repentance, as in the case of slaughterer extraordinaire David Berkowitz, aka Son of Sam, can be a crock and a smokescreen.
And quite beside the point.
Your “acceptance” is meaningless. Your “acceptance” has absolutely nothing to do with anyones salvation.
“Parts of the Bible can sound weird in isolation, but it takes lots of study to understand the Bible and how the Old Testament relates to the New Testament.”
Lots of study, or 10 seconds of honesty from the people who know.
Then wait an additional minute to sink in, and it changes one’s perspective entirely (…which explains the conspiracy of silence about the matter).
Q: Why did the author of this post say he was commenting on FAQs about Christians when in actuality he just wrote the questions himself as bad set ups to even worse jokes?
A: Because he thrives on forced sympathy laughs.
He has to write both sides of the conversation – he’s writing.
He’s also a comic, so of course he set the questions up for the answers.
However, I’ve actually been asked of, or accused of at least half of those, so he’s not far off.
I still like the humor.
If this is what passes for humor here anymore, I’m unsubbing.
goodbye, good riddance.
that’l show ‘em
The Christian god is pathetically weak and confused. He is very insecure and is always feeling afraid and insulted. He needs to pull up his big girl panties and quit worrying about whether or not people make fun of chicken man. My god doesn’t care what you think. he is big and strong. Your god is pathetic and weak. He feels threatened if two gay men rent an apartment and adopt a couple of kids. Pathetic. Secondly, his book sucks. It is full of contradictions and it is written is choppy old fashioned language. It is supposed to be an instruction book. Microsoft can release a new version of Office every two years but your “god” can’t put out an up-to-date version of his instruction manual every 2000? I guess it proves that Bill Gates is god. And that the Christian god is confused and weak. Who would follow such a weak god? Get a strong god and you will stop worrying about how other people like to have sex and you wills tart worrying about your own imperfections.
if you are going to just make stupid comments for the sake of attention, please go to another blog, and comment away.
Gray Man;
Judeo Christian religions evolved just like any other over thousands of years. The stories of Gilgamesh occurred and recorded hundreds of years in Sumer before they appear in the Old testament, as are many stories in the old testament, borrowed from Phoenician, Akkadian, Babylonian and many other cultures that existed long before framework that became Judaism.
The garden of Eden is a Sumerian story, the very word Eden is Sumerian for plain, which was a fertile region where lions and lambs slept together in peaceful coexistence until god grew angry and cursed humanity. From this story came the garden of Eden in the old testament which was written a thousand years afterwards.
King Sargon the 1st of Akkad, is a fascinating part of ancient history and his conquests provide freedom of religion for all under his reign. It is exposure to these varied religions that Judaism borrows from and creates its own history and belief system.
King Sargons birth is a another story borrowed by ancient Jewish scribes; Sargon’s mother placed him in a basket of reeds and let the river take him. This was written hundreds of years before Moses, and is the origin of that story as well. There are a dozen more stories and fables borrowed from preceding cultures to form the Old testament and the New.
There are many good historical books available that trace the History of organized religions, which spread from Sumer/akkad to Babylon then to Israel.
We can read these events in archaeology, historical records and writings, and personal accounts. This does not diminish Judaism or Christianity in any way shape or form..but it is what happened.
It is also the reason the Old testament conflicts with New testament regarding salvation of humanity..it is not a single story but many stories borrowed from many cultures and religions.
On what basis do you make the claim that the Old Testament and New Testament conflict about salvation? That sounds like an assumption on your part, based on a view of religion that negates any other possible source than syncretism and accretion. There is no historical way to “prove” that is what happened. In fact, some scholars argue just the opposite, that the ancient Sumerian creation stories and dieties were not the source, that the Hebrew Scriptures were quite unique. For example, those cultures were not montheistic, there were many gods in their stories. Christians obviously don’t believe your premise, which essentially denies the possibility of revelation. Although many Christians are fully aware that understanding or revelation about God has developed over time, that does not explain away the rather rapid emergence of Christianity.
interesting… you seem to think the old testament stories didn’t exist until they were written down? Have you not heard of oral tradition?
I grant you similar stories occur throughout the ancient world, but apparently you seem to think that it is imposible that they were in fact corruption’s of jewish tradition and not the other way around.
I understand why the new testament differs from the old, but obviously you do not.
Pam – Evangelical is a much broader group than just Southern Baptist Convention. And not all evangelicals believe Catholicism is a cult. Evangelicalism is much more a theological than a denominational cohort of Christians, with an emphasis on having a relationship with God through Jesus Christ and discipleship (following Christ and telling others about the Gospel, that is “evangelism”. Some Evangelicals are more conservative on some issues than others, but I think your statement is a overly narrow. I should know, I grew up in a variety of Protestant denominations, mainstream and not, and Evangelicalism cuts across many denominational lines.
The title of this article exemplifies the sanctimonious and condescending attitude of organized Christianity whose teachings have conditioned their followers to regard their fellow human as morally inferior and in dire need of proselytization. “Christianity for the Unbeliever” ?
This paradigm is just a variation of the Totalitarian Left which also gives a central authority the uncontested power to assign the individual to some idiosyncratic category e.g., Poor vs Rich.
You don’t have the permission to refer to me and anyone else who doesn’t subscribe to your groupthink as an ‘Unbeliever’. I am Believer in far better things. I am an American Citizen whose rights and liberties are codified in a document called the Constitution (not the Bible)
“I am an American Citizen whose rights and liberties are codified in a document called the Constitution (not the Bible)”
Talk about sanctimonious and condescending. You do know that the rights and liberties written into the constitution are a direct result of Judeo-Christian thought don’t you?
Christianity for Dummies written of course by Dummies
pointless, asinine comment.
commented on by a dummy.
Let’s face it, as long as narcissism exists, there will be atheism. Atheism is a result of complete self-reliance (the obvious end results of which is ultimately death. It’s inescapable). Christianity is the result of complete reliance and self-denial (the end result being eternal life and a greater purpose in this current life). They are total opposites and can never be reconciled together. In my opinion, that’s why atheists hate Christians… because they know that their own life is short and will ultimately be meaningless.
Additional side note: I think Christians should be more compassionate towards atheist than we have been at times. Really. I mean, try putting yourself in their shoes for a moment. It’s a bleak and ultimately hopeless reality. (And it doesn’t have to be that way)