Mutual respect, Christianity (rant, plea)

[Drake Dun]

Quoted from the thread "Agnosticism", here: https://www.gothic.net/boards/showth...596#post202596

I have my reasons for believing in my God, so I wish people would respect my views as much as I would theirs.

I imagine everybody has noticed by now how hostile I am to monotheism, the Abrahamic tradition, and Christianity. The quote above rather nicely picks out the rub. My answer: faithful Christians do not respect my views and cannot while remaining consistent with their faith.

The Christian opinion on my views is that they are worthy of a punishment which is more severe than any ever inflicted upon man by man, and which lasts for all eternity. So if my level of respect for the Christian's views is a crappy zero, then his level of respect for my views is like a negative sixty billion. Am I missing something, here?

I am familiar with the standard rebuttals, but none of them make sense to me. Please read that for its literal meaning and take it at face value. They do not make sense to me and I have never successfully managed to believe (despite earnest efforts) that the people making them actually take them seriously or are looking for more than a way to brush off my comments. Here is how these conversations sound to me, with an intentionally over-the-top example.

Jew: You're a Nazi? Ugh!
Nazi: What do you mean, "Ugh"?
Jew: I mean ugh. Your philosophy has been responsible for mass murder and assorted other atrocities on a historical scale.
Nazi: That was more than fifty years ago. Get over it.
Jew: It's kind of a big thing to get over.
Nazi: Well, you can't blame real Nazis for everything that people who call themselves Nazis do.
Jew: Huh?
Nazi: National socialism is about love for the German people. It's not our fault that other people have perverted it to their own uses.
Jew: Uuhmm... but this quote here by Adolph Hitler - that's the man himself, right? - says, "When National Socialism is triumphant, all the Jews will go to the gas chambers." So this isn't stuff people made up after the fact, it's right there in the book.
Nazi: That's true, but see, over here it says "We love the German people, and our whole purpose is to let them thrive and prosper". That's the important thing.
Jew: So.. you're saying that it's not only nasty, it's inconsistent too?
Nazi: There's nothing inconsistent about it. A lot of it is not meant to be taken literally. It is filled with metaphors.
Jew: Well, the way people express themselves now, you can tell when something is a metaphor. I don't see any of those signs here, but maybe they didn't bother with them back then. So which parts are literal and which parts are metaphors?
Nazi: It's kind of case by case. Remember, the main point is love of the German people. Anyone who tells you otherwise is perverting it.
Jew: And.. if it's all filled with metaphors and there is no easy way to tell them apart from the literal bits, you know that your interpretation is right and theirs wrong... how?
Nazi: If you felt Hitler's love, you would understand.
Jew: Ooooookay. What kind of metaphor is the gas chamber?
Nazi: Well, what it really means is that Jews won't be able to benefit from Hitler's boundless love, since they have deliberately chosen to reject him. Those of us who accept Der Fuher's word will be granted an eternity of paradisical existence, and you are going to miss out on that. So where it talks about your skin turning green from the chemical reaction, what it really means is that you will feel as if your very skin is hurting, you will regret missing out on Der Fuher's love so much.
Jew: So you're saying that the chlorine gas isn't literal, but the pain is.
Nazi: Right.
Jew: And that makes it less horrific how?
Nazi: It is horrible. But it's your fault for rejecting Hitler.
Jew: I have a few problems with that. If I am reading this right, then Hitler built the gas chambers in the first place. Even assuming that I am somehow expressing a desire to get gassed in them, which I sure as hell am not, why did he do that?
Nazi: His wisdom is above our questioning.
Jew: Are we allowed to question his fathomless sadism?
Nazi: Look, I don't appreciate that. I respect your views, why can't you respect mine?
Jew: But you don't respect my views. You want me to go to the gas chambers.
Nazi: I don't want you to go to the gas chambers. It is not for me to judge you. It's you who has chosen to go to the gas chambers by being a Jew.
Jew: Okay, but you have no qualms about this state of affairs.
Nazi: Like I said, it is not for me to question Der Fuher's wisdom.
Jew: Yeah, but it doesn't seem a little nasty to you?
Nazi: It's very sad. That's why I want so much for you to become a Nazi like me and be saved from it.
Jew: Wouldn't it make more sense to just get rid of the gas chambers and forget about the whole thing?
Nazi: Der Fuher wills otherwise.
Jew: Huh. Okay, well I would like to make an appointment to see him. I want to reason with him.
Nazi: It doesn't work like that. He lives in underground bunker and he never comes out. Nobody has seen him since '45.
Jew: What? Then how do you talk to him?
Nazi: Well, you put your hands together, like so. Then you talk to yourself, and he hears you.
Jew: Wow. That's a little weird, but I guess I will give it a try.
Nazi: Oh, it won't work for you.
Jew: How come?
Nazi: Well, you have to come to Him with a spirit of contrition and acceptingness.
Jew: So you're saying that to get the skinny, I have to buy it first.
Nazi: Yeah. Otherwise you would have proof that it was all correct, and you wouldn't be able to choose to follow Hitler, see.
Jew: That is totally incoherent. If anything, total ignorance about him renders me incapable of rejecting him. How can you defend that?
Nazi: I don't defend it. I just have faith. I feel this conversation is going in circles, so let's just agree to disagree.
Jew: I don't mind disagreeing. I mind gas chambers. What about the gas chambers?
Nazi: I can't prove I'm right, and you can't prove you're right. Let's just drop it.
Jew: Fine, whatever.
Nazi: See you around. Hey, maybe I'll run into you next week. Some other Nazi buddies and I are coming to this neighborhood campaigning to stop deviant sexual behavior, like sex outside of marriage.
Jew: You know what, pal? Fuck you.
Nazi: I love you.

Believe me, I would really really like to dump this animus. Can anyone actually make a coherent argument that Christianity's god is not an unforgivable tyrant?

Drake

[Godslayer Jillian]

That's what the Christianity thread should be about. But I like this thread about mutual respect.
The thing is that there will always be religious conflicts. The only mutual respect we can have is to like each other despite our religions and not make them a big deal among other people.
I feel that's the main importance of the threads of Christianity, Atheism, and Agnosticism. Outside of those, you cannot even see if someone's mad at someone for their faith.

[Cyntrox]

Originally Posted by Drake Dun

My answer: faithful Christians do not respect my views and cannot while remaining consistent with their faith.

Generalizations!

If one christian tries to convert you, what about the huge amount who's not?

[HumanePain]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

The thing is that there will always be religious conflicts. The only mutual respect we can have is to like each other despite our religions and not make them a big deal among other people.

Agreed.

And the silly conversations that Drake described (which actually occur, I have overheard them too), are not confined to religion: replace Nazi with Steeler's fan, and Jew with Raider's fan, and replace Hitler with Bill Cowher, or with various scientific debates (the String theorists vs. the "Not even wrong" side) and you will hear the same positions, reasons, and passion in similar arguments. It is natural social interaction.

[maggot]

TL;DR.

And, also, I like Dante's interpretation of it. The "Virtuous pagans" go to a very peaceful place that still has an overall feeling of sadness. It's very interesting. [I, myself, just look at it as a story, though.]

[655322]

I know this is an ignorant question, but I'm collecting evidence at the moment. Everyone knows about the countless lives that have been lost because of religious wars and so on. Does anyone know about some good things that religion has done for the human race? I can only think of Mother Teresa and the Dalai Llama at the moment, but it's late, there must be others.

[Drake Dun]

I don't mind disagreeing. I mind gas chambers. What about the gas chambers?

I don't find these answers very responsive. Let me recast the whole thing as a much more straightforward (and mercifully shorter) series of questions:

1) Do you believe that I am going to suffer horribly and eternally for failing to believe in your god?
2) If not, how do you reconcile that with what's in your holy book?
3) If so, do you think I deserve it?
4) If not, how do you reconcile that with your claim that your god is infinitely powerful and all-loving?

If you can find me a Christian who answers question 1 with a "no" and can answer question 2 with a convincing, not specious answer, it will take a lot of angst out of my life. If you can find me a Christian who answers question 3 with a "no" and can answer question 4 with something other than a dodge, I will at least gain some insight into Christianity.

If there aren't any Christians of either of those two types, and failing some unexpected circumstance (like discovering that I have read the Bible wrong, or something), I cannot be friends with Christians.

When someone kicks the hell out of one of my friends, I do something about it - other than telling him he deserved it and worshipping the guy who attacked him, out of fear that he will do the same to me. That's friendship.

This is respect: "I think you're mistaken."
This is not: "I think you are evil."

Drake

[Drake Dun]

Originally Posted by 655322

I know this is an ignorant question, but I'm collecting evidence at the moment. Everyone knows about the countless lives that have been lost because of religious wars and so on. Does anyone know about some good things that religion has done for the human race? I can only think of Mother Teresa and the Dalai Llama at the moment, but it's late, there must be others.

The problem is that whatever the causes, picking out all the good and bad things that people have done in history is, in addition to being subjective, pretty difficult. One reason is that the bad stuff always makes the books, since wars make such an impression on the human mind. The good stuff, OTOH is usually in the nature of some guy helping someone somewhere quietly. That's not of interest to historians.

An individualist thinker like me finds a certain poetry in this, but the fact is that good usually happens quietly and by the will of individuals. Good is the ultimate grassroots campaign. Bad things, on the other hand, come with flags, slogans, venerated symbols and guns, so they are much more visible. Even if you look at Mother Theresa or the Dalai Lama, what you are actually seeing may be more like Princess Diana - someone whose good deeds are only enabled by vast privileges bestowed upon that person, by an organization which in turn usually accrues the wealth necessary to bestow those privileges by being awful to people.

The result is that all you end up with is a contest of accusations. We're familiar with all the ones directed at Christianity. From the other side, we have heard atheism blamed for many of the deaths in the 20th century (I decline to get into the merits of that argument here). In addition, it turns out to be difficult to tease out the relationships and causes, so in the end it's usually not very clear to what degree a particular religious philosophy played into a particular historical event.

In my opinion, it is not a very useful form of analysis.

To answer your question directly, though, look into the histories of charity organizations and also certain social movements. For example, the only audible voice against what Europe was doing to Africa in the 1800s at the time came from Christian groups. They weren't able to stop most of the stuff, but they did have a few notable successes.

Drake

[Drake Dun]

Originally Posted by Drake Dun

If you can find me a Christian who answers question 1 with a "no" and can answer question 2 with a convincing, not specious answer, it will take a lot of angst out of my life.

Actually, I take it back. I will settle for a person who answers question 1 with a "no", and answers question 2 in a way that is sort of bogus from a logical perspective, but clearly honestly believes his answer.

Drake

[Splintered]

I do not get why I am expected to be nice to Christianity.

Christianity has caused wars (Thirty Years War), repression of other faiths (Conquistadors), attacks (Bombing of abortion clinics, attacks on homosexuals), etc. Why should I be nice to religion that does that? I mean, I think about how the "Conservative Religious Right", is trying to pass laws that would limit my individual freedoms, and I'm supposed to be nice to that?

It doesn't make sense. If Christianity is going to despise me for being bisexual, why shouldn't I despise Christianity? If they want to murder "The fags and dykes", why shouldn't I want to murder them? Some Christians want to make a "Christian Nation", why in hell shouldn't I want an Atheist Nation?

[Cyntrox]

Originally Posted by Splintered

I do not get why I am expected to be nice to Christianity.

Christianity has caused wars (Thirty Years War), repression of other faiths (Conquistadors), attacks (Bombing of abortion clinics, attacks on homosexuals), etc. Why should I be nice to religion that does that? I mean, I think about how the "Conservative Religious Right", is trying to pass laws that would limit my individual freedoms, and I'm supposed to be nice to that?

It doesn't make sense. If Christianity is going to despise me for being bisexual, why shouldn't I despise Christianity? If they want to murder "The fags and dykes", why shouldn't I want to murder them? Some Christians want to make a "Christian Nation", why in hell shouldn't I want an Atheist Nation?

Because some people use religion as an excuse to satisfy their thirst for blood. I mean, if I hit you and say I did it because that butterfly over there flapped its wings, does that mean it's the butterfly's fault?

[Godslayer Jillian]

Mother Teresa only did what she did to win converts to her religion. She did not so much tried to save the people as baptize them.

[HumanePain]

Drake, your questions caused me to deeply probe my beliefs and faith. Wise words that make a man think are good words if they feel sharp as a sword piercing one's heart, pain that is caused NOT by the one asking, but pain caused by the answers one finds in one's own mind.

I think you deserve to see a Christian at least try to answer these insightful questions, so here goes my feeble attempt:

Originally Posted by Drake Dun

1) Do you believe that I am going to suffer horribly and eternally for failing to believe in your god?
2) If not, how do you reconcile that with what's in your holy book?
3) If so, do you think I deserve it?
4) If not, how do you reconcile that with your claim that your god is infinitely powerful and all-loving?

1) I do not know. I hope not. My understanding is that one who denies God denies themselves the blessings of God. Bear with me a bit more:
By believing in God, and following His laws, I am protected from bringing trouble into my life. For example, by not stealing, I avoid being punished by society. By not coveting my neighbor's wife, I avoid conflict with my neighbor, and possibly avoid being killed too. By honoring my father and my mother, I enjoy family harmony.
So in my view, it is not really suffering at the hands of God that I avoid by being a Christian, I avoid suffering at my own hands and the hands of others.

2) I can only reconcile myself with the New Testament. I disagree with some of the instructions in the Old Testament. I am a follower of Jesus, not of the pre-Jesus Jews.

3) Certainly NOT.

4) I am not sure I understand the question's context clearly, but I will attempt to answer:
You do NOT deserve to "suffer horribly and eternally", and because God is an all loving God, you do enjoy and will continue to enjoy His (Hers?) blessings. If you choose to avoid the recommendations (remember, we are free to choose), then you suffer the consequences. You do not need to be a Christian to enjoy the safety granted by not stealing, etc. Did I understand the context of your question?

Originally Posted by Drake Dun

This is respect: "I think you're mistaken."
This is not: "I think you are evil."

I agree.

Let me conclude by saying that my personal opinion is that following Jesus is a very personal journey. I think that everyone should be made aware that various beliefs exist, including atheism and Christianity, but it should not be forced on anyone, and more importantly, no one should be killed or ostracized over a belief. I have had nightmares where I see the Christians being fed to the lions in ancient Rome.

Christianity has a long history of both saving lives and causing misery (although some of those inflicting pain were sociopaths using religion as an excuse), and today's Christians have a lot of work cut out for them in terms of making up for past misdeeds and demonstrating the original redeeming qualities of the faith.

I for one, am trying to make up for it anyway.

HP

[Circle V]

This is an excellent thread, Drake. Thank you.

[Splintered]

Originally Posted by Cyntrox

Because some people use religion as an excuse to satisfy their thirst for blood. I mean, if I hit you and say I did it because that butterfly over there flapped its wings, does that mean it's the butterfly's fault?

That's a rhetorical question: You already know the answer, but you want me to argue into the trap.

Except, the problem is the conditions aren't the same.

Christianity is based on the Bible. More specifically the old and new testament.

Both of them condemn homosexuality. Leviticus even says they should be put to death.

The problem with that is, the fundamental ideology is the problem. Not who is being told by "God" what.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Even so, the whole "using religion" excuse is ridiculous. As I always say, humans are not that clever.
Only so many people in the history of humanity have used religion to their own advantage.
The rest of them sincerely believed what they believed.

[Cyntrox]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

Even so, the whole "using religion" excuse is ridiculous. As I always say, humans are not that clever.
Only so many people in the history of humanity have used religion to their own advantage.
The rest of them sincerely believed what they believed.

Do you think Bush is smart? I know that a lot of people don't, so I'm using it as an example. When he ordered the american troops into Iraq, he did it to liberate it from the horrible dictator. How noble. Oh, there's oil there too? Well, he just grabbed it since it was so close, ey?

Originally Posted by Splintered

That's a rhetorical question: You already know the answer, but you want me to argue into the trap.

Except, the problem is the conditions aren't the same.

I think it's much of the same - I mean, it's people using religion for what it's not, they're using it as an excuse. What is the difference? That is an honest question.

Originally Posted by Splintered

The problem with that is, the fundamental ideology is the problem. Not who is being told by "God" what.

Huh? I don't get that... Tell you what, it's 3am here, I'll look at your post tomorrow.

[655322]

Originally Posted by Drake Dun

The problem is that whatever the causes, picking out all the good and bad things that people have done in history is, in addition to being subjective, pretty difficult.

The result is that all you end up with is a contest of accusations.

Yes I agree. A contest of accusations doesn't lead to mutual respect. This is what usually happens when both people or parties are looking for a win. I wasn't looking to put the information in the 'good' or 'bad' section, simply the religion section.

'Good' organisation can do bad things just as 'bad' organisations can do good things. I'm sure you know about the Yakuza helping people after the Kobe earthquake before anyone else.

But yea I know what you mean about some Christians getting on your case about not believing in God. I think it has more to do with power than anything else.

[DarkHeartedDemoness]

Originally Posted by Cyntrox

Do you think Bush is smart? I know that a lot of people don't, so I'm using it as an example. When he ordered the american troops into Iraq, he did it to liberate it from the horrible dictator. How noble. Oh, there's oil there too? Well, he just grabbed it since it was so close, ey?


I think it's much of the same - I mean, it's people using religion for what it's not, they're using it as an excuse. What is the difference? That is an honest question.

I think the intelligence thing was for people who deliberately manipulate religious texts for their own purposes.

I'm not sure your oil analogy works, though. If Bush had "found" a bible verse saying that we were meant to invade Iraq, then the analogy would work. As it was, Bush didn't manipulate religious texts. He just manipulated evidence, and he manipulated the peoples' feelings.

Are you familiar with Rasputin at all?

[Splintered]

What I am trying to get across is this:

It's not some odd interpretation by any odd soul. It is not someone who thinks God is telling them to kill people. There is actually, no one involved in the entire equation, save for those who act on it. It is based purely on the scripture.

Leviticus 20:13 explicitly states:

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them."

This is telling people to kill. No other way around it. It is the pure hatred of the ideology, not the individual people. If people are going to describe to this doctrine, why should I be nice to them, and respect their religion?

[DarkHeartedDemoness]

Originally Posted by Splintered

This is telling people to kill. No other way around it. It is the pure hatred of the ideology, not the individual people. If people are going to describe to this doctrine, why should I be nice to them, and respect their religion?

Leviticus is old testament. If you're going to hate someone based on that verse, hate the Jews.

The Christian's Messiah, Jesus, told them that Leviticus didn't really matter except for the Top Ten.

And if people choose to follow a religion like Christianity, that's their business. If they're not going out of their way (individually) to target you, don't go out of your way to target them.

[Splintered]

Alright, if we don't accept Leviticus, how about Romans?

1:31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them

Now, I can understand not going after people. Yet, they still adhere to this philosophy? Should I not treat them according to that?

[DarkHeartedDemoness]

Romans 16:19- Be excellent at what is good, be innocent of evil.

Matthew 7:1- Judge not lest ye be judged.

Matthew 7:12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

Luke 6:31 And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.

And even

Leviticus 19:18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by Cyntrox

Do you think Bush is smart?

Precisely my point.
Tell me of one instant where this individual manipulated the Scriptures so that he may appeal to the general public?
And if he has such a Machiavellian mind to use whatever means necessary to appeal to the general public, why is it that only one third of America likes him?

When he ordered the american troops into Iraq, he did it to liberate it from the horrible dictator. How noble. Oh, there's oil there too? Well, he just grabbed it since it was so close, ey?

Not only does that not help your theory, but the argument in itself is faulty. In your paragraph, he is a liberator, and an opportunist. What's wrong with that?

[Mir]

Why can't we discuss the virtues and vices contained within The Odyssey, The Illiad or countless other pieces of fiction that are not pretentious enough to claim they are the word of God.