Point-by-point, and then some
After reading many agruments against Christianity on this forum, I noticed that most arguments have the underlying assumption that Christianity is false, or at least has no more right to humanity than any other religion.
That's fairly broad. But it's by and large true. Whether the falsehood of Christianity lies in its doctrinal conflicts, or in its living embodiment, I see no little evidence of its benefit in the world. To the doctrinal, it's a matter of faith, and we can only hope that someday Christians will figure out that to simply avoid the question is not necessarily to answer the question. This is most manifest in the idea that one should accept--that is, have faith in the veracity of--the Bible
before reading it. Secondly is the lack of unity: if there is one way to God, why do doctrinal disputes result in such diverse Christian society? (We know that
Tony1 has already tried elsewhere to blame it on the Devil and the non-Christians, but such an excuse for an answer is insufficient.) It's the essential definition of the scenario I occasionally dread up:
* You are at a festival--say, JesusFair--and as you walk along with your family, you see another group rejoicing in the Spirt. One of them offers a hearty, "Praise Jesus" ... now, does the Jesus they praise reflect the one you do? Rhetorical niceties such as
love thy neighbor aside, how do you know that Joe Familyguy over there isn't one of those people who thinks Jesus is leading the path to white supremacy? How do you know he isn't someone who "endorses" gay behavior? Or lets his kids read L'Engle novels? There are people in Christendom for whom not ostracizing gays, or for whom allowing children to read lesbian-communist-witch novels like
A Wrinkle in Time is unchristian indeed. It's well and fine to take the
Tony1 approach and say that there are so many non-Christians who claim the Bible, but doesn't that detract from the effect the Bible is supposed to have?
In this line of thinking, religions that say that there are many ways to God, are hailed as better, primarily because they do not believe they are right themselves.
This comes from the metaphysical realization that there are more possibilities in the Universe than one can account for. It is not that they disbelieve themselves in the form of left is right and right is left, but that for all the certainty they feel in their hearts, they know that nothing is known, and that all relevant observation could change in less than a heartbeat. The insistence on correctness that Christians have derived from the Bible is odd: whereas other cultures give credit to the unknown, Christianity demands that the unknown be wholly assumed; the literalism of it all I would attribute to undereducation.
So, naturally, such a religion that didn't really believe in itself would be taken kindly by those who don't believe in that religion anyway.
I think you're hopping a step here. Those who aren't offended by such a religion respect the idea that the religion leaves much to mystery, and that its adherents are not compelled to make as many irresponsible assumptions about human nature as the more haughty religions. Many of these religions are harmonious participants in the quest for knowledge; they merely have a different way of looking at things; this is acceptable to most people so long as nobody is forcing untenable theology as Universal fact.
These ideas lead to the notion that Christianity shouldn't believe in itself either.
It would be best said that Christianity takes itself too seriously. It takes itself so seriously, in fact, that it creates conditions counteractive to its positive message by its mere existence. It is this notion of taking itself so seriously that makes it a divisive force among humans.
On the other hand, I know of some who would assert that Christianity does not take itself seriously enough. So goes the argument, if Christians did give fair respect to their faith, they would not be leading the triune circus that they are.
This would be like trying to force an atheist to believe in God, because then all the people who do believe in God would think better of him.
Not quite. But we take your meaning.
In the meantime, are these really the same:
* Asking someone to believe an impossible assertion on faith because they owe it to themselves.
* Asking someone to reconsider the impossibilities of assumed faith because they owe it to themselves.
Asking someone to sacrifice their intellect is not the same as asking someone to use their intellect. Nobody asserts that a Christian reconsidering the impossibilities of assumed faith will abandon their faith in the Bible, but they might understand a little more about what they believe, and attain a better capacity for expressing it, so that attempts to sew the seeds of faith don't look so much like a cocaine-fed rendition of the Marx Brothers.
The argument might go like this (agnostic vs. atheist): how can an atheist be so intolerant towards all the people who believe in God?
The translation from the God to the People? Look, do Christians have an obligation to spread the Word? Great, now keep it away from my children; they don't need someone threatening their souls with fiction. How is that intolerant? Yet it never ceases to amaze me how often Christians assume the need to preach. Refusing to accept God on a whim is
not intolerance. Refusing to force a Jewish child to say Christian prayers is not intolerant. Refusing to disenfranchise and disempower up to 10% of the population on a religious folly is not intolerant. On what level is one intolerant for
not accepting the Word? To the other, the Word, in my experience, breeds intolerance, so excuse me if I roll my eyes
There are many more people who believe in God than atheists.
Something about undereducation? Superstition arose before knowledge; it was a Fire Spirit before it was rubbing two sticks together for warmth. Religious superstitions often served well in lieu of rational discovery; the twentieth century was a marvelous romp, but the world is not structured yet so that people can fully awaken. Literacy, technology, and opportunity internationally will allow that awakening, and the people will shrug off the religious tatters that whisper to kill, dominate, triumph.
And there are many devout believers in God who believe as strongly in God as an atheist believes that there is no God.
What these devout theists believe is not objectively established. In the case of Christianity, there is the little matter of the Judgement affecting their judgement.
Many atheist claims came from people who believe in God.
Yes, and it's a problem of the
a priori. When assuming God exists, one seeks a way to reconcile the paradox within that framework; it's why Catholic theology looks so funny, despite all the effort. When one looks at the established process from a different perspective, though, one sees the shallowness of the argument on behalf of God when it actually serves to demonstrate the paucity of the God attributed. As Jeffrey Burton Russell showed in
Lucifer: the Devil in the Middle Ages, the sum effect of all of Christian theology renders the Devil impossible, or a rhetorical nicety at best.
Voila, a theologian handing an atheist a concept for consideration, that one half of the Christian balance of good and evil is empty. The only thing amazing about how that works is that the theists rarely see their own points in such a context, and will dismantle even greater portions of their own theology to make it fit.
They should be more agnostic so that they can encompass everyone's belief in God or no God (and make us agnostics really happy because then there is one more of us).
And Christians should believe in compassion and love and all that wonderful stuff Jesus talked about. Why is it that the bulk of Christian rhetoric surrounds, "No man comes to the father but through me," or, "The fool hath said in his heart there is no god," and so forth? Why is it that the bulk of what we see here at Sciforums is about dominion, and how God is no respecter of persons? Strangely, if you talk to pagans and atheists who have left their own Christian history to the past, the dichotomy between compassion and dominion is largely the alienating force. But they owe Christianity better understanding, right?
My point is, in the same way an atheist believes not because of other people's beliefs, or whatever other people say--but because he believes he knows the truth--Christians don't believe because of other people's beliefs, or whatever other people say--but because he believes he knows the truth.
I simply must oppose this point: the atheist believes and disbelieves based on what can be observed. Knowledge is an historical catalog, and also an empirical breeding ground. A Christian believes because he believes he must. The belief of knowing the truth is a haughty assumption designed to reinforce the sense of necessity in faith.
If an agnostic, on the other hand, is caught merely between Judeo-Christianity and atheism, well, there we see the problem. One can study an entire lifetime, even in opposition to Christianity, and never leave the arena. Crowley and Mathers and Regardie ... all of those magicks have connections to Judeo-Christian history. My own chosen paganism is tied in, too--much of what we must figure out is what is real and what is assigned us by the Christians who would have destroyed us. I always wonder about Hallowe'en witches: do black people dress up once a year and sing Jolson tunes?
A conscience question: One must choose based on priorities--this much we know. But when faced with a ballot decision, we might examine those priorities. In 1992, Christians in Oregon failed to muster enough votes to win a Biblical principle. Based largely on Old Testament scripture, the OCA submitted a ballot measure that would have disempowered homosexuals. Christians were faced with a number of conflicting principles:
* To vote for the measure would reaffirm God's hatred of buggery.
* To vote for the measure would encourage the ostracism and disenfranchisement of 10% of the population.
* This would result in economic disempoerment and therefore hard times.
* A Christian could then help alleviate those hard times with charity.
* Or, a Christian could avoid invoking those hard times against another and trust in God to have His reasons for making homosexuals. What to do about it should become clear through prayer and honest reflection on one's motives. For instance, if one is to vote for the measure because homosexuals are responsible for 95% of child molestations, one should at least bother to make sure the stat is true. (The last time anyone checked, men were molesting little girls more than boys; this functionally rules out homosexual molestation.)
What, now, if that principle is, say, presidential promises?
* To vote for this candidate would be to affirm a promise of a tax rebate
* A tax rebate helps the voter and their family
* But that tax rebate is going to hurt education and poverty relief
* Poverty and undereducation foster crime
* Am I making society more dangerous for a few bucks back in my wallet?
The interaction between one's faith and one's moral decisions seems intrinsic. The real test is whether or not the advertised transcension is taking place. In my life, it looks like an extortion racket, and that's why I choose away from Christianity. The Universe is filled with possibility, and the quickest way I know of to cut myself off from all of that potential is to choose a faith which outlaws challenging ideas. I personally advise agnostics to do away with Judeo-Christianity for a while. Spend time with other philosophies, and don't hold them up against the Christian mirror exclusively. After a while, the religions of Abraham take on the apperance of holding out from the rest of society. This is well and fine, until we go back to the test of whether or not--as, say, in the case of Christianity--the advertised result is apparent.
If, in the end, the old faith still holds firm, then sure, maybe it's the right one for a person. But one must be capable of looking at the rest of the world without the Christian presupposition that these philosophies are wrong.
thanx,
Tiassa
