I was raised a Christian, and I haven't been active in my faith for years. However, when I get into debates, I refuse to say "I have been a Christian for 20 years, so I know what I am talking about". Why? Because there are so many things I don't know about Christianity, and to assume that just because I was in it for any length of that I should know all about it is naive. Eric S. Raymond will make claims about how he knows about Christianity because he was a Christian for 12 years, but am I supposed to believe that somehow the first 12 years of his life gave him some expertise? If so, then I nearly double his education. B-)
Some Christians are fundamentalists. If the Bible said so, then it's the truth, regardless of the evidence against it.
Some Christians are not. Catholics believe that the Pope is infallible...but only in matters related to faith and morals. If the Pope said that the Earth was round, he'd be wrong, but it wouldn't change his infallibility.
Some Christians think that faith is all you need. You can be a sinner, but your faith in Christ will be all you need.
Other Christians think that you need both faith and good works. Believing in Christ isn't good enough, and I imagine that performing sins when you believe in Jesus would be worse than performing sins and not believing.
So to paint all Christians with the same brush is difficult because you will invariably be wrong on some level.
Conformance is easy, whether it is for religious, political, or social reasons. Obedience isn't much to be in awe of because anyone can just shutup and sit down.
Believing, on the other hand, is interesting. To keep hope alive, to keep your faith in the face of so many naysayers? That sounds like being an entrepreneur to me. B-)
Of course, we talk about people who are blindly obedient versus people who openly question, but what about those who question everything and still conclude that God exists? Are they also painted as conformists? I don't think that they should be. They independently concluded that their faith is not ill-placed, separate from someone telling them that they should just believe. Can you admire them, or must it be assumed that they are somehow flawed for coming to a conclusion different from yours?
It's annoying to say the least when a Christian makes a judgement call against someone's actions based on their own belief system. "That person is obviously a sinner and an obomination against God!" When an atheist does the same thing, it is still annoying. "That person is obviously a moron and an obomination against logic and reason!"
I have more problems with the leadership of the Catholic church than with the faith. I will say, however, that I think the rigidness came about as a way to get the masses into the faith easily. It is a lot easier to become an employee than it is to start your own business. In the first case, you have a set of rules to follow. In the latter case, you are going to have to wade through everything on your own. "Follow these laws and you shall be saved" is easier than getting philisophical on the morality of action vs intention, ends vs means, etc.
But of course I say this last part as someone who is ignorant of how it all actually came about. Someone who actually knows may correct my misunderstanding. Someone who doesn't can't.
|