Christianity - Respectful?

[Shaden]

Here's something I wrote a while back. A slightly meandering ramble about my views on Christian people. Feel free to agree/disagree/sit on the fence...

The first of these is that Christianity is based very much on faith and not just faith but blind faith. The only proof of God's existence is a book - and the origins of this book are shrouded in uncertainty. Blind faith is placed in a God that has no known existence. Christians are expected to live on promises that they never see fulfilled in their own lifetime. They're expected to live a life that goes against their very nature, cross their fingers and hope to go to heaven. They're expected to survive through tests and temptation. And all they get is a simple promise made to them by their parents, priests or a mysterious uncomprehendible deity. Against the battle for survival and natural behaviour Christianity fights a losing battle.

Yet blind faith surrounds us throughout our daily life. The blind faith that your partner will be faithful - they can't prove it to you but you just trust them. Something inside you tells you it's right. You don't question it - you just cross your fingers and hope for the best. Sometimes your faith is well-placed - sometimes it isn't. If it isn't you grit your teeth, brush yourself down and tackle life again. The trials of life are actually a set of faith tests. This is why people who have beliefs that they uphold strongly have such a rough time. They're fighting for something - they're faith becomes important to them. They're put through tests that push them to they're limits. Christians get this often in the form of temptation - they believe it comes from the Devil of course. The temptation to drink alcohol, do drugs and live promiscously all pushing them to their limits. They have to close their eyes and whisper silent words of invisible strength to themselves - or else their faith in their God could break at any point.

The trouble is that with Christianity rather then having a set of faith tests, they go through one long lifelong faith test. From the moment they choose their faith they have to believe in it till the moment they pass away. There are no shortcuts - life is one long road to their reward. And if it turns out that their faith was misplaced and there is no God and heaven awaiting them then they can't turn back the clock. Life has passed them by. If they're lucky they could reincarnate - but even then they could end up living the same pattern again.

So this is the first point I want to make. You might think Christians are delusional, out-moded and ridiculously old-fashioned. That's fair enough it's your opinion. But there is no doubt in my mind that Christians are brave, strong and resilient individuals. They place a great providence of their life in the acquisition of a promise that they can never prove exists. It takes a mentally strong person to run the risk of wasting their life for something that they can only cross their fingers for. So you can mock the Christians as much as you want - though you'll often find that a lot of them are a lot more well-informed and fair then you might think. But you need to respect them. For that one sacrifice they make Christians will always have my attention. I bow down to them for making that choice. It might seem stupid but ultimately it proves there is something of substance behind that pleasant face. And that is worth much more of my time then the ridiculously over-exaggerated individuals that fall into the world without boundaries and limits to abide by.

[Michael Chui]

I'll take it for a spin.

Originally Posted by Shaden

The first of these is that Christianity is based very much on faith and not just faith but blind faith.

I disagree already. Christianity, like many other things, is based primarily on obedience. There's a difference, depending on where you are and the circumstances of your upbringing that dictate the extent to which it's a matter of obedience, but the definition of sin remains walking off the path of obedience.

The faith part comes in as the question of who the obedience is to.

Originally Posted by Shaden

The only proof of God's existence is a book - and the origins of this book are shrouded in uncertainty.

The standard apologetic to this is either the acceptance of circular logic ("The Bible says so. Why is that right? Because God said so. How do I know? The Bible says so.") or the invocation of Psalms 19. I'm getting doctrinal, though, so... skip ahead...

Originally Posted by Shaden

But there is no doubt in my mind that Christians are brave, strong and resilient individuals.... For that one sacrifice they make Christians will always have my attention. It might seem stupid but ultimately it proves there is something of substance behind that pleasant face.

First, you must show that the individual has made that sacrifice. The vast majority of Christians are, not because they chose to be, but because they didn't choose not to be. They believe because this was the first worldview they were presented. And this is often why they don't know the history of their own religion: the past does not exist, because it is irrelevant to truth.

Second, I would find it more respectable that someone can take the core of their being and find it in themselves a willingness to question it. Instead, most Christians find the "sacrifice" comfortable. They find obedience and conformity to be comfortable. Myself, I have gone so far as to question things such as my own existence; I make the choice, consciously, to assume certain things. How many Christians would you say do this?

Third, you make no differentiation between Christians' "life-long faith test" and others' "set of faith tests". Why is faith in one's partner less than faith in God? Because you might get another? Is it because they're gambling with their own life? Is it the reward? How often do Christians think about Heaven? How often do they ponder God? Do Christians sacrifice only to get to Heaven? I don't think so. It is, ironically, far more likely that they sacrifice so that they can avoid Hell: a completely different deal.

Christians and other religious persons are people, just the same as other people, and just as much at fault. Would you respect someone who chose boundaries like, "I won't speak to white people"? Limits like, "I won't ever go outside my house"? Why are the boundaries that Christians choose better than these? And shouldn't this, not the fact that they have set them at all, be the arbiter of whether or not they deserve respect?

A person isn't respectable because they have limited themselves; a person is respectable if they limit themselves for the right reason. But whether those reasons are right is a bit subjective, isn't it? It might be worthwhile to know what those reasons are.

[Shaden]

I disagree already. Christianity, like many other things, is based primarily on obedience. There's a difference, depending on where you are and the circumstances of your upbringing that dictate the extent to which it's a matter of obedience, but the definition of sin remains walking off the path of obedience.

The faith part comes in as the question of who the obedience is to.

The obedience is to their God and most significantly God's word which can be found in a Bible - a book of unknown and uncertain origin. They are being obedient to something which they cannot even verify the existence of - therefore they must place their faith in the fact that they are not being lied to.

First, you must show that the individual has made that sacrifice. The vast majority of Christians are, not because they chose to be, but because they didn't choose not to be. They believe because this was the first worldview they were presented. And this is often why they don't know the history of their own religion: the past does not exist, because it is irrelevant to truth.

The past is irrevelant to the truth because it does not exist in the present. If the Christian Church judged itself on it's past it would change and evolve as it learned from it's mistakes. Yet the fact of the matter is that Christians view God's word as timeless and unchangeable. The values presented in the bible are the values they adhere to. This never changes.

Second, I would find it more respectable that someone can take the core of their being and find it in themselves a willingness to question it. Instead, most Christians find the "sacrifice" comfortable. They find obedience and conformity to be comfortable. Myself, I have gone so far as to question things such as my own existence; I make the choice, consciously, to assume certain things. How many Christians would you say do this?

Not many but that is not the point here. What you are trying to do is shoehorn Christianity into a subjective mindframe. You are saying that if they don't question they're own beliefs then they are wrong. But that is not the Christian church's essence. Timeless values remain rooted no matter what. They may find it comfortable - so what? A lot of the time they are going against they're own human nature i.e. no sexual promiscuity, forgive and forget etc. etc. They deny what comes naturally to live a life of virtue and control. Sometimes this is not comfortable - sometimes it is. It is arguable that a belief in a deity is human nature - but a deity who denys all natural desires of the human psyche seems paradoxical at best.

Christians and other religious persons are people, just the same as other people, and just as much at fault. Would you respect someone who chose boundaries like, "I won't speak to white people"? Limits like, "I won't ever go outside my house"? Why are the boundaries that Christians choose better than these? And shouldn't this, not the fact that they have set them at all, be the arbiter of whether or not they deserve respect?

A person isn't respectable because they have limited themselves; a person is respectable if they limit themselves for the right reason. But whether those reasons are right is a bit subjective, isn't it? It might be worthwhile to know what those reasons are.

Yet the limits the Christian faith choose are often both personal and variable. They are never impositional nor intrapersonal. Their is no Christian faith that states people should go out and advertise their religion forcibly to non-believers. Bad eggs within the faith do this - not the group as a whole. Instead the faiths they choose are often personal and affect only themselves - no drugs, alcohol, gambling, sexual infidelity, adultery etc. etc.

Finally if the Christian faith and it's respectability are largely based on it's beliefs and morals then the entire faith (and indeed all those in the world) are based on the subjective and seperate views that people view them with. In that case this brings me back to the original intention of this post - that this was an opinion not a statement and no one person's view is more correct then any other.

[Greg]

I don't think you necessarily need to limit this to the Christian faith (if that even can be generalized upon now since there are so many denominations). You could talk about "people of faith" instead and what makes them strong in your eyes. Then again, I'm not sure why or what you are writing this for - maybe you could clarify that and that would help us help you.

[Shaden]

Nothing - just that I met a lot of Christians in my last college and I was very much impressed with them. They were really nice, decent, genuine and kind individuals. I could write this about other people of faith - but I haven't met any of those guys yet lol!

I do agree it is generalised but I wrote it a long time ago and it seems to make sense to me. I might have been naive at the time. I might still be naive. But the above words just seem right to me. At any rate I respect a lot of the young Christians in my college. A lot of the others are just your average teenager - predictable.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Shaden

They are being obedient to something which they cannot even verify the existence of - therefore they must place their faith in the fact that they are not being lied to.

Take the extreme. Nothing can be believed without faith. Absolutely nothing. Your own existence cannot be believed without faith. It is never verifiable. The sun might not rise tomorrow. You might not take another breath. You cannot be absolutely certain that my responses to you are not a million monkeys at typewriters with a randomizer that selects a particular response and it just so happens to be sensical every time.

So what makes Christians special?

Originally Posted by Shaden

The past is irrevelant to the truth because it does not exist in the present. If the Christian Church judged itself on it's past it would change and evolve as it learned from it's mistakes. Yet the fact of the matter is that Christians view God's word as timeless and unchangeable. The values presented in the bible are the values they adhere to. This never changes.

That explains what we're doing in the Middle East, I guess. History repeats itself, until we're all scattered across the supernatural world, because the natural world is space dust. Is this what you respect? So if a child burns his hand by putting it onto a hot kettle, it would be respectable that he do it again and again?

Perhaps you would care to list some of the timeless values these Good Christians adhere to? Or is such a list at all relevant to the respectability?

Originally Posted by Shaden

What you are trying to do is shoehorn Christianity into a subjective mindframe. You are saying that if they don't question they're own beliefs then they are wrong.

No, I'm delivering the timeless truth that saying "I'm wrong" is harder than saying "I'm right". It is harder to doubt than to have faith. Why was Thomas' role so important? Why did Jesus allow Thomas to ascertain that he was in fact there in the flesh?

Permit me here to quote Albert Einstein. Twice.

"The mediocre mind is incapable of understanding the man who refuses to bow blindly to conventional prejudices and chooses instead to express his opinions courageously and honestly."

"That a man can take pleasure in marching in formation to the strains of a band is enough to make me despise him. He has only been given his big brain by mistake; a backbone was all he needed."

Both of these are copied from Albert Einstein - Wikiquote, so you can see context.

Originally Posted by Shaden

Yet the limits the Christian faith choose are often both personal and variable.

Then it's not one faith, is it?

Originally Posted by Shaden

Finally if the Christian faith and it's respectability are largely based on it's beliefs and morals then the entire faith (and indeed all those in the world) are based on the subjective and seperate views that people view them with.

And this is a bad thing... why? Well, I guess it would make monarchies, papal regimes, and totalitarianism a bit difficult, but according to the Bible, God demands that you decide for yourself anyways.

So, once again, the central basis of most organizations, including the various forms of the Christian faith, is that of obedience. I do not respect obedience. I don't see why I should. It's easy.

Originally Posted by Shaden

just that I met a lot of Christians in my last college and I was very much impressed with them. They were really nice, decent, genuine and kind individuals.

That makes the individuals respectable, not everyone with the same religious affiliation.

Originally Posted by Shaden

In that case this brings me back to the original intention of this post - that this was an opinion not a statement and no one person's view is more correct then any other.

In the words of Stephen Colbert, "I believe that everyone has the right to their own religion, be it Hindu, Jewish or Muslim. I believe our infinite paths to accepting Jesus Christ as your personal savior."

You speak for the Christians a lot. Fully disclosing, I have had some experience as a Christian. So, I must ask: are you a Christian?

[Shaden]

No I am not a christian but I have adopted a lot of the beliefs that Christianity adhere too. The only one I don't agree too, somewhat ironically, is the belief in a deity. I believe in something quite different too that. Yes I know it's somewhat paradoxical to take all those beliefs and then deny the very belief in the existence of the origin of those beliefs. But I'm an experiential person and they have worked very well for me.

And damn you don't half stretch my mind. I like a good debate but keep in mind that I'm only 17 and a lot more naive then you could ever believe. I still believe Santa Claus exists - unless you want to try and shoot that belief down too

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Shaden

And damn you don't half stretch my mind. I like a good debate but keep in mind that I'm only 17 and a lot more naive then you could ever believe. I still believe Santa Claus exists - unless you want to try and shoot that belief down too

*chuckles* Well, I'm 21, and 17 was the time I was thickest in Christianity. I consider the word "Christian" to be a rather loose label; it's not particularly useful, especially these days. I was naive, too, and back then, I fought pretty hard on some message boards that creationism was in fact plausible. I lost, too, but that didn't shake my faith. What shook the label off me was other Christians. I was raised in the church, though like every other social group I have touched, I was never "in". (Though, also like every other social group, I became known as someone who was a touch more philosophical and knowledgeable than everyone else.)

I gather that you've had a rather good pick of Christians in making chance encounters. I would encourage you to note the reported motivations of Palestinian suicide bombers, and then ask yourself if you consider that respectable. You might; they certainly do.

I believe in deity. But I do not believe as most Christians believe. The reason for this is that I often feel I am the only one who takes the notion that God is not human seriously. They talk about God as if he were a replacement father or Jesus as a needed friend. People need friends, but I dislike the fact that they act as hypocrites when it comes to their religious beliefs, especially since it's a conversion ploy, not a doctrinal point.

I would encourage you to separate your beliefs from the religion they came from. Many Christians are very admirable people; other Christians are despicable people. And they run the entire gamut in between. There are many very good facets to Christianity, and it's worth picking them up, but few are intrinsic to the religion. I would suggest you read Joseph Campbell (former Catholic; terrible with words, so not easy to read) and spend time studying other religions, particularly Buddhism and Judaism. Try attending a Dalai Lama talk when you have the chance. Comparative religion (and comparative mythology) studies are worthwhile.

And far be it from me to shoot down a belief in Santa Claus. I once conceived a project to make him unquestionably real. I've scrapped it, since; an industrial engineering degree is so not happening.

[Andrew Brunelle]

Let me give a little story about Christians that I knew: They used to try and force their beliefs on me, acted like I was crazy for not believing their fear-based religion, so I stopped hanging out with them so much. It's not the fact I didn't like them, it's the fact that they were closed-minded and would not look at my perspective at all, they were so immersed in their own belief system that they couldn't even mutter the words, "You could be right." So I decided that it was a part of myself that didn't believe my belief system, so I fixed that, and then since I got the inside congruent, the outside became better. I met people who were accepting of my beliefs and even gave me credit for thinking in such a profound way. I'm sure my ideas aren't new, but they encompass my set of experiences and the way I feel. So now I still talk to these Christian people, but I do not discuss such things such as life purpose or anything, which sort of makes the conversations exceedingly boring, so I usually move on to something else after a few minutes.

[gberardi]

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.

[J.R. Neumiller]

"For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God." 1 Cor 1:18

Its easy to disbelieve something because its not understood. For years, I stood apart from the Gospel because I didn't think it made sense to me. It was intellectually incomprehensible to.

Now, I understand it rightly because God has given me His Holy Spirit, so that I can interpret and gain the truth from it. Without that supernatural enablement, it would remain as dark and mysterious as it ever was.

The point of a relationship with Jesus Christ is truth. Nothing else will do. The bar to fellowship with Him is sin, and prideful reactions to it.

Jesus Christ plainly declared, "No one can come to me unless the Father which sent me draws him." He accomplishes this via the ministry of the Holy Spirit, Who has been sent into the world specifically to convict its inhabitants of sin, of righteousness, and judgment.

Do you feel clean and holy before God? Do you have a clear conscience before man? Does your heart condemn or commend your daily actions?

Sin is an ever-present part of man. It manifests itself in every part, and is found under every green tree. It is universal, insidious, and results in the death of every man. "The wages of sin is death." Want to live? Don't sin.

To prove that sin is the bar to fellowship, God raised Christ from the dead, and has seated Him at His right side in heaven to this very moment, (from whence He will come to judge both the living and the dead.)

Lest you think the resurection is just some earthly fable, I challenge you this: Disprove the resurection and you will utterly destroy Christianity completely, for it is founded not on some command or teaching, but upon Jesus Christ Himself. "I am the Way, and the Truth, and the Life. NO man comes to the father but by ME."

This is naturally quite offensive to proud, boastful man. He despises the thought he is in any way indebted to God, and naturally, he determines to cut God off in his heart. And here is God's response to this notion:

18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

19Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

(Where, God? Where?)

20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

(You mean, if I deny God I don't really make Him disappear?)

21Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

23And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

(Otherwise known as idolatry.)

24Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

25Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

(And now you know the real source of a sodomites affections.)

28And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

29Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

30Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

31Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

32Who 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.

Q. If this is so, why don't more people believe it?
A. Truth is not a popularity contest. Yea, "Let God be true and every man a liar."

Q. But if I disbelieve it, God can't condemn me because He hasn't given me enough evidence to believe it, can He?
A. And who are you to answer back to God? If God choses to remain visibly apart from His creation, who are you to judge Him? Shall that which is formed say to that which formed it, "what have you done?" The reasoning faculties of a creation are utterly insufficient to judge the actions of Him Who created them. No?

Q. But all I have to do is disbelieve and the threat goes away. God can't do anything to me as long as I can reasonably say He didn't give me enough evidence to convince me. The onus is on Him to provide reasonable evidence that is satisfactory to me. "Unless I see for myself, I will not believe"
A. "Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe."

Q. But I DON'T WANT TO BELIEVE IN god! Can't you understand that? The last thing in the world I want to become is accountable to a sinless, holy god, who has the power to send me to hell. To believe in Him is to become accountable to Him, and that's not going to be happening.
A. But that's a different matter entirely, and is utter proof of a proud and sin-darkened heart, whom the Creator loves dearly, and has given His Only Begotten Son to become the very sins of those creatures, dying in their place, and offering peace to those humble enough to receive it.

21For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

22For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:

23But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;

24But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

25Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

Salvation is a mystery to us, but not to God! He has mercy on Whom He will, and hardens Whom He wills. To stand arrogantly apart from this Omnipotent Being is literally to play with eternal hell fire. (But, even that happens according to His will.)

I don't know why God chose to save me, but I do know it wasn't because of my intellect, wisdom, strength, or bearing. Indeed, all those things were in the way of my conversion. They are most decidedly in the way of yours.