Why alot of people don't like Christianity and why I disagree
April 16th 2007 14:48
Alot of people enjoy throwing very destructive things at religion in general. That they divide rather than unite. That they cause wars more than anything else. That they are the opiate of the masses (though it is worth thinking that in these times that we live in opiates are the religions of the masses) and do not allow independent thought or opinion. That a fundamentalist is indeed mental. I do not seek to argue to death each one of these points but I do hope to at least highlight a few areas where I believe there is more shadow than light and more assumption than knowledge.
I think the most interesting point that I must first make is that we so very rarely actually encounter true and proper christianity. I'll be honest, I think I may have seen it perhaps once or twice. GK Chesterton once remarked that christianity had not been tried and found wanting, but found too difficult and not tried at all. He was wrong. It was not found too difficult, it was found to be impossible. It was not untried, but people certainly failed it. We still do, I am sorry to say.
What people do often encounter is what they say they encounter. They run face first into a christianity which does divide rather than embrace. It fights where it should make peace, it condemns where it should be compassionate. It ceases to think, where the only thought it should stop is the thought that stops thought. I would agree that fundamentalists are rarely fun and very mental, but I would also say that every man is a fundamentalist. He is fundamentally following the beliefs he believes in. Every man is part of a church, whether it be his own or anothers.
There is a story that I have heard of a chaplain in england. I cannot remember which war he was involved with nor his name. He was famous for talking with atheists. He would ask them why they did not believe in God. Most of the time they would answer that they did not believe in a God that was hateful and judgemental, that sought to punish and destroy them. The chaplain would reply with "Me too! I don't believe in that God either." He would then talk to them about who God really was. I think this is the most honest approach by both sides. A clear, honest and polite conversation about what we both believe.
I am not going to try and excuse the behaviour of christians that have their hands firmly gripping half of an idea and then use this half to hurt people around them. I do not think that I can explain fanatics nor justify them. I personally believe that fanatical christianity is irresponsible christianity and therefore not christianity at all. I may be wrong and foolish, but if that is so then I am in good company. Bonhoeffer and Bonnke both agree with me and I suspect Chesterton would as well. But on the same tack I am not going to back down on Christ. I believe that He is that who He said He is when He said I AM. I will not close my mind when I open my Bible. I will not close my heart to anyone because they contain different material.
JZ
p.s. I changed this post a little (I removed the first couple of lines up the top) because I just had a read and saw how egotistical it was to say that. Not a proud moment.
I think the most interesting point that I must first make is that we so very rarely actually encounter true and proper christianity. I'll be honest, I think I may have seen it perhaps once or twice. GK Chesterton once remarked that christianity had not been tried and found wanting, but found too difficult and not tried at all. He was wrong. It was not found too difficult, it was found to be impossible. It was not untried, but people certainly failed it. We still do, I am sorry to say.
What people do often encounter is what they say they encounter. They run face first into a christianity which does divide rather than embrace. It fights where it should make peace, it condemns where it should be compassionate. It ceases to think, where the only thought it should stop is the thought that stops thought. I would agree that fundamentalists are rarely fun and very mental, but I would also say that every man is a fundamentalist. He is fundamentally following the beliefs he believes in. Every man is part of a church, whether it be his own or anothers.
There is a story that I have heard of a chaplain in england. I cannot remember which war he was involved with nor his name. He was famous for talking with atheists. He would ask them why they did not believe in God. Most of the time they would answer that they did not believe in a God that was hateful and judgemental, that sought to punish and destroy them. The chaplain would reply with "Me too! I don't believe in that God either." He would then talk to them about who God really was. I think this is the most honest approach by both sides. A clear, honest and polite conversation about what we both believe.
I am not going to try and excuse the behaviour of christians that have their hands firmly gripping half of an idea and then use this half to hurt people around them. I do not think that I can explain fanatics nor justify them. I personally believe that fanatical christianity is irresponsible christianity and therefore not christianity at all. I may be wrong and foolish, but if that is so then I am in good company. Bonhoeffer and Bonnke both agree with me and I suspect Chesterton would as well. But on the same tack I am not going to back down on Christ. I believe that He is that who He said He is when He said I AM. I will not close my mind when I open my Bible. I will not close my heart to anyone because they contain different material.
JZ
p.s. I changed this post a little (I removed the first couple of lines up the top) because I just had a read and saw how egotistical it was to say that. Not a proud moment.
| 59 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by Winston
Small Thoughts on Big Questions
While I can appreciate your sincerity and your desire to minimize the negative impact of Christianity, I cannot help pointing out that your apologetics are fundamentally flawed. Too often, those who disagree with Christianity and point to the numerous egregious acts committed by its followers are treated to this same argument: "THOSE people are not true Christians." This is simply not true. You may wish to use that phrase to mean something to the effect of, "those people do not represent my personal view of Christianity." That would be fine. But, if you actually mean that those people are not really Christian, then you are mistaken.
Firstly, the sentiment you express here is not yours alone. Nearly every sect of Christianity puts forth similar views. Generally, these views fall into two basic groups: the liberals who view fundamentalists as not "truly" Christian, and the fundamentalists who hold the same view of the liberal believers. Well, both views can't be right, because then no one is a Christian. As for which view is correct, one would have to award the fundamentalists victory, if one were to base that decision purely on knowledge of Scripture and adherence to the precepts laid out in the Bible. The fact of the matter is that liberal Christians are not really sticking to the script at all.
I am not saying this lightly. For example, I often hear more liberal Christians chide their fundamentalist brethren about focusing too much on hell and punishment. But, to be fair, the doctrine of hell springs directly from the mouth of Christ (or at least from the pens of those who created him). Jesus makes it clear, in no uncertain terms, that those who reject him will face eternal damnation. Mark 16:16 states, "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned." This is not a wishy-washy statement. This is very clear. Your friends, your parents, or anyone else who rejects Jesus will be sent to hell. This is an extremely unpleasant message. It seems contradictory that God gives free will and reason, and then condemns us eternally for choosing to use it. And yet here is Jesus, God incarnate, telling us this very thing. This is understandably downplayed in many of the more liberal churches today, which instead choose to focus on the more positive aspects of the gospels. But ignoring the darker elements does not make them go away.
This is just one very small example. My point, JZ, is that people do not reject Christianity simply because the more ardent followers (I'll call them what they are: zealots) are offensive to all sense of reason, logic, or compassion. True rejection of Christianity arises from a deeper understanding of the religion, and a realization that to follow the religion to the letter is to invite destruction. To bend the rules to more modern and enlightened sensibilities is to reject the religion, whether or not those who choose to do so and still identify as Christian admit that. Obviously I have greater respect for those who choose to behave in more compassionate and reasoned ways, but that is because their behavior is coming from their own INHERENT sense of ethics (since the book itself is full of some of the most amazing atrocities). My question, then, is why, if obviously some of the rules in the Bible have to be bent or ignored entirely, and you're using your own reason and ethical standard to decide that slavery is wrong (Jesus never spoke against slavery. He said to treat slaves well, but never mentioned freeing them. How strange), genocide is wrong, eternal damnation for not worshiping a pseudo-historical figure is wrong, etc., do you choose to be Christian at all?
Comment by JoshZ
A Simple Christian
Thanks for your words.
The first thing that I would say is that I do not think that they are not true christians. True christian is a term that I am still struggling with. I tried to nail it down (please forgive the pun) but I know that I left alot of things unsaid and more than likely said alot of things that aren't right. Alot of the time, I have to honestly say I am not sure if I am a true christian. But then, it is written that faith is to be worked out with fear and trembling. I've got both of those two things.
True christianity and true christians are still the hardest two concepts that I am trying to come to terms with. I ask your forgiveness that I cannot give you a good answer. I can say however that I do not think that either the liberal or the conservative parties are perfectly correct. Each have their flaws. I do not think that the mainstream christian culture is perfect, and I do not think that the fringe elements of christianity and those that find themselves out there are always right.
And yes, the Gospel is a black and white document. I have never believed otherwise. Interpreting it is not something done lightly, nor is it to be done in a short amount of time. Are there terrible things in there? Yes. Are there good things in there? Yes. I do not think otherwise and I do not say otherwise. Donald Miller's book Blue Like Jazz is a read that has some excellent things to say about it. I am sorry that many of your questions I cannot answer very well. Mainly because I do not have all the answers yet and I do not want to give you half an idea.
You've asked a good question.
Because I know who He is.
I hope I see you again soon and that you're doing well.
JZ
Comment by Winston
Small Thoughts on Big Questions
But then, it is written that faith is to be worked out with fear and trembling. I've got both of those two things.
This statement, while not surprising, is one that I still have difficulty understanding. Again, I can't help asking: why? Why subscribe to a set of beliefs that demands your obeisance, trembling, and fear? Why tie your moral grounding to a book filled with cruelty, when in reality your good nature exists in SPITE of the bible and not because of it? Why subjugate your reason, struggling to make sense of a "black and white" document that is clearly contradictory and ambiguous in many places. These two ideas are mutually incompatible. It's untenable to proclaim that the gospels are black and white, and then acknowledge that interpretation of these same documents is exceedingly difficult. "Black and white" denotes directness and simplicity. If the gospels truly were either of these things, then we would not know the angst and conflict that rages today, even between the countless factions of Christianity.
It is not my intention to try to convince you to drop your beliefs and become an atheist (as I am). Your beliefs are your own, and you are free to believe as you see fit. I would fight to defend that as passionately as I fight against the encroachment of religion into the public sphere. Also, I realize that there is little that I could possibly say that would compel a theist to abandon his or her beliefs. What I am seeking is understanding. Although I do not believe in god, studying religions is a hobby of mine that I find truly fascinating, as well as frustrating. I can study it all day long, though, and still never grasp the linchpin of it all: the personal why.
Because I know who He is.
Your final statement in your reply indicates that, ultimately, the reason you believe is simply "just because." Here's where I hit a wall. To me, "just because" is not a reason. This is not "why is chocolate your favorite flavor of ice cream." This is a belief that defines your entire sense of being. It is not one to be taken lightly. To hold a belief such as this demands clear, deeply held, and logically arguable reasons. If you have to work so hard against reason, if you must work to try and render convoluted church dogma compatible with the logic in your brain that cries out against it, and if in the end you're reduced to relying on a "just because" to believe this, I can only shake my head and ask again: why?
As I noted above, I'm not trying to provoke, change, or offend. You've been unfailingly polite so far, and I see no reason to do anything other than reciprocate. I'm just genuinely curious about a mindset so far different from my own.
Take care.
Comment by JoshZ
A Simple Christian
First things first I would like to thank you for your courtesy. I have to admit this is the most polite arguement I have had on here so far. And now on to your questions.
As to the contradictions in the Bible the best explanation can be found in GK Chesterton's Orthodoxy, Chapter 6. I was going to post it on here but it is HUGE. If you like I can send you a copy.
You have asked a good question regarding the fact that I work things out with fear and trembling. Probably because I have seen too many cases of a lack of fear and trembling, or what could also be called treating the Father like a GrandFather or treating the Son of Man as just a man. They become familiar with what they should revere and that usually leads to using Truth carelessly which leads to people being harmed. I'd rather avoid that.
You also ask why I bind my goodness to a book that has alot of things in it which are not good. Fairly asked. I think the first question that I should answer though is how good am I really? Not very. In fact, I am extremely not very good. But I would have to say that while I am not perfect, I am, I hope, getting there slowly. And the Bible helps. Usually with some pretty good advice. Proverbs is the most practical book in the Bible. Things like, be careful who you hang out with, don't lose your temper, mind your tongue is advice very difficult to turn down. But it also has alot of other things in there. Love thy neighbour (who happens to be everyone) is the most ethical advice that we can give and is one of the foundations of christianity. And as far as black and white being simple, I have found they are usually not. Black and white for every situation is available where it is available, for example, love everyone is pretty easy. But some things are not so easy. I think that is where the fights start.
And you've asked the big question. Can it be argued logically? To a point. Can it be clear, perfectly rational and without doubt? No. Without the room for doubt there can be no room for faith. And to be honest, that is always going to be the big question.
I'd like to thank you again for your civility. I will not say that I hope this answers all your questions because I reckon I have little to no chance at answering all of your questions. But I do hope you come back, if only to point out where I am wrong.
God bless you.
JZ
Comment by Winston
Small Thoughts on Big Questions
Again, though, I can't help taking exception to some of the ways in which you frame your views. Namely, this passage:
You also ask why I bind my goodness to a book that has alot of things in it which are not good. Fairly asked. I think the first question that I should answer, though is how good am I really? Not very. In fact, I am extremely not very good.
Josh, I can't help thinking that this is not an entirely healthy outlook. Obviously I don't know you, but I doubt you've killed anyone lately. Odds are that you haven't stolen, committed arson, adultery, or rape in the last couple days. I'm actually of the opinion that you go through most of your days trying to be a decent human being, and co-exist in harmony with your neighbors. Certainly, I doubt you are perfect, but then again, you're not supposed to be. One of the tremendous injustices foisted upon humanity by religion in general, and Christianity in particular, is the notion that no matter how good we are, it's not good enough. No matter how well we behave, if it doesn't conform to the Bible's narrow guidelines, we're not behaving well enough. This absurd idea of original sin has convinced millions of people that they are, by sole reason of their existence, unworthy in the sight of their creator. Now, as I've already stated, due to original sin this unworthiness does not arise from anything you do other than to be born. You do not hold anyone to blame merely for being born, I'm sure. You do not hold a baby in perpetual contempt for the sins of the father. Nor do I. A person must be judged on the merits of their actions, and not by the circumstances of their existence. Anything less than this is ignorant in the extreme, as most would agree. If we would expect lowly humans to hold this value, how can we expect anything less than this from a god? If we derive our morality from a higher power, than why does our morality so often seem superior to God's? There are so many more examples of God's morals and actions not living up to human standards peppered throughout the Bible, I don't even know where to begin. If you take the view that these are really GOD's values, then this is perplexing to the utmost extreme. If, however, you allow the possibility that maybe these are just somewhat ignorant and evolving attempts at law made by primitive peoples who lived three millenia ago, then it starts to make a bit more sense.
If the Bible is infallible and inspired (which, as a Christian, I assume you are compelled to believe) than these parts CAN'T be ignored. God wanted them there. And if we allow that maybe those really bad parts are not so godly and inspired, then that calls the rest into question as well. Please understand, I cannot help looking at this as reasonably as my little mind allows. God, were he to exist, should have no reason to be angry with me for using the brain that he provided as best as I could. But I think we know that that is not necessarily the way the story is actually told
Comment by hewhocutsdown
we all have our heads in our asses.
The slightly longer form:
I have long straddled the line between belief and unbelief. My ability to step fully into one camp or the other comes down to this dilemma: unbelief has little to offer me, belief, despite it's complications, has shown itself to create real positive change, in a variety of ways, some miraculous and some not. Nevertheless, it is too much first hand experience to disregard it out of hand, or even debate myself out of it, but there are enough holes and gaps and inconsistencies in the beliefs [and far more in the people who believe] that accepting it wholeheartedly is a struggle.
For some worthwhile reference, please take a look at my analysis of the belief of biblical inerrancy....
Really Long Link
...or Greg Boyd's second guessing the nature of God...
Really Long Link
...or the concern over how Christianity is 'obtained'.
Really Long Link
Apart from that, I don't have any sage pearls of wisdom that will create a decisive victory for either side.
Josh: I know you well, and I appreciate many of the points you make but .... drop the ego. The disclaimer of being unfinished doesn't allow for a superiority complex towards other believers, however misguided or misinformed they are. It's not becoming, and I'm somewhat surprised.
Winston: I think you're talking past Josh on some points, and vice versa. For example, when you say 'good' and Josh says 'good', they are not equivalent. Simply put, in the Christian worldview 'good' is God, and his attitude towards lifestyle, behaviour, and existence itself, determined by divine fiat. That definitions screws with some of the humanist definitions of 'good', which sociologically and culturally determined; hence the conflict. According to your definition, yes, Josh is a good, even great individual. However, according to Josh's, he doesn't even register. Nevertheless, that reality in no way diminishes worth, or potential; that is the insanity of the workings of Christ.
Comment by Winston
Small Thoughts on Big Questions
And please excuse me, but you've riled me up a bit with your "unbelief has little to offer me" comment. This strikes me as exceedingly narrow-minded. Have you stopped to consider for a moment what atheism truly entails? Atheism is not just freedom from going to church on Sunday. It is freedom to be responsible for ourselves. It is the recognition that it is through our own hard work and sacrifice that we have come as far as we have. It is the sad realization that we have only ourselves to blame for our struggles, and that we must redouble our efforts to make things better. It is owning your life. Unbelief in god frees the individual to focus on the only life he has, the one experienced in the present. Rather than spend all that energy focusing on getting to the next step, one can concentrate on doing his or her best to live a good life and be a good person right now. One can focus on the amazing universe that surrounds us and feel happy at being permitted to experience it, if only for a little while. Atheism does not offer nothing, as you suggest. It elicits a sense of wonder and appreciation for life that I think most theists cannot understand. Forgive me for going on at such length about this. That comment always hits a nerve with me.
Comment by hewhocutsdown
However, for myself, whether a god created humankind in it's image or whether our time is now and then gone, superceded by a unique or variant species, does not change the way I have determined to treat people. Either way, I strive to do my best, either way I insist on treating people with respect, with gaining knowledge and wisdom, and sharing what I gain, with loving those around me and being willing to give of myself for them. In addition, if I bow to theism, this love and respect extends not only to my friends and family, but to strangers and enemies.
Similarly no matter the decision, I will continue to work towards respecting the environment, challenging power, subverting religion, and attempting to create a family that thinks through it's beliefs and acts on them. No matter what, I am on a life long journey of merging what I state I believe and what I do, until one day I hope it to be one and the same; a life devoid of hypocrisy, real and full of love.
This is what I mean when I say that atheism has nothing to offer me; it has nothing unique to itself that Christianity does not have and more. Atheism's benefits are not from what it possesses, but rather what it lacks. The more corrupt a religion becomes, the more appealing alternatives become, and this becomes atheism's draw.
So let me reiterate the two reasons I cannot come over completely: there is no compelling reason to do so lacking a negative driving force, and my personal experience has shown with what vigor individuals can live in a life filled by God.
Nevertheless, I am at a stalemate, for while I cannot go back, neither can I move forward without addressing how callously my selfishness shoves other people out of my way on a daily basis, how my pride covers for my actions with intellectual subtlety, attempting to dodge any ill consequences. I am therefore in a most unsatisfying position: unable to reject Christ, unwillingly to pursue.
Thank you Winston for your articulate responses; I hope mine was equal to the task.
Comment by Winston
Small Thoughts on Big Questions
Like yourself, I went through a bit of a period of ambiguity during the time when I was transitioning away from belief in God. Everyone interprets the data according to their own personality and bias, it seems. To me, once I studied all that I could get my hands on and fully thought the matter out as best as I could, the road was clear. Others feel equally sure about moving TOWARDS theism. I'd like to say something nice here about how no one is wrong, but obviously that's false. Someone is definitely wrong, as the question of whether or not God exists only has one right answer. But, since neither side can prove that they are right (at least not in any definitive sense) I suppose the next best thing is to agree to treat all involved with respect. This doesn't mean that we have to respect everyone's ideas, but we at least have to respect everyone's entitlement to believe as they wish. There is nothing more fundamental to human rights than the right to think as we choose.
Pleasure chatting with you!
Comment by hewhocutsdown
Wish you all the best.
Comment by Nickoftime's Sanity Corner
great post! Very thought provoking...and anything that makes you "think" is a good thing...The impact of Christanity is pretty much global, and although I disagree with some of your conclusions, this was a wonderful, well wriiten blog...
Take care,
Nick
Comment by JoshZ
A Simple Christian
Glad to see you on this side of my world as well as the other.
I am also glad to see that you don't agree with me. It means we can talk, think and hopefully have some fun.
It also means that you may be able to teach me something. I am eager to learn and be corrected.
JZ
Comment by JoshZ
A Simple Christian
Thanks. You, Neal, Carston, Jess, Fran and exceptionally importantly my Nata are voices of sanity in the craziness that I like to put upon myself.
I tend to be fairly egotistical when I write. Not something I am proud of. Now I am thinking of what I am like when I talk to people.
JZ