Messiah Complex (or: a Messiah by any other name...)

[PennLady]

No, the most common form of Christianity now is to ignore all that claptrap and go with the tenants of the New Testament teachings of how people should treat each other. They chose to do it through Christian churches because that's the largest and most organized group--giving buy-in options and a large sliding scale in how much of the rest of it you really want to swallow--that is actually active in social services.

I think this is an important thing to note when talking about "the Church," no matter which Church it is.

I was raised Catholic and fell away from it and after the last 10-20 years, have decided I have lost any trust in the institution. I think there are plenty of good, selfless people who work for the Church to try to carry out Jesus' instructions of ministering to the poor, sick, etc. So yes, awful people at the higher levels have done some awful things and the cover ups are just as bad. But other people are doing what they should be doing, and few other non-religious organizations are providing that kind of help.

 

[SecondCircle]

No, the most common form of Christianity now is to ignore all that claptrap and go with the tenants of the New Testament teachings of how people should treat each other. They chose to do it through Christian churches because that's the largest and most organized group--giving buy-in options and a large sliding scale in how much of the rest of it you really want to swallow--that is actually active in social services. The preponderance of atheists and agnostics "got theirs" and that's good nuff for them. It's not the agnostics and atheists--or government--for instance, that are keeping the homeless fed and sheltered over the winter. It's the churches. Most of those showing up in Haiti periodically and on the coasts for hurricane damage are the organized churches. Go take a look at the sponsorship of charity and service organizations (and while there, do, by all means, look at the percentage of the money they collect that actually go to the relief they're promoting).

For the most part, Christians are good people, that adhere to a decent code of morals.

But the mere fact that they pick and choose which parts of their holy book are relevant is a bit strange to me.

Its very good that many Christian organizations have charities for people like Haitians or homeless, but that's not really your majority. Most are just your average cats that you see when you walk out your door. I like the power of faith when it inspires something good and morals that lead to better living, but faith and belief is a pretty powerful thing, and can be interpreted the way anyone wants it to be interpreted.

The main idea of Christianity is good, but I don't like being thought of as a devil for rational thinking. It just seems like folklore to me, and I don't like that many disagreements pertaining to right and wrong or good and evil are rooted, for many, in something akin to a children's story.

So its not really the morals they instill, its the power it wields to convince people of whatever is being interpreted at the time.

 

[SecondCircle]

I think this is an important thing to note when talking about "the Church," no matter which Church it is.

I was raised Catholic and fell away from it and after the last 10-20 years, have decided I have lost any trust in the institution. I think there are plenty of good, selfless people who work for the Church to try to carry out Jesus' instructions of ministering to the poor, sick, etc. So yes, awful people at the higher levels have done some awful things and the cover ups are just as bad. But other people are doing what they should be doing, and few other non-religious organizations are providing that kind of help.

I tend to agree with this thinking. The Church provides help through charities and things, but it reminds me of several religious debates.

The question has been asked time and again, that without religion, where does our morality come from? How do we know right from wrong?

I don't think it takes religion to understand right and wrong. I don't think we have to have a God to tread one another right, or help one another. To think so is pretty absurd. That we must rely on a deity to know that killing stealing adultery etc. are wrong, or that helping those in need is a good thing.

And there are plenty of non religious (not that they are athiestic) organizations that help others, plenty of public servants that help in everyday ways for the needy.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Pick any institutions you want, and the dregs infest and exploit them.

The only institutions the dregs avoid are niches where the work is dangerous, pay is low, benefits are a joke, and recognition doesn't exist. Farming, fishing, ranching come to mind.

 

[sr71plt]

But the mere fact that they pick and choose which parts of their holy book are relevant is a bit strange to me.

Where in life do you find that NOT happening?

And on the proselytizing bit, just being in a church doesn't mean you are evangelical or try to tell anyone else how to think or live. I've had more claimed atheists on Lit. (even on this thread) trying to tell me both what I should do and what I should think than anyone claiming to be a Christian.

 

[sr71plt]

I tend to agree with this thinking. The Church provides help through charities and things, but it reminds me of several religious debates.

The question has been asked time and again, that without religion, where does our morality come from? How do we know right from wrong?

But then, one way of looking at it is that morality and religion are all rolled into one--that any structure of personal or group morality is putting religion into play. Although I'd do it anyway just to see some folks here get red in the face (where is Stella when we need her?) I'll note that I actually do believe that atheism is a religion--that purposely not believing in something is a form of belief--in something else. Much more so than agnosticism, which is active doubt and not reaching conclusions to the point of belief.

But, really, that isn't the point of the thread and I answered that up front. I think the judge was way out of line even if the mother wanted to name the kid Buttcrack.

 

[SecondCircle]

But then, one way of looking at it is that morality and religion are all rolled into one--that any structure of personal or group morality is putting religion into play. Although I'd do it anyway just to see some folks here get red in the face (where is Stella when we need her?) I'll note that I actually do believe that atheism is a religion--that purposely not believing in something is a form of belief--in something else. Much more so than agnosticism, which is active doubt and not reaching conclusions to the point of belief.

But, really, that isn't the point of the thread and I answered that up front. I think the judge was way out of line even if the mother wanted to name the kid Buttcrack.

As a man once said, calling atheism a religion is like calling abstinence a sex position.

No one goes out of their way to purposely not believe in something, they just don't believe it. Yes they will attack a line of thinking, but it would be the same as you saying that the tooth fairy exists and me proclaiming it doesn't.

That's not to say atheists can't be extreme like a religious person can be extreme. Anyone can be extreme. Extremist politicians, extremist religious figures, extremist yoga cults, etc. And I'm sure that Litsters such as Stella have pretty good reasons for opposing the church the way they do. May not seem that big a deal to some, but to the ones who have been made to feel bad for who they are because of what a mainstream organization, like the church, says or proclaims... yeah I could kinda see where their animosity comes from.

I know plenty of good hard working people who follow the Gospel and its teachings. And they are good moral people... to an extent. They do let their beliefs cloud their judgement on a lot of things that rationally thinking people would not. Such is usually easy to dismiss or ignore. But a guy I work with goes to church, raises his kids mostly right, works hard to earn a living, stands up for what he believes in, and does right by his church, his community, and his family.

But he despises "faggots and niggers and those dumbass scientists who think they are smarter than the lord." When it was discovered that there would be Muslim mosques built nearby, he and those like him were in uproar, claiming that they had no right to build one of those damn things near his community. That Muslims were evil and every one should be killed, and if he had the chance, he would give them a "warm" welcome, so to speak (bullets). While he isn't the poster boy for all Christians by any means, he doesn't seem to use any rational thought about why things are the way they are. And there are stupid atheists too. Ones who do not themselves respect the wishes and beliefs of others as "free men in a free country." They think they have to actively do something to get rid of religion. Extremist.

If both parties, religious and nonreligious, would simply coexist without trying to impose on the freedoms of the other, then we would have no problems. But that's up there with world peace and goodwill towards men, right?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I hate faggots and niggers and scientists, too, and I aint no Christian.

You people are absurd. If Jesus was 7 feet tall and played for the Celtics, and a Munchkin who hated tall people and basketball said he was a Christian, youd take him seriously.

 

[PennLady]

No one goes out of their way to purposely not believe in something, they just don't believe it. Yes they will attack a line of thinking, but it would be the same as you saying that the tooth fairy exists and me proclaiming it doesn't.

I don't think it's that simple. If you get a chance, check out the Douglas Adams interview I linked to on the previous page. He came to a realization, to an understanding, if you will. He was raised Christian and believed in that, and then later he had doubts and questions and learned other things that pointed him in another direction. He didn't "just not believe it."

 

[sr71plt]

As a man once said, calling atheism a religion is like calling abstinence a sex position.

No one goes out of their way to purposely not believe in something, they just don't believe it. Yes they will attack a line of thinking, but it would be the same as you saying that the tooth fairy exists and me proclaiming it doesn't.

What you describe is an agnostic, not an atheist. The atheists I know do, in fact, go out of their way to not believe in something--and therefore believe in not believing.

I've lost interest in this religion discussion here, though. It's one of those "I'll never change my mind; I'll just feel self-satisfied at beating your over the head with my beliefs" exercises in futility.

 

[SecondCircle]

I hate faggots and niggers and scientists, too, and I aint no Christian.

You people are absurd. If Jesus was 7 feet tall and played for the Celtics, and a Munchkin who hated tall people and basketball said he was a Christian, youd take him seriously.

... I have no idea how to respond to this extremely logical statement.

Anyone can hate or like what they want, JBJ. It's just a bit spookier coming from someone who is supposed to follow the gospel and believe God created all equal, love thy neighbor, do unto others, and so on.

Not painting the Christian religion in any sort of "massive evil empire" but merely trying to explain some of the problems that nonbelievers find with it and other religions, and in a respectful and tactful way.

I didn't wake up one day and choose to not believe. I was raised to believe in God my whole life, until one day none of it seemed very logical to me. It sounded more and more like folklore. I do challenge religion as I see fit, but I don't try to impose anything I believe on them or take from their freedom to believe whatever it is that they wanna believe.

 

[SecondCircle]

What you describe is an agnostic, not an atheist. The atheists I know do, in fact, go out of their way to not believe in something--and therefore believe in not believing.

I've lost interest in this religion discussion here, though. It's one of those "I'll never change my mind; I'll just feel self-satisfied at beating your over the head with my beliefs" exercises in futility.

No one is trying to change your mind, pilot, but rather explain a different perspective. I'm defending my point of view. Its a discussion, not a battle to see who's right. There is no "right" technically. What's the harm in explaining my opinion? Do you think I need to change it that bad? Others may sway and eventually agree with you, but unless you yourself are God, I see no reason to "change my mind".

And atheist, at its purest most simple definition means "does not believe in a god".

Agnostic means that "I believe we have no way of knowing if there is or not a god."

Simplest definition, no matter what connotations have been attributed to the words.

Atheism is not a religion, its the belief of no god. Bald is not a hair color, sobriety is not a form of habit, and nothing is cannot be something.

No one is telling anyone what to believe, or what they shouldn't. But we can explain our point of views like civilized people, without getting offended by someone else who disagrees... right?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

... I have no idea how to respond to this extremely logical statement.

Anyone can hate or like what they want, JBJ. It's just a bit spookier coming from someone who is supposed to follow the gospel and believe God created all equal, love thy neighbor, do unto others, and so on.

Not painting the Christian religion in any sort of "massive evil empire" but merely trying to explain some of the problems that nonbelievers find with it and other religions, and in a respectful and tactful way.

I didn't wake up one day and choose to not believe. I was raised to believe in God my whole life, until one day none of it seemed very logical to me. It sounded more and more like folklore. I do challenge religion as I see fit, but I don't try to impose anything I believe on them or take from their freedom to believe whatever it is that they wanna believe.

I generally get my religion from Richard Feynman, an atheist. He said that the problem for atheists is how they cant account for a universe fulla stuff and laws rather than nothing. HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN SOMETHING INSTEAD OF NOTHING? he said

 

[SecondCircle]

I generally get my religion from Richard Feynman, an atheist. He said that the problem for atheists is how they cant account for a universe fulla stuff and laws rather than nothing. HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN SOMETHING INSTEAD OF NOTHING? he said

And that's the thing isn't it? Science doesn't have those answers. But in my opinion, I don't think that's reason enough to place faith in a deity that also cannot be explained or proven. For me anyway. But as long as religion keeps people happy and gives them hope and answers for all of their fears and questions, it'll be around for a while.

But personally, I just don't see the logic in it. It asks you to suspend rationality to unrealistic extremes.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

And that's the thing isn't it? Science doesn't have those answers. But in my opinion, I don't think that's reason enough to place faith in a deity that also cannot be explained or proven. For me anyway. But as long as religion keeps people happy and gives them hope and answers for all of their fears and questions, it'll be around for a while.

But personally, I just don't see the logic in it. It asks you to suspend rationality to unrealistic extremes.

Atheism always assumes there's nuthin else to learn or discover. It assumes the other guys are dolts.

So long as youre not forced thru an ecclesiastical trial for anything or compelled to fund religion screw Bible Thumpers. Both sides have lotsa control issues.

 

[SecondCircle]

Atheism always assumes there's nuthin else to learn or discover. It assumes the other guys are dolts.

So long as youre not forced thru an ecclesiastical trial for anything or compelled to fund religion screw Bible Thumpers. Both sides have lotsa control issues.

Hmm. Not sure that atheism assumes that as much as many religions. Actually I would say that's right opposite. Most atheists I know think that there's a whole load of stuff we we don't know and that we still have much to learn about the universe. Like a lot.

Most Christians I know, OTOH, scoff at the idea that the world is more than a few thousand years old and such. God created everything. What else is there to know?

 

[3113]

The preponderance of atheists and agnostics "got theirs" and that's good nuff for them. It's not the agnostics and atheists--or government--for instance, that are keeping the homeless fed and sheltered over the winter.

If you're talking globally, you may be right. If you're talking about certain countries (like the US), you're flat out wrong. The government hands out far more in food stamps than all the churches put together. And aren't you lumping "Christians" into a group with this and assuming something about their entire character that isn't necessarily valid? Does Catholicism feed the hungry, build schools and hospitals for the good of the poor or to gain followers?

Although I'd do it anyway just to see some folks here get red in the face (where is Stella when we need her?)

Obviously, you're scoring yourself higher in such debates and in doing what you say you enjoy doing, but I can't recall a single one where I felt you accomplished any such slam dunk against Stella. And I've read a good many such arguments between you and her over the years. Stella, to my view comes across, to me as very serene and not a bit red-faced, whether she "wins" or "loses" the point.

But I do find your comment odd; do you really want to be seen as that kind of an asshole--even if you've yet to achieve it?

It's not real "Christian."

What you describe is an agnostic, not an atheist. The atheists I know do, in fact, go out of their way to not believe in something--and therefore believe in not believing.

I know this is a hot-button issue with you, but you're doing what you accused other of doing here: defining yourself to victory. Only with Atheists rather than Christians. I'm one of those Atheists that you know. I don't go out of my way "not" to believe in anything. Nor do I believe in "not believing"--I believe in not believing everything. And so do you.

I'd say, in fact, that unless we're mentally ill, we're all atheists to some extent or other. Because anyone who dismisses another's religion ("Bah! Mohammad was no prophet of god--" "Bah! Scientology is all fiction!" "Bah, Momonism is a big lie...") shows that they can as easily dismiss their own religion if they either weren't raised in it, or if it didn't offer them some comfort that they very much needed.

If we're going to define ourselves to victory, then, in my experience as an Atheists and knowing other Atheists, Atheism is simply not believing in that which requires "faith" rather than a modicum of fact to be held as potentially "true."

Individual atheists, like individual christians may vary.

 

[PennLady]

Most Christians I know, OTOH, scoff at the idea that the world is more than a few thousand years old and such. God created everything. What else is there to know?

Well, most Christians *I* know do not believe that. This is where you have to differentiate between Christians. I was raised Catholic and although of course I was taught the "creation story," I was also taught biology and evolution and no one ever tried to teach creationism or intelligent design -- and I went to Catholic schools.

Are you talking about Christians you *know* or Christians you know *of*?

I know OF a lot of fundamentalist Christians who take the Bible literally. I personally know other Christians, of varying degrees of orthodoxy, who do not. In fact I don't think I personally know any Christian who does believe in the Bible literally.

Obviously a lot of this depends on where you live, what type of religion is predominant, etc. If you live in an area with more fundamentalist believers, you will learn that they (or many of them) think like this. If you live in an area with a different religious... population? you'll learn what they think.

 

[SecondCircle]

Right. And I think individual cases are used a lot to define atheists as a whole, as well as any member of any religion.

I wouldn't worry too much with Pilot though. Usually when he says he's done with a conversation, he is. I don't think such a discussion should lead anyone to a reaction like that. It's just a discussion, and I would assume that we are adult enough to debate something and disagree with others opinions without becoming so offended or stubborn about it all.

All in all, I think both parties, religious or otherwise, have harshly prejudiced views of the other at times. The only thing that works is learning to communicate, (which may have failed here.)

 

[SecondCircle]

Well, most Christians *I* know do not believe that. This is where you have to differentiate between Christians. I was raised Catholic and although of course I was taught the "creation story," I was also taught biology and evolution and no one ever tried to teach creationism or intelligent design -- and I went to Catholic schools.

Are you talking about Christians you *know* or Christians you know *of*?

I know OF a lot of fundamentalist Christians who take the Bible literally. I personally know other Christians, of varying degrees of orthodoxy, who do not. In fact I don't think I personally know any Christian who does believe in the Bible literally.

Obviously a lot of this depends on where you live, what type of religion is predominant, etc. If you live in an area with more fundamentalist believers, you will learn that they (or many of them) think like this. If you live in an area with a different religious... population? you'll learn what they think.

It's the Christians I know. It could be a regional thing, true, but its a pretty big region. Most people are Christians in some denomination or another around here.

See the thing I find troubling with Christians not taking the bible literally whereas other Christians do, is that it constantly changes with the times (like anything else of course). The old testament versus the new testament for instance, where the old isn't closely followed anymore. A long time ago Christians (and everyone) believed the world flat, then was the center of the universe, and so on. For any philosopher or man of science to suggest otherwise was blasphemy and ridiculous.

Now, the world's kind of round and everyone accepts that. As we learn more and more and more about the world we live in, stories like the gods and titans and other mythologies fall away to what is considered fact. Our fairy tales keep becoming less and less credible.

As time goes on, Christianity accepts this and interprets their gospel to accommodate it. A kids movie my wife watched the other day with her nephew actually raised a good point (they weren't discussing religion, but science.) A character said, "They like what science gives them, but not the questions that science asks."

The Christians I know (not all Christians, but definitely in this region) are like this. They take many aspects of the bible literally, such as the age of the earth, the great flood and all the animals on Noah's ark, the horn at Jericho, Sampson's hair, etc. Literally. A guy came into work a few weeks back laughing at a show on Discovery that said the world was billions of years old, and described one theoretical way that it could have formed and all that. That was an actual example in this case that I spoke of.

But such a powerful thing as faith and religion... to take one book and translate from it in different ways? Literal or figurative... isn't that a lot of info to play with like that? Info that could inspire masses? At what point in the bible did we say, "okay, now that isn't logical, that didn't 'really' happen, it's figurative," and "okay this is where you should direct your attention, these passages, the ones of love and compassion and righteousness. Just ignore all that cutting of foreskins and 900 year old men"... ?

 

[SecondCircle]

Well, most Christians *I* know do not believe that. This is where you have to differentiate between Christians. I was raised Catholic and although of course I was taught the "creation story," I was also taught biology and evolution and no one ever tried to teach creationism or intelligent design -- and I went to Catholic schools.

Are you talking about Christians you *know* or Christians you know *of*?

I know OF a lot of fundamentalist Christians who take the Bible literally. I personally know other Christians, of varying degrees of orthodoxy, who do not. In fact I don't think I personally know any Christian who does believe in the Bible literally.

Obviously a lot of this depends on where you live, what type of religion is predominant, etc. If you live in an area with more fundamentalist believers, you will learn that they (or many of them) think like this. If you live in an area with a different religious... population? you'll learn what they think.

On another note, (I'm just asking or discussing, not being an ass or anything) but how can one be taught to believe in creation and the Bible's way, while simultaneously accepting the things that science has since discovered? It just confuses me a bit.

These are reasons that I think I strayed from Christianity. I've been told it was actually the devil's fault, but I'm not sure I ever met him. ; )

 

[PennLady]

On another note, (I'm just asking or discussing, not being an ass or anything) but how can one be taught to believe in creation and the Bible's way, while simultaneously accepting the things that science has since discovered? It just confuses me a bit.

These are reasons that I think I strayed from Christianity. I've been told it was actually the devil's fault, but I'm not sure I ever met him. ; )

I'm not sure how well I can answer this. In one sense, it just happened. I attended a Christian school (Assembly of God denomination) from K-3, and Catholic school (my dad was born and raised Catholic, my mom was born and raised Episcopalian and became Catholic after I was born) for grades 4-12.

We were never part of a fundamentalist or evangelical parish or anything like that. I don't know that I ever took the Genesis story literally; to me the point seemed to be that God had created man and here was a little story to illustrate it. It always seemed like more of a metaphor or something, I guess.

I don't know that I had a course in just evolution or evolutionary science, but I did take a biology course and do dissections and learn genetics and I'm sure Darwin came up. I never had a teacher or test insist that the Earth was only 6000 years old or anything like that.

The first serious "challenge" to my thinking was when we had a French teacher who worked existentialism into the course (did not go well for various reasons, but none that he was told not to teach it). That just gave me something to think about that was different than what I'd had before. In college, I took a "religions of the world" course and that got me thinking (a thought I'd had before) that it didn't seem correct that one group would have the "one way" and no one else.

Then there's simply been a lot of real-world life and experience and observations that have taken me down a different road of thought and it's taken me away from organized religion and the need to believe in God. I'm not sure exactly where I am on that road, but there you go.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

It's the Christians I know. It could be a regional thing, true, but its a pretty big region. Most people are Christians in some denomination or another around here.

See the thing I find troubling with Christians not taking the bible literally whereas other Christians do, is that it constantly changes with the times (like anything else of course). The old testament versus the new testament for instance, where the old isn't closely followed anymore. A long time ago Christians (and everyone) believed the world flat, then was the center of the universe, and so on. For any philosopher or man of science to suggest otherwise was blasphemy and ridiculous.

Now, the world's kind of round and everyone accepts that. As we learn more and more and more about the world we live in, stories like the gods and titans and other mythologies fall away to what is considered fact. Our fairy tales keep becoming less and less credible.

As time goes on, Christianity accepts this and interprets their gospel to accommodate it. A kids movie my wife watched the other day with her nephew actually raised a good point (they weren't discussing religion, but science.) A character said, "They like what science gives them, but not the questions that science asks."

The Christians I know (not all Christians, but definitely in this region) are like this. They take many aspects of the bible literally, such as the age of the earth, the great flood and all the animals on Noah's ark, the horn at Jericho, Sampson's hair, etc. Literally. A guy came into work a few weeks back laughing at a show on Discovery that said the world was billions of years old, and described one theoretical way that it could have formed and all that. That was an actual example in this case that I spoke of.

But such a powerful thing as faith and religion... to take one book and translate from it in different ways? Literal or figurative... isn't that a lot of info to play with like that? Info that could inspire masses? At what point in the bible did we say, "okay, now that isn't logical, that didn't 'really' happen, it's figurative," and "okay this is where you should direct your attention, these passages, the ones of love and compassion and righteousness. Just ignore all that cutting of foreskins and 900 year old men"... ?

Let me recommend THE ORIGIN OF CONSCIOUSNESS IN THE BREAKDOWN OF THE BICAMERAL MIND by Julian Jaynes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicameralism_(psychology)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicameralism_(psychology)

The gist of bicameralism is there was a time when much of our experiences were perceived as hunches rather than self awareness.

 

[SecondCircle]

I think that a lot of people may think differently about religion if they weren't exposed to it until they were grown.

I mean me personally (sounds like you a bit too PL) I was taught to believe from a very young age. I just feel like if you didn't introduce religion to someone until they were like 22, they'd look at you like you were bat shit crazy.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I think that a lot of people may think differently about religion if they weren't exposed to it until they were grown.

I mean me personally (sounds like you a bit too PL) I was taught to believe from a very young age. I just feel like if you didn't introduce religion to someone until they were like 22, they'd look at you like you were bat shit crazy.

We get it that you don't like it and that you feel superior to the dolts who do. Youre okay and theyre not okay. My tested aptitude for visual-spatial pattern recognition is 96th percentile, prolly I can see things you cant even imagine (I ace those IQ tests where the questions are weird fucking shapes and I can fold-up flat patterns in my head and see what their 3 dimensional shape is). So maybe the fundies know something you don't. I think Jesus is nonsense but maybe I'm missing something. I'm still puzzled that PL ever found a mate. Nothing in my philosophy of mate selection accounts for it. Prolly a miracle.