Why is it OK to criticize religion (i.e. Christianity)?

[Eldritch]

Of course it's possible. Anything is possible. But when has a scientist completely made something up and gotten away with it? The fact that he/she must publish how they did it prevents such a thing from happening. No one would ever say "Oh, great. They figured that out - no need to test it and make sure."

 

And there are malicious people out there that do manipulate things for their own self-gain. But the difference is that a claim made by a scientist can be tested and confirmed or refuted. No such thing can be done with religion.

[Master_Keralys]

People keep saying that there is no more proof for Christianity that any other religion. I beg to differ. First off, nearly every event in the Bible that can be confirmed by historians and archeologists at this time have.

 

Secondly, and more importantly by far, is this. If the disciples of Christ were simply making up His resurrection and all, would they have been willing to die for it? Remember, every one was martyred. How logical is that? Think back to Watergate - men were jumping out of the boat in droves at the mere threat of exposure. Would anyone stay for mere power or respect? I don't think so.

 

Thirdly, the extraordinary of very early manuscripts of the Christian texts all line up nearly word for word. We're talking one or two-word discrepancies per epistle, and maybe five or six for the gospels. Moreover, there are thousands of copies of these, dating less than fifty years after the events actually occured. MInd you, Aristotle is regarded as an historic and valid figure - and the earliest manuscript referring to him comes some 1200 years after his death. And there's not many in that range of age. This is remarkable. How can one doubt the validity of Christianity, and believe that Aristotle actually existed?

[Homuncul]

Running in circles, chasing our tails

Coming back as we are

 

Nobody said it was easy

Oh it’s such a shame for us to part

 

ColdPlay, The Scientist.

 

Sorry for the spam

[lukeskywalker1]

Remember, every one was martyred.

 

John wasnt martyred, he was the only one who wasnt, i think...

 

Anyways, I agree with every thing you said, and that was a good question.

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by Homuncul

Running in circles, chasing our tails...

 

Sorry for the spam

 

I don't know.. it seems relevant to me.... these discussions can become quite circular. But as they come back around, let's hope we are improving our understandings of each other and ourselves... in the end, this is what matters most, regardless of where you stand on a subject/topic.

 

Also, in case you were wondering... I deleted a couple of posts... spam is also complaining about spam

[XERXES]

I cant wait till Jesus comes back and goes "you havent listened to a thing I said for 2000 years" while God says "I told you so"

 

 

(yes even me =S but I try.. )

[Elijah]

Originally posted by TheJackal

The Pope doesnt allow people to use anti-contreceptive pills, why not?

Your speaking of a catholic rule.

 

Here is one thing to remember about christianity,

There is MANY different branches/denominations, and we all believe different things, although we hold many things in common.

It all depends on how you translate scripture.

 

I would also add, I'm a VERY open minded person, who believes you should be able t believe what ever you want to, which is why I dont force my beliefs on to other people...

 

Christ said not everyone will go to heaven. Only the people who do God's will.

What christ said was,

"I am the way, the truth and the life, and noone gets to the father except through me." it was also said "anyone who calls on the name of the lord will be saved." so many christians try to add all these strings and attachments. God isnt about what you CANNOT do, but what you CAN do through christ.

 

Last thing, has when will people understand, Pointing out how "bad" God was in the old testement does NOTHING. The old testement is mearly history.

 

Excuse my jumpness in this post, I need to get going, just skimmed over the last page of this thread.

[lukeskywalker1]

What christ said was,

"I am the way, the truth and the life, and noone gets to the father except through me." it was also said "anyone who calls on the name of the lord will be saved." so many christians try to add all these strings and attachments. God isnt about what you CANNOT do, but what you CAN do through christ.

 

 

Zdawg, i know what your talking about, but christ also says more than that, read MATHEW Chapter 7, verse 21-23 i think ive quoted it somewhere... but it says what im talking about.

[El Sitherino]

I have a hard time understanding why people would still go to hell for worshipping god but not jesus. (according to christianity)

[ShockV1.89]

Seems to me that people often come to certain conclusions about certain topics, and then turn to scripture to prove their point. Not the other way around. The end result is people interpreting scripture with an extreme bias towards a certain viewpoint.

 

Would make more sense if they turned to scripture in the first place without any pre-conceived conclusions, if they really feel the need to live by the bible.

[lukeskywalker1]

im really confused by the last 2 comments; what are you two talking about? Where did you get that sith? And who are you talking to shock?

[ShockV1.89]

Hmm, I should not have put that comment here. Apparently I put it in the wrong thread. I meant to put it in my "Oh..my..god.." thread about Rev. Phelps and his campaign of idiocy....

 

But I'm gonna leave it here, perhaps it will spark discussion. After all, some people might bash Christianity because of people like Phelps...

[SkinWalker]

A good reason to "bash christianity" is missionary work.

 

Christian missionaries have done irrepairable harm to socio-cultural traditions the world over. Often (nearly always prior to the turn of the century), missionary work is a tool, albeit unwitting at times, of colonialism and capitalism.

 

Missionary work has:

• Community ownership of land and forest, which was the traditional means for subsistence was lost due to their commercialisation and barter economy was replaced by the market economy of the west.
  
• Practices of making social decisions on the basis of consensus, which was a form of tribal democracy, was replaced by the concept of democracy with Christian tradition. Egalitarian practices gave way to more stratified social norms, which didn't fit the need of the culture (they were Western/christian norms that fit Western/christian needs).
  
• Traditions of the cultures, even the languages themselves, were frequently criticized, demonized, and even prohibited by the missionaries.
  
• Missionaries nearl always brought and bring diseases.
  
• Ethnocentric and religiocentric views were/are imposed by extortion and bribery with food/clothing/shelter and other basic and essential needs like medical care, particularly in war torn nations. In short, christian missionaries take advantage of the distraught and weakened.
  
• With the assistance of colonial rule and capitolistic exploitation, christian missionary work has destroyed, and is now destroying, many cultures of indiginous peoples.
  

[ShockV1.89]

But wouldn't it be fair to also say that MIssionary work can help as well as hurt? I remember going to a church thing with a friend of mine once (she wanted to go, and I liked her), and there were missionarys there talking about what they were doing to help this third world country they had spent a year in. Not everybody was converting to Christianity in droves, but at least they were getting a square meal and immunizations.

 

I ended up donating $20 to the basket going around, mostly because I didn't have any $1s, and I wanted to look good in front of the girl. Not that it worked or anything.

[lukeskywalker1]

Ethnocentric and religiocentric views were/are imposed by extortion and bribery with food/clothing/shelter and other basic and essential needs like medical care, particularly in war torn nations. In short, christian missionaries take advantage of the distraught and weakened.

 

Thats a bit judgemental now isnt it? There are some, ive heard, that go in a basically rob the people through offerings (somewhere in africa) the people really want to serve God, so they continue to pay these people money. Thats just plain wrong. But with what your saying, it makes it sound like all missionarys have bad intentions, which is not always so! Some missionaries truly really want to do the will of God (if you believe that)

 

 

In the early church when Paul, and other apostles came to help out, they actually helped out! They worked for their food. Paul said, if he ate their food, he always made sure he paid for it. He had rules, such as if you dont work, you dont eat. In my opinion, thats a good rule. They all worked, and did there fair share.

 

But I'm gonna leave it here, perhaps it will spark discussion. After all, some people might bash Christianity because of people like Phelps...

 

ill be posting there in a sec but still, just because of one or a group of christians is wrong, doesnt mean they all are right? If the missionarys are doing wrong, i trust that God will punish them accordingly, maybe they can leanr of there wrong doings, and repent, and hopefully undo the damage they have done. The same with this guy your talking about in the other thread.

[ShockV1.89]

But maybe whether or not something is wrong should be judged by the outcome which we can observe.

 

For example. Communism is a great idea, in theory, right? I mean, everyone is equal, no want for anything, nobody lording over you. It's more complicated than that, but you get the idea.

 

But look at it in practice? Sucked pretty hard, right? I mean, corruption, starvation, and so on.

 

In short, it's a great idea, but it's not something that people are even remotely capable of pulling off with any degree of success or prosperity.

 

Perhaps Christianity is the same thing? Say what you want about "Those people were not true Christians." But they were the result of Christianity, or religious fervor in general. It sucks for those who were more moderate about it and didn't burn babys in the name of God, but those others were the result of the religion. That is what it produces.

 

Christians are not capable of living to the standards they hold themselves to. Furthermore, this drive to "spread the good word" cannot be trusted in the hands of humanity. Look what it's done. I'm sure many hundreds of thousands were "converted" to death over the past 2000 years....

[SkinWalker]

Say what you want about "Those people were not true Christians."

 

This is a common and repeated phrase for those that justify christianity. The fact is, however, that many of the missionaries that travel the world in the periphery doing good have ulterior motives. In fact, I would say that they are the same motives that created the failure of communism: the capital of status.

 

It is considered necessary by some christian-based religions to embark on missionary work in order to advance within the religion. In other christian denominations, missionaries of the church are highly praised and revered (worshiped even... though no christian would ever admit it) and a status of high honor is obtained. Greed of status is probably as much a motivation for embarking on missionary work as "doing god's will."

 

Once the missionary arrives at a region populated by indigenous people, it is assumed that because their lives are simpler and different, that they "need to be helped." It is also assumed that they are in need of salvation. Regardless of their own religions. In these cases, missionaries often have little success, since the indigenous people have little reason to listen to the missionaries.

 

However, during times of calamity or deprivation (such as after war, natural disaster, or famine -which, incidently, usually has political causes), missionaries are unusually successful. This is because they have what the people need. Food. Medicine. Clean water. This amounts to extortion.

 

It's interesting to note that in the highlands of Mexico's rural countryside, missionaries set out to provide medical assistance in return for spreading the gospel. What they offered, in particular, was pre-natal and post-natal care for pregnant women.

 

That all sounds good on the surface, in fact, the women thought so too. After all, who wouldn't want the best possible care for their unborn or newly born child?

 

The problem is, that the Mexican women, of Mayan descent, in this area are small in stature and would be considered petite. The prenatal vitamins offered by the missionaries, among other treatments, increased the birth=weights of infants. Again, this sounds good to Westerners. Unfortunately, the low birth-weights were an adaptation of the small Indian women. Many complications occured and many women died in childbirth.

 

That is but one of many examples of ethnocentric/religiocentric assumption that had deleterious affects on indigenous people.

 

Communism is a great idea, in theory, right? I mean, everyone is equal, no want for anything, nobody lording over you. It's more complicated than that, but you get the idea.

 

To which I say that communism failed due to its capitalistic shortcommings. Communism would have worked had the Soviet Union's leaders adhered to strict Marxist ideology. Unfortunately, this type of ideology is likely only possible in theory with humans. The need / drive for status among peers is overwhelming. (just look at those in LF who are concerned with their post-counts and want to be mods... ).

 

The Elite Minority of the Soviet Union held the power and the wealth. They were the ultimate downfall of the "empire."

[SkinWalker]

Another good reason to bash christianity:

 

Pat Robertson, former Presidential Candidate, leader of the "Religious Right," and host of the "700 Club," made a terroristic threat against the United States Government.

 

See this link

 

As stated in the text of the article linked above, "If an Islamic cleric in the United States were to say what Robertson said, I am sure he would now either be under arrest or detained incommunicado under the provisions of the Patriot Act."

[rujoking99]

I'm a man, which means all I want to do is rape women and play football.

 

I'm a musician, which means I can play "Stairway to Heaven."

 

I'm a liberal, so I must hate soldiers in the US Army, and call them "baby killers" when I meet them.

 

I speak English, so it follows that I'm familiar with the works of Keats.

 

I'm white, which means I hate any person of an ethnicity other than mine..

 

I'm German (one half, anyway) therefore I must hate Jews and want to kill them all.

 

And I'm a Christian, so I must hate gays and people who believe differently than myself.

 

Please, don't make massive generalizations about people just because they belong to a specific group. It's like saying that ALL muslims supported the WTC bombing, or that ALL native Americans were savages who lived in teepees and scalped enemies.

[ShockV1.89]

I dont think anyone is really saying that.

[SkinWalker]

Nope. Nobody is saying that at all... that would be the non-existent "Why is it okay to bash christians?" thread.

 

Nope. What we're discussing is why is it okay to criticize a set of paradigms that may, or may not, be out-of-date. The criticisms so far, are valid. That's not to say that these criticisms imply that all christians hate gays, jews, or muslims. Though I think it's safe to say that nearly every christian would like to "save" these "wretched" beings.

[lukeskywalker1]

Nope. What we're discussing is why is it okay to criticize a set of paradigms that may, or may not, be out-of-date. The criticisms so far, are valid. That's not to say that these criticisms imply that all christians hate gays, jews, or muslims.

 

Exactly my point, so in other words you just admitted its not ok to bash christianity, but the people who are doing these things you dislike. (if thats even a reason to "bash" them)

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1

Exactly my point, so in other words you just admitted its not ok to bash christianity, but the people who are doing these things you dislike. (if thats even a reason to "bash" them)

 

What I said was, I prefer to be very critical of the paradigm (or the way of thinking) but understanding of the majority of the culture. A leader of the culture, however, is fair game to harsh, even brutal, criticism since he/she represents the culture as an institution.

 

I wouldn't say, "christians are assholes" for instance, but I might say that Pat Robertson is. If I do, though, you can rest assured I'll provide some reasons why I think that.

 

It's okay to "bash" christianity. As long as by "bash" we're talking about criticisms backed with reasons. Several of my posts above have done this well.

[Kain]

This thread isn't fair. Its a representation that all Christian's think everyone is out to get them. Sure, I've done my share of Christian bashing, and I continue to this day. That isn't to say that I haven't been bashed for being a 'heathen', 'wretched', 'sinner', 'hellbound', and 'heretic'(I used to go to church, so that kind of applies to me) by the Christian's who are so apposed to bashing, but only if the bashing is directed at them. VERY few atheists will complain if you make fun of their religion (well, their lack-there-of).

 

Not to flat out say that Christian's are insecure, but they do get offended with mind numbing quickness.

[Joetheeskimo]

You're making a generalization, Kain. Actually, most Christians are supposed to ignore threats and bashing. Christianity is supposed to be one of the most secure religons.