The Christian Right's attempts to steal Christianity

[kwassa]

some great editorials on opposing this move, from the Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/22/AR2005042201277.html

Hijacking Christianity . . .

By Colbert I. King

Saturday, April 23, 2005; Page A19

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/22/AR2005042201276.html

Smearing Christian Judges

By Paul Gaston

Saturday, April 23, 2005; Page A19

[GOPFighter]

1. Colbert King's column was HOT!

I couldn't help but cheer as I read his column. I could feel the emotion in his writing.

I urge everyone who agrees with this column to email your appreciation for something that needed to be said. His email address is [e-mail]. They get so much negative crap when they write anything anti-freeper.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

2. the RW Christians

are used by fundamentalist (Wahhabist) Muslims to "prove" their lies about Christianity-that it is a religion of intolerance and hatred, a faith that wants to stop Muslims from being able to worship.

[Spider Jerusalem]

3. Just as the statements of Muslim fundamentalists...

and their perversion of Islam's basic teachings are used by certain religious and political leaders in the West to paint Islam as a "religion of evil". These groups of fundamentalists seem to feed off of one another. It would be almost funny if it weren't so horrible, eh?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

5. I don't know.

I'm not a Christian, but if I were to be converted by a flash of blue light then I think I wouldn't regard "tolerance" as a virtue.

If you believe that the bible is the revealed word of God, then I think you are logically constrained to believe that Christianity is necessary for salvation.

If you believe that, and you don't then do everything in your power to convert people to Christianity, by fair means or foul, then you are not acting in their best interests.

Certainly, if I (as an atheist) could prevent someone from suffering eternal torment at the cost of imposing my beliefs on them, I would feel I had a moral duty to do so.

I think that liberal Christians are undoubtedly morally superior to their conservative opposite numbers, but the conservatives are more consistent in their beliefs, and come closer to following them through to their logical conclusion.

[Lerkfish]

6. actually, liberal christians are more consistent with the teachings

of christ than the right wing christians.

But I think what you might have meant was that right wing christians are consistent in how they view their mission.

The difference is that Liberal christians view the mission differently, but are just as committed to it. A liberal christian also wants others to come to christ, but we want it to be a decision based on knowledge or example..in other words, a real decision instead of a coerced one. Therefore we attempt to live by example.

Right wingers believe, like the pharisees, that they are the ultimate source of piety and righteousness, and others should be brought around to their way of thinking.

because they both have different points of view on what is the best way to redeem others, they will necessarily employ different tactics or strategies. Liberal christians feel that attempting to LIVE a good christian life, even if done imperfectly, will eventually lead others to be curious and discover what is going on. In other words, the well-lived life is the method of reaching out.

the right wingers instead concentrate on forcing others to live to their concept of a good life, whether they want to or not, and are less concerned with how well they are following Christ's teachings THEMSELVES. So, like the saying "do as I say, not as I do".

This is why Liberal christians are more inclusive in their worship philosophy, and right wingers more exclusive and punitive.

What you view as relative consistency is really the outward signs of a different philosophy.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

7. If you believe,

As I think the bible says, that good Christians are saved and all others are damned, then it's not possible to live a good life without trying to convert others to Christianity, and trying to convert others and thus save their souls is the single most important part of living a good life.

*I* agree with you that trying to impose one's religion on others is a bad thing. I don't think the bible does, though.

[Lerkfish]

8. well, you already have your own interpretation of the bible.

I have a different one.

When asked what was the most important commandment, Jesus said to love the lord your God with all your heart, and all your soul, and all your might, and the second one was to love your neighbor as yourself.

neither of those priorities include a requirement to convert others or damn them to hell.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

9. Hmm...

Presumably, if you don't feel that you have a duty to convert people, you believe that salvation is possible without being a Christian?

The only way I can see of fitting the bible to that is to believe that in passages like "only through me will you come to god" and "without me there is no salvation" (have I got those right?) the ommission of the word "worshipping" is intentional, and that "loving the Lord" does not mean "being a Christian".

Is that your position, or have I missed something?

If it is, I don't know the Bible well enough of the top of my head to try and refute it, and it's certainly not obviously absurd, but I'm pretty sure there are some passages you need to stretch quite a bit to make it fit.

[Lerkfish]

10. I think you're unintentionally doing "bible al a carte".

IF you read the bible as a whole book, start to finish, more than once, it becomes clear (at least to me) that there is an intent that supercedes minutiae (sp).
The intent is that the greatest thing to have is love. Forcing someone to convert is not love, its spirtual domination. Note that Christ exhorted his disciples to spread the good news. That is different from telling them to convert as many as possible. Spreading the good news means you talk about it, but the decision is ultimately between the person and God.
You ask if its possible to achieve salvation without being a christian...of course it is, else how could Abraham, David, Elijah, or Moses been righteous men? They were born hundreds of years before Christ. Did God refuse them entrance into heaven? I doubt it.

Those who act as if they are under the law, but don't know the law, are a law unto themselves.

also, the bible is not a zero sum game...its not pass/fail on many issues...that's fundamentalist thinking (although it would be nice if fundamentalists actually read the bible whole cloth, instead of cherry picking).

The bible is vast, and complex. It is like a recipe for a dish that needs BOTH salt and sugar, flour AND baking soda. If you only read the baking soda part and then tried to make a cake, how would it turn out? Context is everything. Gestalt is the meaning.
Also understand that the bible is not the ONLY source for spiritual enlightenment. Its an amazing and inspired book, but it is still just a book.

Yes, Christ said "no comes unto the father, except by me". But he also told the parable of the good samaritan. He also was at the well and kept a prostitute from being killed with stones. He also healed the servant of a centurion. Look at the big picture.

you seem to want to apply a rigid singular dogma on the bible, but the bible is diverse and multilayered in meanings and deeper meanings. Don't hang about on the surface, getting trapped in the words. Delve into the INTENT.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

12. Yes, quite possibly.

What knowledge I have of the bible tends to come from either picking it up and reading fragments at random, or from what people quote in debates on the internet.

To what extent do you believe that the Bible was divinely inspired - do you believe it was effectively dictated word-for-word by God, or that it is potentially imperfect, or neither in some way?

Surely if it were the revealed word of God, then it *would* be a rigid singular dogma? God would say "these things are bad, these things are good, for salvation this much is necessary", and so on, unabiguously?

The fact that one needs to look at the big picture, because there are mutually contradictory messages, is one of the things that convinces me that it's not.

[Lerkfish]

14. well, that's a huge debate...I have my own view.

I think inspiration is different than dictation.
For one thing, how the bible is interpreted, even from one language to another, can make subtle shades of difference, but the core concept remains.

I think there is also much allegory and parable that is taken blindly for truth, which ignores the MEANING of the parable or allegory. Is it important that Adam's rib was used to make Eve, or is it important to understand the theme of knowledge of what's right and wrong, and the impact of evil or seduction on the human animal?

Are the difficulties of Job, or whether God and Satan would actually place a bet more important than understanding man's relationship to adversity, how he overcomes or accepts what befalls him?

It reminds me of a Billy and Mandy cartoon (great cartoon if you've never seen it), where the cat, milkshake, who swallowed the magic bookworm, is trying to teach Billy math.
milkshake: two trains are approaching each other. One is going 60 mph...
billy: OOOH! OOH! can one of them be a blue train?
Milkshake: I guess, it doesn't really matt..
billy: OOH! OOOH! and can it be full of clowns?
Milkshake: THAT ISN"T THE POINT!

I think fundies tend to be a lot like Billy, they get bogged down in the minutuae and completely miss the point. For example, they hate gays. But there really isn't that much in the bible about homosexuality. BUT there are a LOT of things about compassion, loving your fellow man, forgiveness and tolerance....but they completely bypass those things, which are more important, and settle on "GOD HATES FAGS", which, beyond being untrue, is totally not the point.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

15. The question that your approach

raises, then, at least to my mind, is "why do you think the bits of the Bible you don't agree with are in there"?

[Lerkfish]

16. Not sure I undertand your question completely...

Do you mean:
A: why are there sections that aren't meant (in my opinion) as literal directives in there?
Or:
B: why are there sections regarding homosexuality (for example) that don't match my progressive stance on tolerance?

if A, like I said, I think there are deeper meanings that the allegories and parable point to, but they are told in ways to make us think "outside the box" as it were.

If B, you have to view things in context. Leviticus was a book of harsh rules that were valid chronistically and culturally to a specific audience. We are not that audience any longer. the New Testament, and specifically Christ's teachings are human compassion basics 101.
Paul's letters were, again, written to a specific audience in a specific culture at a specific point in time...We no longer believe, for example, that its a shame to cut a woman's hair, etc.


Perhaps if you could be more specific, I would have an easier time answering?

at any rate, I don't think its right to say I don't "agree" with bits of the bible. I just happen to take a wholisitic or gestalt approach to the entire book in toto, so therefore, I agree with ALL of it, I just use my own discernment as to the context of bits of it and its validity to current society.

[Tux]

11. Redeem people?

So unless a person is Christian, Christianity teaches there is something wrong with them? It sounds like the "white man's burden".

[Donald Ian Rankin]

13. Ish...

There are liberal atheists (including me) who think that Christianity teaches that unless a person is Christian there is something wrong with them, but don't try and follow that teaching.

And there are liberal Christians (including Lerkfish) who try and follow Christian teaching, but don't believe that it teaches that unless someone is Christian there is something wrong with them.

But there are very few liberals who believe that unless a person is Christian there is something wrong with them.

[yorkiemommie1]

4. Harper's Magazine, May 2005

three excellent articles about this very topic.