Christianity

[The Mikado]

Negative, as it has led to ignorance, hate, and a loss of the ability to think critically in so many of its followers.

  Yes, the six hundred page brick that is the City of God is the embodiment of ignorance and lack of critical thinking.  Augustine's view that the Gothic sackers and the Romans victims of the fall of Rome might well find themselves on the same side in the coming Heavenly city is truly the most vicious message of hatred and not a glowing call for reconciliation.  I admit defeat.

[All Along The Watchtower]

I think the issue for many people (including many Christians) is the ignorance of an awful lot (majority?) of Christians, particularly in the United States. They are not only willfully ignorant of other people's beliefs, many are shockingly misinformed about their own views, as well. And they have real political influence that has many implications for public policy, the treatment of minority groups, etc.-which can't be said for most non-Christians, at least in the US. Although perhaps this is a really America-centric (and thus, hopelessly provincial) view of Christianity vs. "everything else."   

Furthermore, there's a significant disconnect between someone like Augustine or whomever and how most Christians actually understand themselves. Most people aren't nearly so highbrow in their views, in general. You can argue whether that is good or bad, or value-neutral, but that doesn't change the fact that most people simply don't operate like eminent theologians or philosophers.

[DC Al Fine]

I think the issue for many people (including many Christians) is the ignorance of an awful lot (majority?) of Christians, particularly in the United States. They are not only willfully ignorant of other people's beliefs, many are shockingly misinformed about their own views, as well. And they have real political influence that has many implications for public policy, the treatment of minority groups, etc.-which can't be said for most non-Christians, at least in the US. Although perhaps this is a really America-centric (and thus, hopelessly provincial) view of Christianity vs. "everything else."   

Furthermore, there's a significant disconnect between someone like Augustine or whomever and how most Christians actually understand themselves. Most people aren't nearly so highbrow in their views, in general. You can argue whether that is good or bad, or value-neutral, but that doesn't change the fact that most people simply don't operate like eminent theologians or philosophers.

Could you elaborate?

[memphis]

I think the issue for many people (including many Christians) is the ignorance of an awful lot (majority?) of Christians, particularly in the United States. They are not only willfully ignorant of other people's beliefs, many are shockingly misinformed about their own views, as well. And they have real political influence that has many implications for public policy, the treatment of minority groups, etc.-which can't be said for most non-Christians, at least in the US. Although perhaps this is a really America-centric (and thus, hopelessly provincial) view of Christianity vs. "everything else."   

Furthermore, there's a significant disconnect between someone like Augustine or whomever and how most Christians actually understand themselves. Most people aren't nearly so highbrow in their views, in general. You can argue whether that is good or bad, or value-neutral, but that doesn't change the fact that most people simply don't operate like eminent theologians or philosophers.

Could you elaborate?

http://www.pewforum.org/2010/09/28/u-s-religious-knowledge-survey/

[GaussLaw]

I think the issue for many people (including many Christians) is the ignorance of an awful lot (majority?) of Christians, particularly in the United States. They are not only willfully ignorant of other people's beliefs, many are shockingly misinformed about their own views, as well. And they have real political influence that has many implications for public policy, the treatment of minority groups, etc.-which can't be said for most non-Christians, at least in the US. Although perhaps this is a really America-centric (and thus, hopelessly provincial) view of Christianity vs. "everything else."   

Furthermore, there's a significant disconnect between someone like Augustine or whomever and how most Christians actually understand themselves. Most people aren't nearly so highbrow in their views, in general. You can argue whether that is good or bad, or value-neutral, but that doesn't change the fact that most people simply don't operate like eminent theologians or philosophers.

Could you elaborate?

http://www.pewforum.org/2010/09/28/u-s-religious-knowledge-survey/

Your study shows that Mormons and Evangelicals, generally the most maligned groups of Christians by Atlasians, know the most about Christianity.  Sounds like the "evil bigots" know a thing or two about their own religion.  And sure, atheists/Jews know more about other religions, but why must a Christian know much about Buddhism or Hinduism?  An orthodox/Evangelical Christian like myself believes that Christ is the way, the truth, and the life.  Other religions may say nice things, but my position is that there is only 1 correct way (I am not going to say whether only believers go to heaven, as there's some arguments against that) as well as that of other Christians.  If that's the correct way, there's no reason to care about other directions.

[NerdyBohemian]

Negative, though Islam is far, far, far worse. I will never understand how seemingly secular and progressive people will go out of their way to coddle and defend Islam.

[Deus Naturae]

Negative. Jesus just comes off as pretentious to me.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Negative. Jesus just comes off as pretentious to me.

Granted, he does sometimes think he is holier than thou.

[DemPGH]

Negative, though Islam is far, far, far worse. I will never understand how seemingly secular and progressive people will go out of their way to coddle and defend Islam.

Definitely agree on the first point. As to the second point, it's simply that it's not "our religion," so secular humanists are kind of careful with it. We also don't have the baggage associated with Islam, while Christianity has more than enough of its own. I agree that there needs to be more criticism of Islam, though, and that that criticism can be respectful.

[Flake]

Negative, though Islam is far, far, far worse. I will never understand how seemingly secular and progressive people will go out of their way to coddle and defend Islam.

The problem with that statement is that Christianity is fundamentally the same.

Anyway, I view Christianity positively.

Edit: I think I misunderstood part of your statement, I think the reason so many secular people do that is they see so many Christian zealots opposing Islam they just want to be different

[Qavvavak]

Christianity destroyed our Indigenous (Aboriginal) culture, tradition and way of life.... especially shamanism. Inuit shamanism was disappeared in over 100 years ago because they converted into Baptism (Christianity) in missionary back then. And they force Aboriginal children to speak English and believe in god in the horrific residential school. Genocide

[politicus]

Christianity destroyed our Indigenous (Aboriginal) culture, tradition and way of life.... especially shamanism. Inuit shamanism was disappeared in over 100 years ago because they converted into Baptism (Christianity) in missionary back then. And they force Aboriginal children to speak English and believe in god in the horrific residential school. Genocide

Its interesting with the difference between the missionaries to the Inuits in Northern Canada and Greenland in this regard. In Greenland it was the missionaries that created Greenlandic as a written language to teach the Bible and Christian prayers and this secured the status of Greenlandic as a literary language and the preservation of Inuit myths and tales with the literary renaissance from the 1850s onwards and created standard Greenlandic as a medium of communication between groups with very different dialects.

The repression of Shamanism was of course the same, but in Greenland Christianity became an essential part of (West) Greenlandic identity from the late 1700s and onwards and their close relationship with Jiisusinguaq ("Sweet Jesus" - all though literarely just little Jesus) was central when nationalism started to take off among the educated elite from the mid 1800s onwards. It was only in the 1970s that the heathen heritage became important to national identity (for some) when young radical students reintroduced it. Even today their special relationship with Jesus is important to Greenlanders and there is at least one picture of Jiisusinguaq in 87% of all Greenlandic homes outside Nuuk according to a survey (and about 2/3 in Nuuk).

[The Mikado]

Furthermore, there's a significant disconnect between someone like Augustine or whomever and how most Christians actually understand themselves. Most people aren't nearly so highbrow in their views, in general. You can argue whether that is good or bad, or value-neutral, but that doesn't change the fact that most people simply don't operate like eminent theologians or philosophers.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

One really cannot in good conscience look at an intellectual system that produced fruits as varied and wild as Augustine and Kirkegaard, then turn away and look at an asshole like Jerry Falwell and go "Yeah, they're all a bunch of bigoted morons."  When you confront one of the most venerable and influential intellectual and philosophical doctrines in human history, you'd better be prepared to go toe to toe with the shades of Aquinas and Dostoyevsky in defense of your skepticism of the fundamental bedrock of their worldviews.  None of the men I mentioned really strongly agreed on many moral or philosophical points and yet they all shared a fundamental belief in Christianity that should make you consider that, even if (like me) you don't share that belief, that there's something pretty compelling and rich intellectual soil in that direction and that you shouldn't just brush Christians off as ignorant rubes.

[The Mikado]

I have a very negative view of Christianity (like most religions that have stricter doctrines).

Christianity is pretty much the loosest religion in terms of requirements you're ever going to find, which goes a long way to explaining its success.  I don't see how you could possibly interpret it as a strict faith.

Compared to other religions (especially Islam), yeah it's looser. But I feel that most Abrahamic religions suck for a variety of reasons, but here I mean that they tend to not take into account an individual's experiences in life, they dictate moral rights and wrongs, and that unlike Hinduism, Baha'i faith, and Buddhism, there is less room to move around when considering that there may be more than one way to know God (e.g. "you either believe this or you go to hell forever") and concerning moral gray areas. 

On a related note, I think it's a sad testament to the Christian-centric nature of this forum that Christianity has a ~70% FF rating and Buddhism has a ~55% negative rating.

...

Have you seen the Noble Eightfold Path?  If you actually want to break the cycle of reincarnation and live the life that will allow you to break out, your Buddhist is going to live a life far rougher than all but the most ascetic brands of Christianity.  Of course, few choose to actually pursue such a lifestyle and commit themselves to the monastic lifestyle, but if you read the Dhammapada and look at Theravada Buddhism as it's actually practiced in Southeast Asia it's not a particularly easygoing religion.  Christianity's pretty much total lack of rules governing social behavior beyond all the most obvious ends up contrasting quite dramatically.

It's actually a pretty significant doctrinal point that Christianity doesn't really require much in the way of active deeds beyond baptism and (if you're Catholic) the sacraments to achieve salvation.

[DC Al Fine]

One really cannot in good conscience look at an intellectual system that produced fruits as varied and wild as Augustine and Kirkegaard, then turn away and look at an asshole like Jerry Falwell and go "Yeah, they're all a bunch of bigoted morons."  When you confront one of the most venerable and influential intellectual and philosophical doctrines in human history, you'd better be prepared to go toe to toe with the shades of Aquinas and Dostoyevsky in defense of your skepticism of the fundamental bedrock of their worldviews.  None of the men I mentioned really strongly agreed on many moral or philosophical points and yet they all shared a fundamental belief in Christianity that should make you consider that, even if (like me) you don't share that belief, that there's something pretty compelling and rich intellectual soil in that direction and that you shouldn't just brush Christians off as ignorant rubes.

As an aside, that was something I found really annoying about The God Delusion. There was a small bit on Aquinas and nothing on most other major Christian intellectuals... but Tim LaHaye gets discussed

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

I have a very negative view of Christianity (like most religions that have stricter doctrines).

Christianity is pretty much the loosest religion in terms of requirements you're ever going to find, which goes a long way to explaining its success.  I don't see how you could possibly interpret it as a strict faith.

Compared to other religions (especially Islam), yeah it's looser. But I feel that most Abrahamic religions suck for a variety of reasons, but here I mean that they tend to not take into account an individual's experiences in life, they dictate moral rights and wrongs, and that unlike Hinduism, Baha'i faith, and Buddhism, there is less room to move around when considering that there may be more than one way to know God (e.g. "you either believe this or you go to hell forever") and concerning moral gray areas. 

On a related note, I think it's a sad testament to the Christian-centric nature of this forum that Christianity has a ~70% FF rating and Buddhism has a ~55% negative rating.

...

Have you seen the Noble Eightfold Path? 

Are you asking me do I know what it is or have I seen a certain documentary? The answer to the first is "I get the point", the 2nd would be "no".

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Okay, I worded my second post awkwardly. Yes, I understand that Buddhism demands a very Spartan life in terms of material possessions and fulfilling desires, but like you said, not many people actually follow it to the extremes. I'm not familiar with each Buddhist sect and school of thought, but rather just get the gist of Buddhism pertaining to India (despite it being pretty much gone).

When I typed that I had the hot-button social/moral issues in mind that Abrahamic texts obsess about (and how they micromanage your daily existence, as opposed to general rules in Buddhism), and how Buddhism specifically promotes mindfulness and "don't be a dick to other people because their experiences and beliefs are different from yours" that eastern religions emphasize.

[Deus Naturae]

Is that really what eastern religions emphasize? Or is that just what western hippies think eastern religion is about? Somehow I doubt the average practicing Hindu is a paragon of tolerance.

And, just because people don't actually follow the rules of a religion (mostly because those rules are so strict) doesn't make the religion itself less strict.

[DC Al Fine]

Is that really what eastern religions emphasize? Or is that just how western hippies think eastern religion is about? Somehow I doubt the average practicing Hindu is a paragon of tolerance.

And, just because people don't actually follow the rules of a religion (mostly because those rules are so strict) doesn't make the religion itself less strict.

Yeah, I recall an article about the English translations of the Dalai Lama's works omitting some damning passages about sexuality for example.

[The Mikado]

Clark: by the Noble Eightfold Path, I was referring to the eight steps that the Buddha claimed that one needed to follow to achieve enlightenment, not a documentary.  Buddhism is a remarkably strict doctrine coupled with the recognition that very few people in this lifetime are ready to attempt to achieve Nirvana.  That's not a disapproving statement, mind: I don't dislike Buddhism.  It's just stunning to see someone not grasping that it is a far more demanding belief system in terms of its code of conduct than Christianity, a faith whose doctrinal commitments pretty much begin and end at having water sprinkled on one's head and eating a wafer at Church.

Then you mentioned Hinduism, which is frankly baffling because Hinduism is right up there with Judaism on the top tier of doctrinally-demanding religions.  Arguably more so because Judaism never advocated vegetarianism when that, of course, is one of the most radical commitments in terms of shaping a person's lifestyle that a religion could come up with (and a big reason why the Manichean faith isn't around today).  You mention the Abrahamic faiths micromanaging your life when the entire concept of dharma is that there is a divinely-ordained set of actions and behaviors given to you based on the position to which you're born into life.  I don't see how a religion could be more micromanaging in terms of setting out a right way to live than the Hindu faith. 

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Arguably more so because Judaism never advocated vegetarianism when that, of course, is one of the most radical commitments in terms of shaping a person's lifestyle that a religion could come up with (and a big reason why the Manichean faith isn't around today).

That's not quite true. While vegetarianism was never made a tenet of the faith (not surprising for a faith which had its origins among nomadic herdsmen) it is clear that a vegetarian diet was thought highly of.  It is after all, the original diet in Eden and the prophet Daniel asked for and thrived on a vegetarian diet in Daniel 1.  While Daniel did not remain a vegetarian, it was while on a fast that excluded rich foods such as meat that he had the vision of the kings of north and south in Daniel 10-12.

[bore]

I think these threads are basically pointless, firstly because religions like Christianity or Buddhism or Islam are so diverse that they just can't be summed up in a neat acronym, but also because, as alluded to earlier, there is a big distinction between the people who claim to follow the religion and the religion itself, and what you choose to emphasize will probably determine how you vote. Incidentally, that probably explains the negative views of buddhism, seeing as most of the buddhists people here are familiar with are western converts, who do tend to be pretty annoying.

Having said that, some people seem to not only be voting based on the adherents but then equating that with the teachings (FWIW I'm happy to concede that the vast majority of christians, including myself, on a spectrum of goodness range from OK to awful, and only a few actual saints consistently live as the gospel tells them to).

I can't understand who's anyone who's read even a little of the gospels can view them as Clark seems to, as just a few examples will show:

Jesus's crazily legalistic view of salvation:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Jesus urges followers to be a dick to people who hold other views:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Negative, though Islam is far, far, far worse. I will never understand how seemingly secular and progressive people will go out of their way to coddle and defend Islam.

Muh True Leftism. 

[Sbane]

Thank you Clark for your posts in this thread. I don't get how anyone who puts in even the least bit of effort to understand Hinduism would think it is some sort of draconian religion with rules that everyone must follow. I come from a Hindu tradition but the types of rituals and beliefs my family has is likely completely different from another family that lived a few hundred miles away. It is not even one religion if it is understood from a western perspective, but a collection of beliefs in a region of the world that has been categorized as Hindu by outsiders. No wonder the word "Hindu" came from outside India.

Also, speaking of Buddhism, it's key tenets are a good way to live a happy life. If taken literally, it can mean a life of asceticism that would be impractical for most people. But if Buddhism is used as a guiding principle in your life, you can be a happier person. You can't afford the iPhone 6? Great, you don't gain happiness from possessions anyways. That does not mean you need to flush your iPhone 5 down the toilet. That is a very literalist, Christian way of looking at things. In any case, most Christians don't follow their religion literally either. If they did, they would be stoning gays in the street. Another thing the eastern religions are superior at. Much less stoning to death of undesirable groups.

[Sbane]

Is that really what eastern religions emphasize? Or is that just what western hippies think eastern religion is about? Somehow I doubt the average practicing Hindu is a paragon of tolerance.

And, just because people don't actually follow the rules of a religion (mostly because those rules are so strict) doesn't make the religion itself less strict.

I am no expert on religion but I think the hippies got it right. "Hinduism" has been corrupted by outside, socially conservative influences for a long time now. Of course there is social conservatism within Hinduism as well, but it's not a religion like Christianity or Islam. There are plenty of Hindu priests who sit around smoking weed in the name of Shiva (one of the main gods) all around India. Eating bhang (edible marijuana) is an extremely common activity during Holi (done by even the conservatives in Hindu society). Indeed, my parents didn't even know bhang and marijuana are the same thing. So yeah, the hippies got it right.

[politicus]

In any case, most Christians don't follow their religion literally either. If they did, they would be stoning gays in the street. Another thing the eastern religions are superior at. Much less stoning to death of undesirable groups.

...