Christianity

[they don't love you like i love you]

Come on, don't you remember that story where Jesus advocated stoning to death the woman accused of adultery? It's pretty obvious with that He'd also support the same for gays considering the many strong condemnations of homosexuality Jesus did in the Gospels.

[Sbane]

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.

...

Yeah, because as we all know, the bible is very gay friendly.

[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.

...

Yeah, because as we all know, the bible is very gay friendly.

1. "Let he who is pure throw the first stone".

2. OT clearly condemns same sex intercourse, but the extent to which OT law apply for Christians would always be a matter of interpretation, since NT contradicts itself on this issue. No literal reading of the Bible could in itself solve this issue.

3. There are only two seemingly anti-gay passages in NT (Paul, not Jesus). If you go to the original wording one of them is about boy prostitution and the other one is part of a condemnation of orgies and not necessarily relevant in other contexts.

So while the Bible is not exactly gay friendly, a literal reading of the Bible would not in itself give one reason to stone gays or hate them. There are obviously plenty of people willing to use the Bible as pretext for their homophobia, but that is another matter.

And even if you consider homosexualty a sin, executing people because of their sins would of course always contradict the Bible.

[Sbane]

Thanks for that. I was making a general point about western religions being much more strict about these social issues whereas eastern religions take more of a live and let live attitude. A perfect example of that would be the Hijras of South Asia.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

One reason why this particular board is so absolutely and utterly dire is that it is full of people who believe themselves to be knowledgeable about subjects on which they are actually totally ignorant.

[Sbane]

One reason why this particular board is so absolutely and utterly dire is that it is full of people who believe themselves to be knowledgeable about subjects on which they are actually totally ignorant.

I have already admitted I am no expert on religion, which is why I usually don't post on this board. That being said, I know enough to know that saying eastern religions are more doctrinally strict than western religions is absolutely wrong.

[anvi]

My answer reflects, of course, my own chosen perspective on things.  But, as would be my answer regarding other religions, I'd say that whether I think Christianity is good or bad depends on what it happens to lead people to do.  if a person's Christianity faith inspires them, for the most part, to make the lives of those around them better and appreciate the incredible world in which they've been given life, then I think it's positive.  If a person's Christian faith compels them, for the most part, to condemn others who don't believe or act as they do, then I think it's negative.  

To me, the potential value or damage a religion can do derives from what lessons people draw from it.  The Bhagavad Gita was the most important religious text for both Mohandas Gandhi and Nathuram Godse.  Gandhi found in it justification for winning the internal battle between courage and fear so that he could risk his life and freedom for the dignity and freedom of others--well, with some exceptions....  Godse found in the Gita a justification to put three bullets in Gandhi's chest.  Is "Hinduism" in the abstract good or bad, positive or negative?  Or does the answer to that question depend on what it motivates practitioners and believers to do?  I put the same test to Christianity or any other tradition.

Because religious traditions tend to get to the heart of what human beings care about the most, they can and do bring out the best and worst in us.  

[RR1997]

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.

Yes actually, in terms of how incredibly diverse a religion Hinduism is in terms of having a wide range of beliefs and practices, the average Hindu is pretty tolerant. It's not a hippie-dippy liberal Western thing to think that's how Hindus are; it's pretty close to reality. For example, you can be an atheist Hindu. You can't in Christianity. In Abrahamic religions, you have to believe in a very narrow set of text, ideas about God, ideas about other people, ideas about worship, etc. Hinduism is not a highly-unified religion like Abrahamic faiths are; it's an amalgamation of extremely different beliefs and cultural traditions. I had to explain to my coworkers how Hinduism is an umbrella term that encompasses thousands of years of cultural traditions, different local beliefs, and widely varying interpretations unlike anything found in Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc. They had trouble grasping how enormous Hinduism really is.

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.

Buddhism was a bad example. I concede. I'm more familiar with Hinduism. So I should've stayed on that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

When it comes to diet, many of those rule we see are simply health and cleanliness measures that don't really hold up today because of advances in food preparation and storage. The Bible also lists very  detailed, specific rules for food preparation. Those ancient laws are obsolete now, but vegetarianism has a host of medical benefits, and that's why it has continued to be prevalent both inside of Hinduism (BTW, only ~30% of Hindus are vegetarian) as well as outside of it around the world. Hell, Bill Clinton had to become vegetarian for health reasons.

From what I've understood in my discussions with Hindus (such as my mom) as well as from time spent at temple, the Dharmic isn't much different from Christian views on social order and how you should act. It's almost universally present in religion that you shouldn't steal, kill, adulterate, lie, ill will anyone, etc. but rather you should be charitable, honest, faithful, compassionate, etc. And for your role in society, it's the same as that of Christianity: you use your privileges in life to better yourself, others, and the world, and you have certain goals you should complete and lessons to learn.

Those things are generally human things that are present in both religion and cultures across the world and throughout time, so you can't really stick that on any one religion.

---------------------------------

Anyways, I'm not an expert on all the religions in the world. My first post was about my experiences with Christianity and why I've left the church and become unassociated with any particular religion, despite occasionally attending Hindu temple, Baha'i services, and church out of familial and social obligations. My point on Abrahamic religions being strict isn't just related to Christianity, but also Islam  (which literally governs your entire day to day life). I've had terrible impressions of Christianity and Christians at church, work, school, etc. and far better impressions of those who ascribe to Eastern religions whether it's here in the U.S. or in India or elsewhere, and I've felt that Hinduism and the Baha'i faith align more with my values and worldview than Christianity does.

THANK YOU

I'm tired of people assuming that all Hindus are vegetarians, when in reality only 30% of them are. I'm Hindu and I will eat any type of meat except for beef.

Also I agree that vegetarianism does have medical benefits, which is why I rarely eat meat, although I still do from time to time.

[afleitch]

The question I ask myself is this; 'what is it for?'. Is Christianity anything more than an exercise in collective superstition or does it endow people with something 'good'? Because that would be a useful tool in both evaluating whether Christianity as something that is positive; i.e something not detrimental and would also go someway to evaluating whether it's claims are true.

Has Christianity, collectively, been a force of good for women? Has it been at the forefront of the emancipation of women and championing their equality? Has it broken down patriarchal structures? Has it championed women's choice over their own bodies? Has Christianity been at the forefront of LGBT rights. Does it see dignity in these people, with no judgement made about their sexual orientation? Does it champion their equality, their normality. Their love? That's about 60% of the world in those two groupings and I think the answer, the honest answer, would be no.

Now of course, the same charge can be levied at other religions. It can be levied at secular ethics with the same weight. What is equally true of Christian ethics, with respect to the abhorrent treatment of human 'difference' throughout history, is also true of other ethical systems. I could not deny that.

Of course, it will be argued that sometimes some Christians are at the forefront of change. Examples can easily be found and evaluated. This is of course exactly the same as saying that sometimes some non-Christians are at the forefront of change. As a statement it doesn't mean anything.

Now you might be wondering at what I'm getting at. It is simply this; what is Christianity actually for? If it feigns ignorance or appeals to 'well society didn't know any better, so neither did we' then what is it for? What values does it have, what insight does it provide on the human experience that other beliefs or non belief lack? What 'truth' can there be to the faith if it doesn't reach the truth ahead of or independently of general human progress?

[Mopsus]

Now you might be wondering at what I'm getting at. It is simply this; what is Christianity actually for? If it feigns ignorance or appeals to 'well society didn't know any better, so neither did we' then what is it for? What values does it have, what insight does it provide on the human experience that other beliefs or non belief lack? What 'truth' can there be to the faith if it doesn't reach the truth ahead of or independently of general human progress?

The point of Christianity, the point of all worthwhile religion, is to provide men and women with fulfillment in their otherwise unfulfilling lives. Which, incidentally, is why it's unfair to judge religion entirely on its external effects, as any religion worth following should be primarily inward-looking, not outward-looking. Granted, this introspection will naturally manifest itself in people's social interactions, which is where it is acceptable to judge someone's outward behavior, as anybody who truly seeks the righteous life will realize that the only life worth living is lived according to the Golden Rule. The extent to which a person fails to live up to the Rule is the extent to which he has fallen short of true religion.

IMHO, of course

[Mr. Smith]

Since this clearly is trying to go for what is inherent, why have such black and white divides if that weren't the case.

Then obviously, I take issue with labeling a following that teaches of "love one another, even thine own enemies", teaches of "let he who has not sinned cast the first stone", teaches of a poor woman giving more at heart even if she materially gave less than a rich man to someone in need as bad inherently.

This is without taking into account my username and what follows from that.

[The Mikado]

Now you might be wondering at what I'm getting at. It is simply this; what is Christianity actually for?

Measuring something's value by its utility is such a disgustingly 20th-21st century concept. Oscar Wilde correctly said "All art is quite useless," and the sentiment applies to everything of any real worth in life.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Has had its share of offenses and flaws, but so has every other religion.  IMO, the Christian faith has done far more good for the world than bad.

[afleitch]

Now you might be wondering at what I'm getting at. It is simply this; what is Christianity actually for?

Measuring something's value by its utility is such a disgustingly 20th-21st century concept. Oscar Wilde correctly said "All art is quite useless," and the sentiment applies to everything of any real worth in life.

That's exactly my point. As an 'art'; a philosophy, it is quite useless

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Now you might be wondering at what I'm getting at. It is simply this; what is Christianity actually for?

Measuring something's value by its utility is such a disgustingly 20th-21st century concept. Oscar Wilde correctly said "All art is quite useless," and the sentiment applies to everything of any real worth in life.

Isn't it more a 19th century concept? I don't disagree with your point, but I always associate ideas of "utility" more with classical liberal philosophers of the early 1800's than modern day thinkers. And since we already saw backlash against that mode of thinking by 1850 a la Hard Times; I'd hardly say the 20th century was exactly a sudden spring of utilitarian thought.

[The Mikado]

Now you might be wondering at what I'm getting at. It is simply this; what is Christianity actually for?

Measuring something's value by its utility is such a disgustingly 20th-21st century concept. Oscar Wilde correctly said "All art is quite useless," and the sentiment applies to everything of any real worth in life.

That's exactly my point. As an 'art'; a philosophy, it is quite useless

Absolutely, and that's its beauty and why it's good. Any ideology or belief system that claims utility is...perhaps not inherently worthy of hostility, but certainly arouses my skepticism. Scientific and "practical" philosophies top the list. Christianity is so metaphysical and interested in a second, spiritual life that its few suggestions as to how to live a just life end up evaporating into "believe in Christ" and doesn't have much if any actual requirements for behavior beyond "splash some water on your face."

[afleitch]

Now you might be wondering at what I'm getting at. It is simply this; what is Christianity actually for?

Measuring something's value by its utility is such a disgustingly 20th-21st century concept. Oscar Wilde correctly said "All art is quite useless," and the sentiment applies to everything of any real worth in life.

That's exactly my point. As an 'art'; a philosophy, it is quite useless

Absolutely, and that's its beauty and why it's good. Any ideology or belief system that claims utility is...perhaps not inherently worthy of hostility, but certainly arouses my skepticism. Scientific and "practical" philosophies top the list. Christianity is so metaphysical and interested in a second, spiritual life that its few suggestions as to how to live a just life end up evaporating into "believe in Christ" and doesn't have much if any actual requirements for behavior beyond "splash some water on your face."

However, Christianity does claim utility. It says it is the way, the truth, the life. So much so, it claims utility over many other competing or even complimentary philosophies.

[DemPGH]

Absolutely, and that's its beauty and why it's good. Any ideology or belief system that claims utility is...perhaps not inherently worthy of hostility, but certainly arouses my skepticism. Scientific and "practical" philosophies top the list. Christianity is so metaphysical and interested in a second, spiritual life that its few suggestions as to how to live a just life end up evaporating into "believe in Christ" and doesn't have much if any actual requirements for behavior beyond "splash some water on your face."

How you can make that argument with a straight face as you make it has perplexed me for a while. Essentially, it's useless, so it's useful.

Then it dawned on me that something that's "useless" is actually useful in a different way, and if you made the argument that way it would make a lot more sense. I find a good movie with good performances edifying for whatever reason(s). I love to watch an epic movie that has a lot of punch, like a good Scorsese movie. Humans love good stories, and they always have - I suspect it's a higher brain function. But to say that myths are more relevant than scientific evidence on general grounds is frankly absurd. The "metaphysical" is just more make-believe. Can it be edifying? Sure. But it's not astrophysics, and it could never compete with astrophysics.

[Mopsus]

The "metaphysical" is just more make-believe. Can it be edifying? Sure. But it's not astrophysics, and it could never compete with astrophysics.

But metaphysics doesn't compete with astrophysics. "Metaphysics" does mean "after physics", after all.

[DemPGH]

The "metaphysical" is just more make-believe. Can it be edifying? Sure. But it's not astrophysics, and it could never compete with astrophysics.

But metaphysics doesn't compete with astrophysics. "Metaphysics" does mean "after physics", after all.

You have to judge it on some standard, though. It's make-believe because nothing supports it. Which on its own is fine because it's emotionally satisfying. I can and will accept myth on those grounds.

But otherwise it's the Laws of Planetary Motion of 1619 against the Earth-is-at-the-center-because-we're-special. And you better bet on the former. Myth is personal in a way that scientific evidence is not.

[Mopsus]

The "metaphysical" is just more make-believe. Can it be edifying? Sure. But it's not astrophysics, and it could never compete with astrophysics.

But metaphysics doesn't compete with astrophysics. "Metaphysics" does mean "after physics", after all.

You have to judge it on some standard, though.

Yes, you're right: it's judged by the standard of how fulfilling it is to the person who believes in it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Of course. And that's natural, as the two deal with two completely different levels of existence/experience. Just as people shouldn't believe in a scientific theory because it "feels right", people shouldn't embrace a particular mythos because it seems "scientifically sound".