Ep. 81: The Switch

[ScottBarger]

I don't know enough about them to say definitively, I rarely trust news stories anymore...there's always a spin, always an angle. But I will add to what MM said. Jesus didn't seem to be all that concerned about legislated morality. He was concerned with the hearts of people...that they would be something different. I am not sure that you can legislate that kind of transformation of being.

[humanguy]

I don't know enough about them to say definitively, I rarely trust news stories anymore...there's always a spin, always an angle. But I will add to what MM said. Jesus didn't seem to be all that concerned about legislated morality. He was concerned with the hearts of people...that they would be something different. I am not sure that you can legislate that kind of transformation of being.

Then what do you make of these four attorney's claim that God called on them to serve as God's ambassadors on the bench of the San Diego Superior Court? For all any of us know they could be right, no?

[NH Baritone]

NH,
This line of argumentation is sub par for you. Just because people claim Christianity, does not mean they represent Christianity. Nor does it mean that their actions negate the mission of Christianity. IMO, this would be the case even if %99 of people who claim Christianity behaved as poorly as the examples you cited above.

It seems to me that the problem is with the term "Christian" NH and others are defining this term in a very broad and contemporary sense (all those who associate themselves with the Christian religion, by hook or by crook). I do NOT define the term that way. I understand the word to mean, well, what it actually means, having to do with Christ. More specifically (IMHO) that which aligns itself with the teachings of Jesus, the Christ. A person can adopt the culture and title "Christian" but if their actions do not conform with the teaching of Jesus, in my opinion, they are NOT Christian. I don't think that this is an unfair or arbitrary standard, do you?

Regarding NH's example, of course it is their faith/mission that motivates them. Of course they call it Christian. Of course they think they are championing Christian values. That's not the point. It doesn't matter what they think they are doing or what title they claim, I think the real question is whether or not their actions line up with the teaching of Jesus.

Scott & Matt,

I would have thought the Council of Nicea's definition of Christianity was sufficient. I'm confused why you have attacked me for not assuming the same esoteric definition of Christianity that you adhere to.

(It's as if I were attacked for talking about condiments, because you insisted I was, of course, only referring to ketchup. Carrying the metaphor further, you went on to insist that ketchup is the only true condiment, and that I was of poor character for not joining you in that assumption.)

These attacks have saddened me and, if it were possible, further sullied my trust in Christians. I have clearly not made anything up regarding the actions that Christians have taken in the name of their faith.

I have perhaps made you uncomfortable by pointing out that the frightening things done in the name of Christianity are solely the purview Christians, while the charitable work you described is being performed both by Christians and non-Christians, and is thus not an exclusively Christian undertaking.

Allow me to phrase the kind of Christian response I would have made when I was a believer:

It is true that Christianity has done a lot of harm in its 2000 years on the planet. It has also simultaneously, and perhaps paradoxically, done a lot of good. This is possible because people understand the Christian message in different ways.

The unified Church has disassembled itself over these differences. We're all Christians, in that we all accept at least most of the elements in the Nicene creed, but beyond that, people are motivated by faith to follow different and sometimes contradictory paths.

I focus on Jesus' message of justice and charity. Some Christians hear something different from the gospels, and some of them, I believe, misinterpret the Christian message for modern times.

When those misinterpretations cause alienation, oppression, and harm, I share your anger at the intolerance and I grieve with the victims. I repeatedly seek to change the minds of those who turn the message of Christ into a message of persecution.

If there is any way I can temper some Christians' obsession with judgment and condemnation, please let me know. And if you need to hear my apology for the harm caused you by members of my Christian family, then I sadly and humbly offer it to you.

[fletch]

Just throwing in my two cents on the episode: Capt. Christian displayed in this episode just how bigoted and ignorant his view of atheists really is. 'As a Christian I was a humanitarian, now I really do care about anyone I can't see.' Yeah, that's how atheists work. Douche. Rather than giving in to the thought experiment and trying to see the world from a different perspective he merely used this as an opportunity to stereotype and mock atheists based on his close-minded, bigoted perspective.

I fully believe that Christians and Atheists can get along just fine but I don't understand why any Atheist would be friends with this particular Christian. He clearly views Atheists as uncaring, remorseless, immoral people.

That being said, I'm glad he is a Christian because he clearly can't handle being good without the fear of a wrathful god watching over his shoulder.

[Brad]

NHB
I think your condiment / ketchup analogy was very apt.
But it's always like that, isn't it? Each particular Christian and his or her immediate cohorts think that they are the true Christians. This allows them, to use another metaphor, to have their cake and eat it, too. In other words, they can have their comforting superstitions while taking no responsibility whatsoever for the harms the same or similar superstitions create all over the world and while being in denial about any negative consequences of their own views and attitudes.

Every non-believer here knows that it is not individual Christians or the good works of Christian groups that we decry. In fact, most of us have dear Christian friends and we celebrate humanitarian, i.e., humanistic, efforts regardless of who performs them. No, it's the unjustifiable superstitions and the unceasing suffering that those superstitions cause to which we object.
(And contra the post just above by someone who is apparently an adolescent, we think very highly of Scott, despite his willful superstition! )

Dan Barker, in Godless, also has a nice metaphorical story for this situation. I'll paraphrase and elaborate a bit:
Someone invites you over to see her garden, which she's very, very, proud of, and toward which she's devoted much time and energy. You can see some very pretty flowers scattered throughout the garden, but there are piles of stinking garbage and some fresh dog poop and weeds and wilted flowers all around, too. You have to watch your step.
You provide honest feedback, saying, "Yes, those flowers over there are quite beautiful, but the garden as a whole, not so much." The gardener, offended, replies, "Can't you see the beauty here? It's so very lovely! What kind of jerk are you?"
The gardener, it seems, was so focused on her flowers that she couldn't even notice the greater surroundings.

Beliefs in the Abrahamic God and the divinity of so-called "scriptures" create people who are very much like that gardener, as several of the posts above by believers attest. And the Bible and the Koran, indeed, Christianity and Islam, are far more like that garden than any dyed-in-the-wool believer can even perceive, much less acknowledge.

And not least among the posts I'm referring to is Scott's post saying that he doesn't "trust news stories anymore." Of course there are reasons to be skeptical of news stories and to bear in mind that events noted in the media do not create a balanced perspective in and of themselves. But to say one doesn't "trust news stories anymore" sure sounds like a rationalization for keeping one's head in the sand in order to maintain very comforting illusions and to keep out uncomfortable realities. Yes, there is no truth except the truth that comforts me! Ahhhhh, the sand feels soooooo goooood!!

[ScottBarger]

First to NH,

I really don;t think I have attacked you, nor do I feel threatened by anything you have said. I disagree with your conclusion. I that if you think that is an attack, I am sorry. I also perceive in you a slant against Christianity, if you consider that perception to be false fell that I am attacking you as a person when I make the observation, I am sorry.

As for the response I should have given, well, I have said those things over and over again in many ways and in many contexts (even here on this forum), I think it is a good response, but I don't think it addresses the argument you were making. You weren't asking me to explain my attitude towards these other people, you were saying "Christian mission" is bad because of what these other people are doing. That was the argument to which I was responding. If I misunderstood what you were saying, I am sorry.

[ScottBarger]

To Fletch,

Welcome to the forum and thanks for listening.

Just throwing in my two cents on the episode: Capt. Christian displayed in this episode just how bigoted and ignorant his view of atheists really is.

"Captain Christian" wow, thanks for the promotion, for the longest time I was merely "Sergeant Salvation." It feels good to be moving on up.

I am learning to understand atheists pretty well, I think, at least more than I used to. I still have much to learn, but I hope I am not as ignorant as I was a few years ago. Maybe we can discuss what you perceived to be bigotry and ignorance in my responses to Emery?

'As a Christian I was a humanitarian, now I really do care about anyone I can't see.'

I was being honest.

Like I have said before (I think earlier in this thread), different people have different tendencies, things they tend to be naturally without having to work too hard to be that way. I do not think I am naturally predisposed to a compassionate and global world view. I think I am naturally too cynical to think that I actually could make a difference and if I did, if it would really bring me happiness. I think my natural tendency is to love my kids a bunch, and my wife a bunch, and my friends a bunch. I think that apart from God, the highest virtue is the pursuit of happiness, and given these attitudes that I naturally tend to have, I don't think I would be motivated to pursue happiness much further than my circle of family and friends. Given what I see in American culture these days..there are a LOT of people who tend the same way.

Yeah, that's how atheists work.

I didn't say that all atheists end up where I would end up, but I think I have described the way atheism works. No higher power/super natural/life after death = this is the only life you have = try to find as much happiness in this life as you can. Where am I wrong?

Douche.

Ouch.

Rather than giving in to the thought experiment and trying to see the world from a different perspective he merely used this as an opportunity to stereotype and mock atheists based on his close-minded, bigoted perspective.

I do not feel that I responded this way, I did my best to see the world from an atheist perspective. Where did I misrepresent atheism in a bigoted way?

I fully believe that Christians and Atheists can get along just fine but I don't understand why any Atheist would be friends with this particular Christian.

Fair enough.

He clearly views Atheists as uncaring, remorseless, immoral people.

False, false, and maybe. It depends on how YOU define "morals." How do you define "morals," Fletch?

That being said, I'm glad he is a Christian because he clearly can't handle being good without the fear of a wrathful god watching over his shoulder.

Me too, and false. But again, it depends on how you define "being good." How do you define "being good," Fletch?

[ScottBarger]

And not least among the posts I'm referring to is Scott's post saying that he doesn't "trust news stories anymore." Of course there are reasons to be skeptical of news stories and to bear in mind that events noted in the media do not create a balanced perspective in and of themselves. But to say one doesn't "trust news stories anymore" sure sounds like a rationalization for keeping one's head in the sand in order to maintain very comforting illusions and to keep out uncomfortable realities. Yes, there is no truth except the truth that comforts me! Ahhhhh, the sand feels soooooo goooood!!

I don't think I keep my head in the sand. I just have learned that there is always another side to the story, always another angle, another way to look at it. News is not only reported these days, but interpreted and applied as well. The problem is that consumers of the news rarely take the time to make the distinction. If I had to take the story at face value, and did not have the opportunity to hear any other version of the story, then I would say that it sounds like these are people with a conservative agenda who are using Christianity as a way to accomplish that agenda.

[NH Baritone]

First to NH,

I really don;t think I have attacked you

Really?

NH,
This line of argumentation is sub par for you. Just because people claim Christianity, does not mean they represent Christianity.

Did I say anything that was incorrect, inaccurate, misrepresented, or anything other than objective?

If so, tell me what. I will correct it.

And simultaneously I'll ask you to explain why on earth you would expect me (or anyone) to abandon a 1700-year-old definition of Christianity in favor of your exclusionary recasting of the word.

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

As for the response I should have given, well, I have said those things over and over again in many ways and in many contexts (even here on this forum), I think it is a good response, but I don't think it addresses the argument you were making. You weren't asking me to explain my attitude towards these other people, you were saying "Christian mission" is bad because of what these other people are doing. That was the argument to which I was responding. If I misunderstood what you were saying, I am sorry.

Well, this makes no sense, because my "Christian" response was in direct contradiction to the statements you've made in this thread. But it doesn't really matter, because I don't believe you even read what I was saying.

For your convenience, here it is again.

It's interesting that both Christian Emery and Atheist Scott saw a sense of purpose or mission inherent in Christianity. Scott saw this purpose or mission as the biggest thing he would miss as an atheist; Emery saw it as the biggest thing he would gain.

And it is the "mission" of Christians that scares the shit out of me. For it often involves following some leader or ideology they believe God has made holy, regardless of the real world consequences that occur.

I have no doubt that Laura Silsby, George Rekers, Shirley Lynn Phelps-Roper, Scott Lively, and Pat Robertson are each acting from their sense of missionary zeal. And thus every incident of harm they have done (click on the links for examples), they have done in the name of Christianity.

Quite frankly, I think the world would be better with a bit less Christian mission and more Christian moderation.

The "Christian" response I wrote would have been entirely appropriate for this statement. When you and Matt went on to declare those folks weren't really Christians, it echoed as Orwellian double-speak. Every other post I wrote after that was intended to simply bring you back to reality (indeed, back to honesty), and you both squirmed to escape like a ferret in a pillowcase. I would like to know why I shouldn't consider that deceitful.

[humanguy]

If I had to take the story at face value, and did not have the opportunity to hear any other version of the story, then I would say that it sounds like these are people with a conservative agenda who are using Christianity as a way to accomplish that agenda.

Why?

[Brad]

Scott aka "Captain Christian,"
I know my suggestion that your approach to news items might equate with sticking your head in the sand sounds harsh and over-the-top to you, and maybe it is.
But honestly, that phrase characterizes how many non-religious people feel about the way the "faithful" see and respond to the world. In so many ways, religious people seem to take the injunction to be "in the world, but not of it" as an excuse to avoid all sorts of reality and to live in a sort of Pollyanna-ish bubble. This is maddening to lots of non-religious people of all sorts, not just atheists like me.

The most obvious current and public example, one that you might be able to see in some ways through eyes similar to that of non-religious people, is the response of many Catholics, both ordinary and elaborately robed, to the ever widening story of priestly child abuse and it's enabling and cover-ups by bishops and popes.
The story about this in the current Time magazine, by the way, explains how the Catholic hierarchy uses essentially the same arguments made by you and Mitch and others above to ignore or deny the damage done through their claims to divine knowledge and authority, and that when those tacks fail, the Catholics point fingers at and cast blame onto "the culture" or atheists, or whatever is at hand.

Of course, you may not want to give much credence to that article, as it's just a news story that must have an angle or a spin that makes the whole things suspect, like all the other news stories and all the other personal experiences one might hear day to day. They all have an agenda, right? Except for those that line up to your own views, perhaps?

The evils caused by supernatural beliefs are always passed off as somebody else's problem, and of course, those people aren't the real "followers of Jesus," no matter how much they say and believe that they have it all right.
So one's own piety and comforting beliefs are always immune, because, of course, we know the real God and the real Jesus or the real Torah or the real wishes and meaning of Mohammad, and THEY don't.
And that's all that really matters, isn't it?

BTW, I do appreciate your participation in discussion here. Thanks for responding to me and to everyone else.

[ScottBarger]

First to NH,

I really don;t think I have attacked you

Really?

NH,
This line of argumentation is sub par for you. Just because people claim Christianity, does not mean they represent Christianity.

Hardly an attack on you, if anything it was a compliment to you because the line of reasoning is sub par for you. It is less than what you usually put forward.

Did I say anything that was incorrect, inaccurate, misrepresented, or anything other than objective?

If so, tell me what. I will correct it.

Yes, you argued: "Christian mission" is bad because so many people use "Christian mission" as an excuse to do bad things. I don't think this holds up. It is an understandable sentiment, given the magnitude of some of these trespasses done under the "banner" of Christianity, but it does not hold up (IMHO).

And simultaneously I'll ask you to explain why on earth you would expect me (or anyone) to abandon a 1700-year-old definition of Christianity in favor of your exclusionary recasting of the word.

Really? The "This many people can't be wrong" argument? Not a good one. Besides, this is something of a semantic issue that precedes the major thrust of our conversation, namely, discussing whether or not the mission of Christianity is good. If you like, we can drop the term "Christian" if it is too encumbered by cultural baggage. Or, we could start a new thread discussing what "Christian" means/should mean.

I feel it is entirely appropriate for me to challenge your assertion that
Group A claims Christianity.
Group A does really nasty things because of how they view Christianity.
Therefore Christianity promotes really nasty things.

I really am not quite sure why you dismiss my objection. It is obvious that some people do nasty things. It is also obvious that some people do nasty things because of the way they understand Christianity. The question is, who lives out the more accurate response to the teaching of Jesus. If you will not allow me to define "Christian" in light of what Jesus taught, then fine, I am not a Christian, I am a "disciple of Jesus."

The "Christian" response I wrote would have been entirely appropriate for this statement. When you and Matt went on to declare those folks weren't really Christians, it echoed as Orwellian double-speak. Every other post I wrote after that was intended to simply bring you back to reality (indeed, back to honesty), and you both squirmed to escape like a ferret in a pillowcase. I would like to know why I shouldn't consider that deceitful.

Because I neither lied nor tried to "escape" the pillowcase of your argumentation.

Earlier you described my argument as "special pleading," now I don't think that is what I was doing, if it was I would have responded by saying that Christianity should be judged by all the good it has done not all the bad. That seems to be what you are doing, judging Christianity by the bad and not the good. There is merit to this idea, but only if we could actually quantify the good and bad of what Christians have done. Since this is probably impossible, I suggest we look at it from the perspective that not all responses to Christianity are legitimate, regardless of what the respondent claims about their relationship to Jesus Christ.

[ScottBarger]

Brad,

I see what you're saying. I think I may have missed your point at first with the "head in the sand" post. It is obvious that some people like to pretend that there is not bad news, or that what they are reading about their priest CAN'T be true, or whatever. I don't think ignoring these problems does any good AT ALL.

I was responding to the specific story, not knowing anything about it beyond what NH had posted. I was pressed for an evaluation, and I sidestepped at first because I am not sure of all of the details (and, to be honest, I have developed a healthy bit of skepticism to much of what I read/hear from news outlets these days.)

My next post assumed that everything in the story was true, and that there was no spin in it whatsoever.

[ScottBarger]

If I had to take the story at face value, and did not have the opportunity to hear any other version of the story, then I would say that it sounds like these are people with a conservative agenda who are using Christianity as a way to accomplish that agenda.

Why?

Because much of what they are trying to do lines up specifically with a conservative political agenda and not so much the teachings of Jesus. At least, not what I understand Jesus to have taught.

[Rian]

Douche.

Ouch.

Don't you mean "Ouche" ?