Ep. 81: The Switch

[NH Baritone]

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.

Alright, now I am really confused. I cited real-world examples of Christianity. But in the quote highlighted above, you have apparently discounted all real-world manifestations of Christianity in one fell swoop ... except for that 1% you know to be genuine, whatever that means.

Does the existence of the Christian religion in this life count for anything? Are you defining Christianity entirely out of reality and into some Platonic essence? (This is, after all, the basis for the Catholic belief in transubstantiation.) Does Christian-ness exist on a different plane in the same way that the Greeks believed chair-ness and rug-ness were said to exist? Just because what I'm sitting in looks & operates like a Windsor chair, is it really not because its essence is devoid of chairness? Even though Pat Robertson claims to be motivated by his Christian faith, you can somehow personally discern that he lacks that Christian essence?

My post pointed to real examples of Christianity at work: Folks defining their mission and motivation by their faith in the Jesus. And yet you dismiss them as not Christian, for some reason that I simply cannot yet fathom. Do you guys honestly think that these folks were NOT acting based on their Christian faith?

And if instead they ARE motivated by their Christian faith, are not their acts just as much (if not more) a reflection of Christianity as Habitat for Humanity?

[Matt]

FYI Silsby was convicted of "arranging irregular travel," not trafficking or kidnapping. She was released based on time served. She was not trying to establish her own orphanage; she was trying to move "orphans" from one decimated orphanage in Haiti to another one in the Dominican that could care for them. Such transfers are not uncommon, but she lacked the necessary paperwork. Here is her side of the story:http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=32953. Her biggest crime was bad judgment. Even the article you linked to says that she had noble motives.

Nh Baritone, here is the equivalent of your logic:

Premise 1: Jeffrey Dahmer was a homosexual
Premise 2: Jeffrey Dahmer was a serial killer
Conclusion: All homosexuals are dangerous and prone to violence

It's absurd. I am not going to defend Fred Phelps or the Crusades. But your argument that Fred Phelps behavior means that all Christians are dangerous is ludicrous. The reason that I linked to those humanitarian organizations was because they were examples of Christian faith working for good. If you're going to point the finger at the bad apples, you have to accept the good ones.

[mitchellmckain]

And it is because of this ridiculous sort of illogic by the New Atheists that the example of Communism is brought up to demonstrate that atheists are no more immune to to creating theocracies, following blind ideologies, or failing to think critically than theists are. This is RECENT history where in some instances this particular brand of atheists (communists) went all the way with their own final solution against religion and slaughtered anyone who refused to go along with their utopianism. (discussion in the thread titled Communism) Thus it is quite understandable that Chrstians, with Mao Tse Tung's declaration that "religion is a disease" as an excuse for his invasion and attrocities in Tibet, fresh in their memory, react to Dawkins, "The God Delusion" with the same kind of outrage that Jews, with the holocaust fresh in their minds, react to things with an anti-semetic flavor to them.

[NH Baritone]

FYI Silsby was convicted of "arranging irregular travel," not trafficking or kidnapping. She was released based on time served. She was not trying to establish her own orphanage; she was trying to move "orphans" from one decimated orphanage in Haiti to another one in the Dominican that could care for them. Such transfers are not uncommon, but she lacked the necessary paperwork. Here is her side of the story:http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=32953. Her biggest crime was bad judgment. Even the article you linked to says that she had noble motives.

Nh Baritone, here is the equivalent of your logic:

Premise 1: Jeffrey Dahmer was a homosexual
Premise 2: Jeffrey Dahmer was a serial killer
Conclusion: All homosexuals are dangerous and prone to violence

It's absurd. I am not going to defend Fred Phelps or the Crusades. But your argument that Fred Phelps behavior means that all Christians are dangerous is ludicrous. The reason that I linked to those humanitarian organizations was because they were examples of Christian faith working for good. If you're going to point the finger at the bad apples, you have to accept the good ones.

Matt, this response makes me think you don't understand what I have said. I simply hope this says more about my ineffective communication than about you willfully twisting my words.

I simply repeat what I said at the beginning of this conversation: It is the Christian mission that scares the shit out of me. I have given plenty of examples of what I mean, but here is the latest from this morning's news:

A group of conservative attorneys say they are on a mission from God to unseat four California judges in a rare challenge that is turning a traditionally snooze-button election into what both sides call a battle for the integrity of U.S. courts.

Vowing to be God's ambassadors on the bench, the four San Diego Superior Court candidates are backed by pastors, gun enthusiasts, and opponents of abortion and same-sex marriages.

"We believe our country is under assault and needs Christian values," said Craig Candelore, a family law attorney who is one of the group's candidates. "Unfortunately, God has called upon us to do this only with the judiciary."

The challenge is unheard of in California, one of 33 states to directly elect judges. Critics say the campaign is aimed at packing the courts with judges who adhere to the religious right's moral agenda and threatens both the impartiality of the court system and the separation of church and state.

If you and Scott want to define the "Christian mission" in your way, then I suppose you have that right within the confines of your own denominations, congregations, and social circles.

But you cannot expect me or anyone else who lives outside that milieu to differentiate when the Christians declare that it is their mission to disenfranchise, threaten, and injure people who do not believe the same things you believe. As it stands, you're treating me as the enemy for simply listening to them and responding. I suggest you owe your wrath elsewhere.

[mitchellmckain]

The point is that it isn't about Christian or atheist. It is about ANYONE who seeks to force their ideology on everyone else. Whether it is the right wing Christians, Moslem extremists, or atheists declaring that religion is a disease, they are all equally scary to me because I will not fit into the world that any of these people want to create.

[Brad]

Pending NHB’s reply, and acknowledging that I haven’t read most of the exchanges above, I’d like to offer my 2 shekels worth on the previous two posts.

If you're going to point the finger at the bad apples, you have to accept the good ones.

Yes, indeed. But the opposite is also important. In our very religion-oriented society, it seems to me that the greater problem is getting religious people to acknowledge even the existence of, not to mention their connection to, the “bad apples,” or more specifically the bad actions and bad consequences generated by religion. Those are far more numerous and harmful than is generally recognized, in my view.
Only then, once the true net consequences of god beliefs are evaluated can the worth of those beliefs be accurately evaluated.

If I'm not mistaken, none of the "New Atheist" writers have failed to at least acknowledge from time to time that many believers do, and have historically done, wonderful things that were strongly motivated by their religious beliefs.
Like me, they simply think that,
1) by no means enough light has been shed on the opposite side of the belief coin, and,
2) a whole lot of those wonderful things would have been, and would still be being, done if the religious people were/are non-religious.

And it is because of this ridiculous sort of illogic by the New Atheists that the example of Communism is brought up to demonstrate that atheists are no more immune to to creating theocracies, following blind ideologies, or failing to think critically than theists are. This is RECENT history where in some instances atheists went all the way with their own final solution against religion and slaughtered anyone who refused to go along with their utopianism. (discussion in the thread titled Communism) Thus it is quite understandable that Chrstians, with Mao Tse Tung's declaration that "religion is a disease" as an excuse for his invasion and attrocities in Tibet, fresh in their memory, react to Dawkins, "The God Delusion" with the same kind of outrage that Jews, with the holocaust fresh in their minds, react to things with an anti-semetic flavor to them.

Not surprisingly, I dissent.
I think Mitch’s argument here is a red herring - an attempt to divert attention away from the root issue by distorting it and projecting it elsewhere and onto others.
The bit about atheism and communism is utterly tired and tiresome and has been thoroughly rebutted countless times but it keeps coming back like the infamous bad penny. The only conclusion I can reach is that many believers have an approach to history and historical facts like the reporters in this funny little youtube cartoon.

In short, the root problem is the human predisposition to give credence to non-evidence based and Utopian ideologies and/or supernatural “solutions,” given our natural credulity, desire for easy answers, lack of knowledge, and other factors.
Of course non-believers are subject to those sorts of errors, too, but both historically and in the current news every single day, it is evident that the greatest engine driving those dangerous human foibles ever devised is the notion that a deity exists "behind the scenes" and that said deity can be "pleased" by human beings.

The truly ridiculous assertion, in my view, is to equate skepticism and disbelief about things that cannot be shown to have even a reasonable probability of actual existence, i.e., gods, with belief in those same things, and to then say that disbelievers are no more likely to think critically than believers.
And bears drive Chevys to downtown Cleveland to defecate and Pope Ratslinger is a Unitarian.

It is believers, not atheists or agnostics or freethinkers or secular humanists, who continue to make claims about, to build their lives around, and to teach their children to believe in, not only the unprovable, but the astronomically improbable.
That’s where the real proof of the pudding lies in terms of the presence or absence of critical thinking.
And that's not to mention the beliefs that are both astronomically improbable AND vicious, vile, immoral, and conducive of hatred and unspeakably horrific acts.

[ScottBarger]

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?

If this is the case, then many of the examples NH cites are simply NOT Christian, because they are counter the teachings of Jesus. To call them Christian, and then condemn Christianity because of them, is not fair...even if it is understandable. It simply doesn't matter to me what a title or religion a person claims, if their actions do not conform to the teachings of Jesus, they can not legitimately claim to be Christian.

...maybe this is why some Christians are using other titles to describe themselves (Christ-Followers, Followers of Jesus, etc.)?

[mitchellmckain]

That’s where the real proof of the pudding lies in terms of the presence or absence of critical thinking.
And that's not to mention the beliefs that are both astronomically improbable AND vicious, vile, immoral, and conducive of hatred and unspeakably horrific acts.

Do I hear an echo of the Nazi villification of the Jews? Of course they justified themselves with all kinds of bullshit. I am sure they managed to make themselves feel justified in doing what they did. But THIS is the REAL problem. The human capacity for doing this kind of thing.

[humanguy]

The point is that it isn't about Christian or atheist. It is about ANYONE who seeks to force their ideology on everyone else. Whether it is the right wing Christians, Moslem extremists, or atheists declaring that religion is a disease, they are all equally scary to me because I will not fit into the world that any of these people want to create.

I'll second that. I know one thing for sure: people are going to believe in something, most people anyway, and that's not necessarily a bad thing. I guess it's just how people are built, I guess it is anyway.

It's the idea of any collective being in a position to inflict harm or rule by force on other human beings, that's what I do not like, I don't care who's doing it or for what reason, I'm against it.

I see no reason why I should be expected to identify with Richard Dawkins or whoever, just as I see no reason why Christians should be expected to identify with that weird guy who goes around saying that God hates gay people. We can start having a real dialogue when we stop associating each other with the worst or at least most radical elements out there that are supposedly representing our different points of view.

See what I mean? I resent any assumptions that because I think as I do I'm supposed to be a follower or something of Richard Dawkins, a guy I really don't like much. Yes, he's very "bright" but I don't think I'd enjoy hanging out with him. Anyway, where does it say that just because I'm an atheist I'm supposed to venerate Richard Dawkins? Who is he to me anyway? And so it's very easy to me to imagine how a Christian would feel about having somebody like Pat Robertson or whoever flung in his face.

[Rian]

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?

If this is the case, then many of the examples NH cites are simply NOT Christian, because they are counter the teachings of Jesus. To call them Christian, and then condemn Christianity because of them, is not fair...even if it is understandable. It simply doesn't matter to me what a title or religion a person claims, if their actions do not conform to the teachings of Jesus, they can not legitimately claim to be Christian.

...maybe this is why some Christians are using other titles to describe themselves (Christ-Followers, Followers of Jesus, etc.)?

Exactly.

Here's another link of some Christians doing some things that got into the news so that non-Christians could see it:

Oh wait, it didn't get into the news.

Well, anyway, a bunch of us from our church went to Mexico this weekend and built two houses for two families in the slums of Puerto Penasco. The stronger ones built the houses, the weaker ones (like me) played with the children all weekend and made all sorts of fun crafts. My favorite touch was the two beautiful pots and rose bushes that we put at the corners of the house - beauty along with usefulness. The mom really loved the rose bushes - they made her cry and say that she was "muy contenta" (and her name was Alma Rosa!)

We can't fix all the world's problems, but we just made life a bit better for two poor families. And that is right in line with the teachings of Jesus.

[humanguy]

Well, anyway, a bunch of us from our church went to Mexico this weekend and built two houses for two families in the slums of Puerto Penasco. The stronger ones built the houses, the weaker ones (like me) played with the children all weekend and made all sorts of fun crafts. My favorite touch was the two beautiful pots and rose bushes that we put at the corners of the house - beauty along with usefulness. The mom really loved the rose bushes - they made her cry and say that she was "muy contento" (and her name was Alma Rosa!)

We can't fix all the world's problems, but we just made life a bit better for two poor families. And that is right in line with the teachings of Jesus.

It's in line with people helping other people, people doing good things for other people, which is not in any way, shape or form "owned" by Christianity, nor is the concept of making life a bit better for others only to be found in the teachings of Jesus. It isn't only Christians who do good works. I mean, surely you would have done exactly the same thing even if you weren't a Christian, no?

[NH Baritone]

I'll deal later with Scott's special pleading regarding Christianity's definition. First, I need some clarification from the Christians for the following:

A group of conservative attorneys say they are on a mission from God to unseat four California judges in a rare challenge that is turning a traditionally snooze-button election into what both sides call a battle for the integrity of U.S. courts.

Vowing to be God's ambassadors on the bench, the four San Diego Superior Court candidates are backed by pastors, gun enthusiasts, and opponents of abortion and same-sex marriages.

"We believe our country is under assault and needs Christian values," said Craig Candelore, a family law attorney who is one of the group's candidates. "Unfortunately, God has called upon us to do this only with the judiciary."

These folks (and those I named earlier) openly state that they are acting based on their Christian faith and the Christian mission.

If it is NOT their Christian faith/mission motivating their actions , what is?

[ScottBarger]

I don't think it's special pleading, I am trying to define terms. If, in your opinion, the term Christian MUST be defined as something other than "like Jesus Christ" or "embracing the teachings of Jesus Christ" then we can use different terms. And who knows? Maybe NH is right. Maybe the terms is too tainted to mean what it is supposed to mean.

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.

I think it is obvious that NH is not a fan of Christians and his views and opinions demonstrate a pretty steep slant against things that are associated with Christianity, but to say that since some/many/most people who claim "Christian mission" as the primary motivator in their life do terrible things therefore "Christian mission" is bad...well, I think that is flawed reasoning.

[humanguy]

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.

Well, do their actions line up with the teaching of Jesus? If so, why? If not, why not?

[mitchellmckain]

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.

Well, do their actions line up with the teaching of Jesus? If so, why? If not, why not?

Well there is no instruction in any of the teachings of Jesus about seeking political power. He did say to follow His example -- and His example in regards to this kind of thing is as follows: When the zealots wanted to make Jesus king and even tried to make him king by force and He refused and even drove them away by making it clear that His was a spiritual message and not one for the "fleshly minded". He does speak of stewardship and so he makes it clear that we should take seriously the responsibilities that are given into hands. But I think we can say that the acquisition of political power really has no part in any teaching of Jesus.

However, I don't think there is a prohibition here any more than there is a prohibition against playing chess just because there is no account of Jesus playing chess. But I do think we can say that such politics and power plays have nothing to do with any "mission of Christianity" any more than playing chess.