This is why Christianity is demonized, and why the points are valid:

Here are my thoughts, as a "Christian"

Those of you who come on every three or four months and make a post criticizing others for their attacks on Christianity you're going to have to come down off of it, and understand where it comes from. There are some very simply, easy and fairly legitimate reasons why Christianity is criticized so profusely here:

1. It is the most commonly professed "religion" in this land (the United States)

2. People don't easily differentiate personal piety from institutional Christianity. Institutional Christianity has been a pretty sorry lot for an awful long time, sporting corruption, greed, bigotry, oppressive attitudes and exploitation for a long time. The Pharisees that Jesus spoke out passionately against in the gospel stories? Yeah, he would be speaking out against the "religious" leaders of the day to day and the "Christendom" of modern times if he was alive today.

3. The Christianity most easily, most vocally seen by the non-Christian public is the "Christianity" of Roy Moore, Pat Robertson, Jerry Fallwell, and other hateful, hurtful, unloving, uncompassionate, ungentle "servants of god." Our saying to them "but they are not really Christians!" rings a little hollow to people after decades of these folks swearing up and down that they are Christians

4. The combination of neo-pharisaical Christian institutions with anti-Christ public figures profession to be Christian results in a public who sees a very aggressive, angry, bigoted, unloving, closed minded, intolerant, vengeful, combative, and hypocritical "Christianity" reported to it live, via satellite, 24-hours a day 7 days a week...

I don't blame anyone for having an extremely unflattering opinion of modern day Christianity in America.... I just know that they're missing a couple important things, and I hope that perhaps I can bear witness to the reasons why a person might hang on to a spiritual Christian faith despite all the sad misfortunes and embarrassing hypocrisies of other professing Christians I just mentioned...

The goodness of any religion is if it makes you personally a better, happier more whole person, and helps you share that inward joy and contentedness with others. If you have that, don't trade it not mater who bashes your "religion." If you don't have it, and you're wallowing around in religious fundamentalism and dogama - ask yourself why. :)

in a thread last night I attacked organized religion and others took it as an affront to their spiritual beliefs. Two different subjects.

and there is plenty of reason to criticize organized religion.

Most but not all "real christians" prefer to pray in the closet and just do good. Not by drawing attention to themselves, that is pride.

Hence the verse, "he who abases himself will be exalted, he who exalts himself will be abased".

thanks you for an excellent post that says it all. Our religion has been hijacked and taken over by the RW fundie wingnut nutballs in the same way that the Bushistas have hijacked and taken over this country.

And yes, a lot of organized Christianity in this country is, indeed, a sorry lot. Not all, mind you, but enough to give non-Christians the wrong impression. While the fundie nutballs focus on their hateful, bigoted, narrow-minded, self-righteous, sanctimonious, judgmental, hypocritical bullshit such as obsessing over gays and pornography and prying into people's private lives, real Christians are quietly going about the work of doing for others, whether it's serving the poor, the homeless, the elderly, the sick, feeding the hungry, giving comfort and shelter to the needy, being a voice for the voiceless and banding together to give power to the powerless, and comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable, and not equating a person's moral worth with how much money they or their family has.

Jesus himself was born in a stable to poor parents, something these materialistic, manna-obsessed fundie nutballs can't seem to understand.

well, maybe not the Pagans, but they secretly rule the world so they don't count ;)

So THAT'S why they have so much power and why they aren't disdained and looked down on all the time, now the secret is out!!!

I think you raise some very valid points.

Just as many Americans' viewpoint of Islam is clouded by the vocal, visible "fringe" elements of that religion, many form their opinions of Chrisitanity based upon the the scandals that swirl through the organized church, the less than scrupulous televangelists and the radical right big mouths who don't show much tolerance or open-mindedness.

I wish more people could see the active, tolerant, compassionate examples of Christians who put their faith into action like former president Jimmy Carter and the many "average," anonymous Christians who practice a loving, caring faith.

for poor people like Carter does...

always trandscends institutional religion. You wouldn't think so, but it does.

There is always a dark side to a set of ideals. Only an individual believer can take the institutional ideals and soften them where appropriate.

I've been calling the fundamentalists "post Resurrection Pharisees" for years, due to their emphasis on the (Old Testament) Law, rather than the Gospel. When stripped of the Apocalyptic ramblings and Paulist legalisms, the Gospel is an astonishingly radical concept. But since Law is easier to do, and is a better tool for institutional religions and independent demagogues alike to control their followers, it's somewhat overshadowed the true message of salvation and service

...From which they pick and choose only the laws they want to obey.

Does anyone avoid playing football because the old testament says not to touch a pig skin?

Do these "Christians" keep kosher because it says so in the old testament?

Do these "Christians" remember to keep the sabbath holy or do they treat Saturday like any other day?

There are oodles more Old Testament laws, but I think this gets my point across.

being was around forever before us and will be around forever after us.

And yet they cannot comprehend the very same thing about the actual universe. The universe has to fit inside some sort of box for these people. If they could actually comprehend infinity, then they'd have the right idea.

For these types, the ego is so fed by the idea that we are the ONLY life in the universe, the ONLY true creation of God.

My point is that, if we (the human race) are the best that God can come up with, then maybe God isn't as great as people think.

Was that thunder?

You make a good point. I often am critical of organized religion, both in my life and here. I had some experiences with a particular minister from a particular bible college in a particular denomination that soured me on the organization, and eventually I came to question everything I'd believed most of my life. That might have happened anyway, but his behavior guaran-damn-teed it.

I don't even necessarily blame all the people in that particular church -- most of them aren't so invested in him as a person that they'll stop attending the church simply because he's turned it into a political 'bully pulpit', and besides, I grew up in a very small, rural town where most people are fairly conservative anyway, and see no problem with having it insinuated to them from the pulpit that they should vote for Republicans because Republicans are the only 'true Christians' and liberals are all misguided followers of Satan.

I also understand that this does not reflect every pulpit in every church, even within the denomination I attended as a kid. I know that the political agenda that minister has was injected into him at a particular bible college, and that they attempt to mold all their ministers likewise. I know of at least one minister who had served the church I attended who left that particular denomination in disgust because he wasn't a conservative in his life, and he didn't believe he should be pushed to preach it from the pulpit. Others who served that denomination and church have left it, too, but I don't know if this is why -- it could be.

I also think that outright denying that politicial operatives with an agenda have hijacked some churches, and the very word Christian, to the point that many things that are said here on DU, (however offensive or impolitely worded) are valid in some sense doesn't help anyone on either side of the discussion (or, like many who've posted here, who find themselves uneasily in the middle of the discussion). Not only that, but the proportion of agnostics, atheists, pantheists and pagans appears to be considerably higher here at DU than it is in the general population, so posting anything about Christianity is likely to bring out a lot of criticism that isn't so polite. It's an 'at your own risk' sort of thing. I'm not saying it's right for non-Christians to make personal attacks, or that it leads to good dialogue -- but I don't see how a Christian posting about his or her faith here can not know that's the case, observing other discussions.

I'm a 'do as thou wilt' sorta' person, as long as the Christian or the church in question isn't advocating telling me how to live my life, as long as the things I choose to do are legal and don't hurt anyone else. I don't like the fact that many Christians push to change the laws so that things I do that don't hurt anybody else become illegal, based largely on the fact that Christians aren't supposed to do them, so nobody else should be allowed to either. I was raised to believe that even Christians have free will, and that choosing the right thing makes them virtuous -- but that everybody should be left alone to choose what they perceived as virtue, and that God would sort us all out in the end. The day that Gary Bauer also believes that, and behaves as if he believes it, is the day I'll stop criticizing the effect conservative political activists calling themselves Christians have on my life.

I am sick to death of so-called "Christians".

"Every group is judged by its most extreme element." -- Me!

I didn't realize it got moved, I posted on DU Lounge, but it got moved to Editorials for some reason...

Which is cool... though its just me giving my opinion, not an editorial, but whatever. :D

(before it was locked).

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=105&topic_id=480182#480234

On edit: Never mind, KT2000 reposted it below.

Christianity, at least in America, has been hijacked by evil power-hungry assholes. The reasonable Christians have to take it back, because after the Religious Reich is through with the atheists, pagans, Muslims, and Jews, they will come for you next. They already call you "lukewarm" Christians because you do not engage in public Bible-worship, intolerance, and aggressive evangelism. Have you ever checked out Christian Forums? They have a decent mix of Christians on there but it skews towards the extremists. Read what they have to say about "liberal" (mainstream) Christians and non-Christians. They are scary, and no freedom loving person can afford to ignore them.

inform others that they are Christian? I cannot think of another religion or atheists informing me of their (non)religious beliefs.

Personally, I do not care what a person has chosen to be their religion. But some Christians have the need to constantly inform others of their religion. If those Christians really think about why they do that, they will realize that they are attempting to control others and agendas.

I am not a Christian and generally resent others "using" their religion in this way. I am not obligated to practice any religion, but that is what many Christians expect - whether through censoring of anything that "offends" Christians or setting agendas as in the Bush admin.

(I reposted this from the Lounge because I really do want to know why. Not intended as flame bait, but I wonder why I am often put in the position of acknowledging someone's Christian religion when this does not occur with any other religion or atheism.)

It's almost like an announcement: "I'm in the club. What I now say can be viewed as morally superior."

I know that many Christians don't intend that, but it does come off that way.

It is not uncommon to hear that this country was founded on Christian principles. No - it was founded on the principle that the minority shall not be oppressed by the majority as the Pilgrims were before they came here.

We are becoming a nation with a state religion and it is coming from the grass roots. A person, by asserting their Christain faith, can alter the social interaction of a group of people who may fear offending. This amounts to subtle form of oppression.

If it weren't obvious that they are white and/or male, they would tell you THAT too.

For the same reason, one doesn't expect Jews, atheists or light colored blacks or gays to go around advertising the fact that they are in a Minority.

The "majority" of "Christians" are terrible people - I hate to say it that way, but without taking five pages to delicately explain, that is the bottom line.

The "minoirty" of "Christians" are wonderful amazing people.

I think I'm pretty wonderful and amazing, but I guess you would have to be the judge of that! :)

For example, before making a post with harsh criticisms of insitutional Christianity, its helpful to acknoweldge that rather than being a biased anti christian person you are actually a person of Christian beliefs.

That's why I said what my beliefs where.

There is another reason. It is the same reason why if you met me, I'd probably tell you how much I loved my girl or how much I support liberal ideals. Why do Christians talk about being a Christian? Many different reasons - some of them are bad, as you know.

But here's the reason I do. Because I love it, and my spiritual beliefs are one of the most important things in my life. No I wouldn't want to shove anything down your throat and if it made you uncomfortable I'd try to stay silent. But my spiritual beliefs are not like an overcoat I put on and off as the weather changes -- they are me! They are part of what makes me love my life and feel joy and happiness, and when I start talking about subjects with others, its very hard to separate my christian faith from my answers.

There is a difference between proselytizing and simply being an unapologetically honest person. The former demands a response from you and thinks that if you do not respond you are a bad person. The latter has nothing to do with a response from you, but comes simply out of a life lived truthfully and honestly.

When someone asks me why I do something, often the answers have to do with my spiritual beliefs - now I can either lie about that, or be honest about that. But either way, it really has nothign to do with you.:)

...before making a post with harsh criticisms of insitutional Christianity, its helpful to acknoweldge that rather than being a biased anti christian person you are actually a person of Christian beliefs.

Uh, are you insinuating that those are the only two possibilities? Can't someone be critical of Christianity without being "anti-Christian"? Or is that the rule: if you criticize Christianity, you're anti-Christian? (I'm positive that several Christians would agree with that, but do you?)

Sometimes the reason why someone identifies themselves as belonging to a certain group before speaking critically of the group is because they believe it may help prove their sincerity.

I'm not saying a non-christian is incapable of logical, accurate, appropriate observations about anything. The question was why do Christians feel the need to say they are Christians all the time. And I didn't know if that question was directed at me or not. In my case, its because I wanted people to know that no only do I have a lot of criticisms about the way christianity is popularly expressed today, but I also hold to christian beliefs, so there's no real personal gain in my being critical - I do so for honesty's sake.

Basically with all religions. If you criticize as an outsider, you are an infidel and are attacking people's beliefs. Problem is, there are so many religions and so many sects and so many cults, virtually everyone is an "outsider" with regards to everyone else's religion. And thus the nature of religious dialog.

You may call yourself a Christian, Selwynn, but there are undoubtedly millions of people who also call themselves Christians who would brand you a heretic.

Look,

Let's remember what I've said, right? I'm not speaking for other people, just me. I happened to mention that I held Christian beliefs because it might possibly enhance peoples ability to believe that I have no particular axe to grind on this issue. And yes, I hear what you're saying that many times, if you criticize a religious faith you are often ridiculed for that.

And I get what you're saying, and we of course agree that this phenomenon happens often. But it doesn't happen all the time. For example, if you were to be critical of Christian religion with me, I certainly wouldn't instantaneously flame you or call you an infidel or anything of the sort. So you are wrong that it is "just the nature of religious dialog." What it is, is the nature of "religious" dialog when someone like yourself attempts to have that discussion with someone who refuses to have any kind of discussion at all.

Now having said that, if a person is critical of a particular technique for performing brain surgery, and he wants to criticize that approach, and advocate a different one - I'd certainly listen to what he had to say. But if that person could also say, "look I am in fact a brain surgeon and even I as a brain surgeon am critical of this approach, and here's why" I would consider that person's opinion to have even more weight! I doesn't mean the first guys opinion is in any way less valid. It just means that to me who doesn't know, I feel like I can trust the opinion of someone with experience in what he/she is criticizing.

This is just a fact of life. We don't usually run to our barber for medical questions, or our accountants for marriage counseling - likewise, my first stop to fair and balanced criticism on religion is probably usually not going to be someone who rejects all religions and has an attitude of hostility towards them. Now right or wrong, that is why critiques on organized religion made by folks who don't themselves even reject religion often carry more weight - because people don't get the impression that the person doing the criticizing just has the agenda of wanting to rid the world of all religion.

So I hear what you're saying, yes religion dialogue is difficult, many people don't agree on the subject. Non-religious folks are treated with hostility by the far-right. But guess what, welcome to the world, my friend. The same is true with crime, abortion, poverty, taxes, foreign policy and every other subject on which people have views and opinions. People don't agree - and if you voice an opinion that is unpopular to fanatics of any shape or size, you are going to get reamed for it by them.

But at the same time, scattered amongst the noise on ANY subject are the voices of reason, the people interested in real dialoged and open honest discussion. But the fact that you observer that the nature of religious dialogue is that no one agrees and people with "outsider" points of view are treated harshly - welcome to the club. At DU there is huge disagreement - and a lot of it is harsh and angry. Just go get involved in some of the Candidate wars on the general discussion boards. And guess what else, at DU people with a minority and "outsider" opinion are ridiculed - just look at how greens are treated.

So while I don't mean to be harsh - get used to it. And realize that its not like some how "religion" has a monopoly on difficulty with dialogue. The problem is not religion in and of itself, the problem is PEOPLE - and you have to weed through the ones you shouldn't try discussing things with to find the gems amidst coal that you can and should in fact have a rich discussion with.

Non-religious folks are treated with hostility by the far-right.

It's not just the far-right. I've seen it right here on DU by people who otherwise exhibit quite liberal viewpoints.

When surveys indicate that atheists are the most despised social group (when ranking candidates on who people would vote for, atheists came in dead last - well behind #2, homosexuals), it is clear that the ferocity with which liberal AND conservative religionists can attack non-believers far exceeds the attacks on mere political issues.

I am not naive, I completely realize there is harsh dialog on pretty much any topic you can imagine. But because religious beliefs cut so close to the bone (a feature of religion, not necessarily people), criticism in that area is felt with a lot more sensitivity. I don't think it's fair to say it's not really that different.

You're argument is, "yes ok, there is harsh dialogue everywhere, but religions is worse."

Well, I find I am pretty skeptical about that. All you have to do is read threads on this board alone to disprove that claim. The reason I think you feel as though religious disagreement is the worst of all kinds is because, correct me if I'm wrong, but you're an atheist, right? So, you are going to feel disagreement about religion very personally, right? I mean for all you know, there is more violent and hateful discussion about whether broccoli or spinach is the tastier vegetable (everyone knows its broccoli though!) but you'll never know, because you don't care about that issue and have no personal steak (edit - lol I can't believe I spelled it that way.. hell I'm leaving it) in that discussion.

You're going to feel the intensity of a religious debate far more than you are going to feel the intensity of a debate that you don't care much about. Why? Because the religious one is personal.

Anyway I don't want to make my post to long because that not always helpful to discussion. Here's my talking point: you and I disagree - I believe that the nastiness of attempts to dialogue on religious subjects has at least as much if not more to do with people than it does religion. I believe that we can see the difficulty of dialogue almost everywhere. In fact, there is probably no more polarized and anger filled debate than the debate between the Republican free republic crowd and democrat DU crowd.

We've all seen so much anger and irrationality and close-mindedness even on these boards, even amongst ourselves, on many many issues that have nothing to do with religion.

Maybe, maybe religion being a matter of personal faith exacerbates human failings and the ever-present obstacles towards dialogue. But it certainly is not at all true that if there was no religion we would suddenly live in a world where greens and DU dems loved each other, held hands and got along. In other words, the world would still be full of people who don't choose to engage in healthy dialogue on subjects.

Does that make sense? Or maybe we really do have a fundamental disagreement; I'm not sure yet...

One reason that religion has been such a powerful wedge is that it is not really open for discussion. Religion is accepted by its participants on faith. The act of faith is beyond logic and reason and therefore out of reach of discussion beyond whether or not one shares that faith.

Most discussions about religion on this board, no matter how they may start, usually end up in emotional quagmire. I have seen people quit the board because they feel put upon by those who question. Some people post topics that portray Christians as victims.

We are discussing religion.

We accept everything on faith. Yes, some things have more credible evidence than others, and yes some things have stood up to scrutiny longer than other things. But in the end saying something like, "I know." really means "I am sure to my satisfaction, though I might at some point either present or future, be wrong." :)

So I don't accept the claim that it is not possible to have a discussion about religion because a person might in fact be mistaken about some beliefs that are held.

Further, I don't accept the idea that all religion is of a creedal confession nature. The only way "faith" really works like you are describing is in situations where a person its committed to a certain creedal statement, blindly and without thinking about it. So a person says, "I believe Jesus was both fully god and fully man" and when you ask him "why do you believe this" he cannot answer you.

But that certainly is not everyone's experience of religion. For example, I don't believe in a divine nature to the universe because a book told me I must believe so or face eternal punishment. I don't believe it because I was raised that way. I have come to what I call an open-belief, that is a belief that says "based on all the evidence at my disposal, I believe the following, though if new evidence were to present itself, I would be open to it."

The trouble comes with what is considered evidence. For me, there are a couple reasons why religious beliefs are important in my life - one experiential and one pragmatic. Experientially speaking, its not about just claming some creedal statement by faith. It's not about saying "by faith I believe that the sky is purple, even though it looks blue." For me, my spiritual believes arise as the (in my opinion) best explanations to experiences certain real an genuine experiences in my life. Now where faith comes into play is in the question of risk. See I know the counter arguments to feelings of spirituality - protectionism, control, wishful thinking, conditioning, etc. I understand them and I've thought about them and listened to the arguments. However, to the best of my reasoning I feel that the best explanation for my experiential evidence lies in spiritual answers.

So for me, I'm not just saying "well I believe this because I believe this" without any concern over the question of why. I believe what I believe because, even if I'm wrong, I currently believe this is the best explanation for fit all the facts of my experience, both sensory and internal, physical, mental, emotional, experiential, etc.

But, I could be wrong, but having done all to understand truth to the best of my ability, I choose to stand by that understanding until such a time where I can recognize even more truth. That's one kind of faith, and so as such I find your definition of faith too simplistic and applicable only to one kind of religion - the creedal confession, dogmatic affirmation kind - the kind of "faith" that doesn't ask why but simply believes the power comes in blindly believing the claim for no real reason. That's not "faith" for many, many people.

I said there were two important reasons why religious beliefs were important in my life, and I mentioned that one was pragmatic. In the end, I can ask myself a very, very simply question. And that question is, has your life been better because of your spiritual understanding than it was without? The answer for me is an resounding yes. I experience more peace and happiness and a whole lot more love through my spiritual beliefs. Spiritual language, is the language through which enter the world and enumerate my experiences in it. In all honesty it really doesn't matter whether its a projection of wishful thinking or a real encounter, though I do reflect on that question in my hunger for truth. Ultimately either way it has been good in my life, and I wouldn't trade the experience for anything.

are personal. Your post describes your religion/spiritual beliefs in terms of your own personal experience. What is there to discuss about that? I am not going to discuss your interpretation of your own experiences.

If we had a discussion as to whether or not Jesus is really the lord and savior, and if many people posted, No!, how many Christians on the board will be offended? how many would quit the board? how many would perceive themselves under attack by non-Christians?

You seem like a nice and reasonable person but I still do not understand what it is about Christianity that compels some of its participants to talk about it all the time and then become offended when everything is not complimentary. Is the purpose:
1. to recruit new members?
2. a need to share their happiness?
3. a passive/aggressive way of maintaining control?
4. a defense mechanism?

But let me say, I really don't have an interest in discussing religion other than, how to keep it out of politics.

In reflecting on your comments, I believe that I partially agree with you, and partially disagree. I'm hoping to be clear and not muddled about that - let's see what happens.

So, one of the things I got tired of long ago, is argument about particular tenants of dogma and/or theology for their own sake. Is Jesus God? Was the Resurrection a literal event? Is the Bible divinely Inspired? And so on.

So I agree with you that discussions/arguments about dogma from two dogmatic positions is rarely fruitful.

However where I think I disagree with you is in assuming that this exhausts the entire scope of religious inquiry. Paul Tillich defined religion in the following way: "Being religious means asking passionately the questions of the meaning of existence, and being willing to receive answers, even when the answers hurt."

Now I appreciate that some people would define religion very differently. However, that is in fact my point. Some people see religion as a serious of creedal and dogmatic assertions designed to ease an individuals responsibility to ask tough questions and receive tough answers, and fit the whole of the world into a nice neat little box.

But there are others who instead believe that the spiritual quest is the quest for understanding the deep existential and philosophical questions of life. What does it mean to be human? What constitutes the individual I? To what extent are we relational creatures? Are the moral absolutes, and if so how can we express them - and if not how can we pursue justice, or even define it? Is it possible to apprehend and define meaning in our individual lives, and is that ultimate meaning universal or subjective? And more deeply, what does it mean to be a good person, and how do we best pursue that goal?

If we cannot discuss such things, there honestly friend, we might as well not talk at all - because there in lie the most critical and serious questions for human contemplation.

You seem to find nothing valuable in discussions (or arguments) over various points of dogma. Jesus is God, yes he is, no he isn't, etc. etc. I think I agree with you there, at least I agree inasmuch as those issues are address for their own sake, and not as part of a larger discussion, of what it means to be truly, wholly and fully human and what it means to life the "good" life. When those questions are the sub-questions of a larger discussion about life, human being and relationships - then I believe they can potentially have a lot of value.

And I would like to again point out, that even though it is certainly a kind of meta-discussion (a discussion about discussing religion) we are still to an extent having a discussion of religion right now. :)

Religion is central to the belief system of the majority of Earth's inhabitants. A growing problem with Christianity in the United States is that this belief system is encompassing social and poltical beliefs that are outside the tenets of the religion. Furthermore, these beliefs are being fostered and manipulated to support agendas that ultimately violate the teachings of Christ.

The faithful are blind to the fact they are being used, because their manipulators wrap themselves in God and country, and appeal to deep-seated fears and prejudices. They also own the vast majority of media oulets, and are very effective at keeping the public uninformed and misinformed.

The co-opted faithful are good people, but they have been thoroughly indoctrinated and it will be very difficult to challenge their political beliefs without being perceived as also threatening their religion. Beliefs become intertwined, Our task is to expose the works of the manipulators without challenging the core religious belief.

Fortunately, the truth is on our side.

The fact that 75% or so of American VOTERS identify themselves as "Christian" is only cause of alarm because they don't yet know that when they start FOLLOWING Christ, they will be on the road to becoming "Liberals Like Christ".


at see http://www.LiberalsLikeChrist.Org/Christlike .

Just making sure I've got my people straight...

of the Roman Catholic hierarchy in contrast to the light that Jesus meant to bring into the world and who is now dedicated to spreading the message that JESUS was the friend and ally of the poor and the oppressed, not the partner of the rich and the powerful.

I am the one who has found that the Roman Catholic (and Lutheran) churches received tons of money to subsidize their schools and churches and pay the salaries of the clergy, and that may explain why Hitler had no problem enlisting millions of their parishioners to be his "willing executioners", i.e. the ones who actually did Hitler's dirty work, or capturing, torturing, transporting, emprisoning, starving, working, excuting, cremating and /or burying 10 million or so of their fellow men, women and children just because their political leaders told them that such Jews, homosexuals, Poles, handicaps, Jehovah Witnesses and the like deserved to die, and their "spiritual leaders" acted like deaf,dumb and blind mutes.

Remind me, my Roman Catholic friend, what is wrong with me again?

But if I was and it just so happened that I personally found peace, joy and happiness in my Catholic chruch and faith, and the local catholic community in which I participated was a beautiful and joyous thing in my life, would that be ok with you? Again I am not Catholic, but hypothetically let's say I was and all the above was true in my experience. Would that be ok with you?

If your answer is yes, then we have no problem.

If your answer is no, and you feel it is you god given right to keep "evangelizing" me to how wrong I am to find God in a catholic church then we're done talking.

Which shall it be?

Selwynn, who declared just above that The "majority" of "Christians" are terrible people wants to know if I'm :"the guy that posts the hating bash catholic messages".

What I do is UNCOVER the horrendous behavior of clerics (something that Jesus had a very bad habit of doing, until it got him killed!)

I don't even express any hatred about these clerics, but because what is uncovered is such hateful behavior, people accuse ME because I AM THE MESSENGER of being hateful.

Selwynn, on the other hand just calls "The majority of Christians" "terrible people", without providing a shred of evidence to support that charge. Go figure!

I did not say "the majority of christians are terrible people."

I said "the "majority" of "christians" are terrible people."

There is a huge difference. Anyway I just asked a question, and you thoroughly answered it for me, so thank you.

I'm continually impressed with Spong's ability to answer questions correctly without turning off believers.

He clearly believes in a non-personal God. He's almost Deistic. Yet when someone asks him if God answers prayers, he never answers negatively. Instead he focuses on the importance of prayer to the person doing the praying, and the importance of that person's own sense of God, and how these things are extemely meaningful parts of living. It's impressive.

What's your take?

Regards.

Want to take Christianity back from the Pharisees? Here are a few suggestions from your friendly neighborhood infidel:

• Help preserve church-state separation. It doesn't just protect the non-religious from the religious, it also protects the religious from each other. Americans United is one of the best organizations working to protect the first amendment rights of all Americans. Tell your local government you are a Christian but you don't want the ten commandments posted on goverment property or "In God We Trust" posted in public schools. Your faith is between you and your God; you don't need the government telling you or anyone else how to worhip. Remember, this year it's "Under God". Next year it's "Under Jesus". The year after that it's "Under the Protestant Jesus, as described by Max Lucado, all others are heretics who will be burned."
  
• Fight to preserve biology education in public schools. The creationists are not just a bunch of cranks. They are highly organized and they have been successful in watering down or eliminating the teaching of the theory and mechanics of evolution in school districts across America. Creationism, currently disguised as "Intelligent Design", is a danger to education but also an insult to Christian theology. The National Center for Science Education is a good resource for getting involved with your school district and state education department.
  
• Speak up! You can state your opinion without being judgemental or dogmatic. Respond to letters to the editor and opinion pieces by the wingnuts with reasoned, compassionate explanations about how your faith does not condemn homosexuals, how the Bible does not say abortion is murder. Show other Christians that it's OK to read the Bible and think for yourself about what it means, because their pastors are telling them the opposite.
  
• Organize! Vile groups like Focus on the Family are highly organized, well-funded, and media savvy. They are playing to win and no holds are barred. Get together with other Christians, even non-Christians, and talk about your family values.
  
• Pay attention. Evil men know hiding behind the Bible (or Quran, or Torah) is a time-tested strategy for shielding their greed, corruption, and cruelty from public discussion. It works even better than wrapping yourself in the flag. They are counting on other people of faith to rally to their defense whenever a "person of faith" is "attacked". Don't let them fool you!
  

n/t

I recently rediscovered the lord, after a lifetime of atheism.While I am so much more at peace now I do not subscribe to any organised religion and do not forsee that happening.

I do wish to note that ,while you excoriate "modern" christianity it was Emperor Constantine and his Council of Nicaea in the fourth century that first corrupted the teachings of jesus and bestowed some mythic divinity upon him.Christ as messiah was critical tothe functioning of church and state and Jesus never claimed to such high office in his life.It is much easier now for govts to rule the body and catholics to rule the mind thanks to the corruptions of that synod.......

Great Post ... The issue with 'institutional Christianity' relates so closely with what is wrong with our republic and democracy today.
The further from the source of inspiration or ideology the greater the loss of essence of the teaching. Politicians and citizens would do well to read the Bill of Rights, Constitution, and the writings of Thomas Paine and Ben Franklin; and institutional Christians would do well with Emmet Fox's 'Sermon on the Mount'.

I don't mean psycho Jesus-simple evangelistic, I mean more evangelistic than they are today.

Liberal Christians seem to be allergic to witnessing for their faith; Fundamentalists have no such inhibitions and will tell everyone within earshot what God told them to do, and how often to do it.

Also, Liberal Christians should be a litte less nicey-nice with Fundies when calling them on anti-Christian, paleo-pagan, and superstitious beliefs they gussy up as "That Old-Time Religion."

Parsing words over who means what is not going to do anything to reclaim politics OR religion. "This is what I believe, and if you disrespect that, I will Tell the Truth and Shame the Devil and YOU" is a far better way to go.

Defamation, threats and invective are not required. Backbone is.

--bkl

I have no problem with having a backbone, and I'll happily say what I believe to be true. I'll point out why I believe certain points of view of fundamentalists Christians are harmful and not in the spirit of real faith.

But I won't take this attitude like I'm a "soldier" in the "army of God" or that other folks are my "enemy" and I need to go into combat. That's what I heard from the fundamentalist right all my young life. And you don't win by acting just like the folks you disagree with. You win by truly living the alternative.

For those of you who do not hold Christian beliefs, I'm sure you may disagree with this. That is fine, but in the narrative story of Jesus, phrases like "do no return evil with evil, but return evil with good" and "you have heard it was said an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, but I say to you love your enemies, bless those who curse you, to good to those who hate you." and "if someone comes and demands your tunic, give him your cloak as well, if someone demands you walk a mile with him, walk to miles instead, if someone strikes you, turn the other cheek" are attributed to him. And Paul said, "if your enemy hungers, feed him, if he thirsts give him a drink, for in doing so you will heap coals of fire on his head.

I never back away from talking about the joy and peace of my own personal spiritual life, nor back away from taking a stand against attitudes or behaviors of other profession "Christians" that I believe to be unloving and contrary to the key good news message of love and compassion. But I can't and won't become militant or angry, or turn into everything they are.

I won't become a fundamentalist liberal in order to counter fundamentalists Christians. I will just continue to share my own experiences and what they've meant to me, and keep trying my damndest to love other people more each day and act in anger less. Anger and militancy is the tool of the fanatical and the ignorant. Love, wisdom and patience are the tools of those who really have something worth listening to.