Reclaiming Christianity

---

This thread concerns my own religious development, and presents a sweeping criticism of modern, fundamentalist Christianity. Let me start with some disclaimers (feel free to skip them):1. This thread is not an attack on any members of the AfraidtoAsk community2. This thread is only partially responsive to earlier discussions I’ve had on this forum; it’s largely motivated by these discussions, but it’s a tangential offshoot (that’s why I started a new thread!).3. Peace- I haven’t come for blood. 4. This thread does not endorse Christianity as a religion over other religions. No matter what religion you are, it’s all good 5. This thread does not assume that all Christians think alike. For the most part, it presents a critique of one brand of Christianity- fundamentalism/biblical literalism. Some of the criticism also has a broader relevance (I refer to mainstream Christianity when intending a broader criticism- but fundamentalism IS quite mainstream). Some criticism is also implicitly leveled against religious critics.5. You may approach this post with some degree of skepticism, as I myself am a religious skeptic. I cannot say that I truly believe in God as it has been presented to me, but I am moved by the messages of compassion and tolerance that started Christianity. 6. Finally, if against my warnings, you’ve found this thread offensive, I sincerely apologize. If you chose to argue with me, and I hope that you do, I ask only that you base your arguments on the merit of my position instead of my person. I was born and raised a Christian, but I abandoned Christianity years ago. I once believed that Christianity, in all of its many forms, was hopelessly mired in hatred, discrimination, and self-righteous exclusivity. I was wrong; many Christians and Churches (and other religious institutions) are quite benevolent and compassionate, focusing on humane missions and values (even as a secularist- I’m touched by what some Christians title the “healing power of faith”). Nonetheless, I still believe that the core values of Christianity have been hijacked, creating a fundamentally un-Christian body of beliefs in mainstream fundamentalist Christianity. I ask Christians to critically self evaluate their beliefs within the framework of the teachings of Jesus. I point specifically to two interrelated criticisms (the second is the largest part of my argument):1. Much of mainstream Christianity has lost touch with the basic values espoused by Jesus: Compassion, benevolence, tolerance, mercy, and forgiveness. The dominant political voice of Christianity has too often focused on homophobia, religious exclusivity, and other forms of discrimination. Christianity has also been used to evoke an “eye for an eye” retributive mentality in criminal law, and to justify neglecting poor and underprivileged Americans by claiming that “they deserve it, and God helps those who help themselves.” Nowhere did Jesus advocate such heartless retribution, and nowhere did Jesus espouse exclusivity or any sort of hatred. In the case of homophobia, I’m particularly troubled that several isolated and ambiguous lines of the Bible have come to dominate, negate, and overpower entire books of the benevolent and tolerant teachings of Jesus. I find it very difficult to believe that Jesus would have fashioned himself a “gay-basher.” This is where my first point ties into the next point.2. Right-wing Christianity has been beaten and tortured into a political weapon. Using Christianity as a political tool is both a shame and a sham. The political nature of fundamentalist Christianity is most clearly demonstrated by what I title “selective biblical literalism.” In particular, why have self-titled Biblical literalists focused on some lines of the Bible while ignoring contradictory lines, and discarding some of the more bizarre statements in the bible? (I’ve listed some links to websites detailing contradictions- there are many more if you care) Inconsistencies: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.shtml;http://www.webster.sk.ca/greenwich/bible-a.htm(See also Leviticus as a whole; you’ll find that this text is stocked full of references to violence against women. It presents textual justification for Muslim extremist beliefs that self-contradicting fundamentalist Christians seek to discredit)The reason for this inconsistent approach is nakedly political. Selective biblical literalism provides justification for setting one group against another in the political playing field, and also for forming alliances among differently situated groups. It allows people to pursue non-religious goals, including discrimination and sometimes even violence, under the aegis of religion. Examples include historical and contemporary uses of religion to discriminate against women (early and current women’s rights movements were and are attacked by religious “family” groups), ethnic groups (holocaust, slavery, segregation, etc.), sexual groups (homophobia), intellectuals (anti-science and philosophical religious attacks), and political dissidents (recently and historically some religious groups have tied religion to patriotism and the state).Even worse, many Christian fundamentalists have used biblical text to convince their followers that blind and unquestioning faith in such fundamentally non-religious (even anti-religious) goals is pre-requisite to being a good Christian (didn’t Christendom discard such nonsense in the Reformation?). Let me provide an example discussed elsewhere in this forum- The religious right have had a long standing battle with science (and implicitly academia as a whole). The question: Are modern science and religion irreconcilable? Many religious theologians have taken the empirical observations of science and tried to coherently place them within the framework of Christianity. However, the battle still continues. In particular, many Christians have asserted the claim that Christianity is incompatible with the theory of evolution. Strict Creationism, one of evolution’s alternatives, rests upon a literal interpretation of Genesis. Why choose Genesis as a standing point? Does this also imply that snakes are the devil incarnate? Shall we accept that women are formed of the rib of man? Should all of mankind really be punished for the crime of our forefathers (clearly this doesn’t comport with current notions of autonomy and justice). Fundamentalists have chosen some literalism on this point, but have discarded other parts (see also the inconsistencies linked above). Again, I argue that setting religion against evolution is political, not religious. I have two political theories about why fundamentalist sects have staked their claim against science. The first theory I call the “domination theory,” which argues that fundamentalist Christian sects use a distrust of science and academia to control their constituents. Earlier in Christian history, recall that scientists in various fields (physics and astronomy, for instance) were labeled heretics. In retrospect, it’s clear that the medieval Church was stifling rationality in order to preserve its dominant role in the medieval social hierarchy. Clearly, this was a political move, intended not to protect the will of God, but to protect the power of the corrupt church. Modern fundamentalists have followed this example by alienating their followers from science and any other form of education that might lead them to question fundamentalism. This alienation from science and academia strengthens the Church’s control over its followers (when I say Church, I’m referring to several sects). This leads to my second, interrelated theory. I call the second theory “legitimization and alienation theory.” Not surprisingly, fundamentalist distrust of science and intellectualism has also alienated some intellectuals and scientists from Christianity. It wasn’t always this way. Many prominent intellectuals of the past were also quite religious (Descartes, Kant, Kierkegaard, etc- too many to even mention). Who alienated who first? I have no idea, but the fissure is complete; the nation is polarized. This split between the liberal intelligentsia + urbanites and fundamentalist Christians (primarily based in the Bible Belt and “middle America”) is clear on election day. On one side, we have the perpetually red rural, southern, and Midwestern America. On the other side, we have the perpetually blue alliance between urbanites and the Northeastern and West Coast liberal/radical intellectual establishment. This has several effects, all of which are explicitly political. First, by convincing Christians that science and academia are inherently antithetical to religion, fundamentalist Christians are able to legitimize the wholesale denial of ideas from the intellectual establishment (the intellectual establishment refers to predominantly left leaning academics). This includes politically charged ideas about racial equality, poverty, and gender equality that have nothing to do with religion. Therefore, setting up this dichotomy has the effect of discarding unpopular political ideas without the inconvenience of sincere political deliberation. The effect also works in reverse. The intellectual establishment arrogantly buys into the religion-academia dichotomy by concluding that entire religious sects and geographical regions of America are hopeless and stupid. This legitimizes the wholesale denial of any ideas or beliefs from fundamentalist Christians or rural America as a whole. This form of elitism also marginalizes left leaning academics who are so convinced of their own superiority that they can’t bother themselves with genuine, ground-level, political action involving “common” people. That’s the end of my critique. This is the suggestion part of my quasi-essay. It’s short and sweet (unlike the rest of my never-ending drivel). First, Christians should return to the core values of Christianity. Secondly, Christians should always be suspicious of biblical literalism; it’s rarely true literalism, and it’s almost never for biblical (religious) purposes. Finally, the opposition between academia/science and religion is unnecessary and contributes to foolishness on both sides of the fence. We should all discard this opposition and start anew. OK, fire away, my friends

mandude.......that's a lot to read. lol i'll repluy to it after i read it all..lol might take me a few time / few days lol

Yeah, I was a little bit long-winded. Lol, oh well.Oh, for everyone in this forum- you can call me "Chris" (my real name).

What do you mean by fundamentalist?

I hardly consider my denomination fundamentalist, in fact we're quite the opposite. We are a very peaceable denomination with no real outspoken opposition. Politically, we tend to believe not, meaning our political views are kept separate from our religious views, in most cases (except for abortion...its hard to not have a religious issue there). That's how it should be. Secular and religious. I am not, however, saying, do what you want in life and have a separate face for church, no. I feel that once politics and religion mix, it is much like the reaction between Sodium metal (Na) and water (H2O), there is no way around the fact that the reaction will explode.

That was a very interesting essay, Steppenwolf. An interesting thing to note is that the sort of right-wing Christianity that you dislike (as do I) is not usual in the Western world. Where I am, most people have either no religion, or are only vaguely Christian, and the churches, representing only a minority, stress compassion, tolerance, social justice, and the revolutionary nature of Christ's teaching, the tension between the message of Christ and what the world says. (All of which are fully Biblical.)In the U.S., on the other hand, where most people belong to a church, many churches seem to consider themselves part of the Establishment and the status quo and are supporters of them. To me it seems a strange attitude, more like that of the Pharisees that of Jesus.

I don't know if you used it in your critique, but what really makes me mad is when Christians (not all Christians, though) tend to forget the values of a religion in general. Religions are here to teach us moral values (wheather it be by some insane schizophrenic loser or from God) that are generally good. So, people bash Islam because they teach "people to strap bombs to their chests." Which is utterly incorrect and so untrue it's not even funny. Fundamentalist Christians (FC) usually take verses out of the Qur'an saying things that they take literally. It says in the Qur'an to not believe in something unless you know it to be true. So, being literal, I don't have to believe the Qur'an. Because God says so. But... how would I believe in God if I don't believe in the Qur'an? There are certain parts that have a very deep meaning or they are misinterpreted. And FCs usually use this to attack. If Christianity is supposed to teach about love and compassion, then why do FCs believe that they are right and everybody else should go to Hell?

I'll use today as a good example. We have a group in our school called the Teen Advisors (TAs). Although they do not specify it, they are mostly FCs. Jeanetta (a TA) was talking about abstinence and her mistake. She used an example with her ex-boyfriend. She automatically said that she should've known it was a mistake to go out with him because he was not a Christian. That made me so mad it was not even funny. Obviously, she assumed that non-christians are immoral by her statement. Funny part is... me and her get along really well so she knows that I'm Muslim and that I'm nice to her. It seems to me that FCs don't think of the factors involved when they speak.

Ok, so maybe that didn't make any sense or it was irrelevent. HEY! IT's 11:50PM and I am really tired. Sorry for that...

Another reason why I believe organized religion is a mistake.

"saved Christians"? I've never heard that phrase before. Or am I just not understanding a simple thing?

um i think what was meant by that was some say they are but are never saved. ask God into there heart.baptized...extra... um think of it as their pretendign to be a christian for show. that's the best way i can put it..

Being "saved" is like meeting certain requirements as a Christian. Jesus was crucified to save everyone from their sins.

I grew up in church, so I know the whole saved/redemption thing, I think I got confused cuz I've never heard someone claim to be a christian before they're "saved". I've heard some do it who have "fallen away," but not before. Would a "nonsaved" Christian be one who thinks they are because they attend church and are basically good but haven't actually prayed and asked for forgiveness,etc.?

I'm not completely sure. I'll have to ask my friend about the whole thing. But I think one has to be a member of the church and go through certain ceremonies and such to be "saved". In my opinion, if you're a good person then you're "saved"

Saved simply means you've accepted Jesus as your Messiah and believe in him.

Isn't baptism/christening a prerequisite for becoming a "Christian"?

No. One does not have to be baptized to be saved.

Religion is the greatest evil in the world. Religion has been responsible for many of the nastiest wars in history as well as being resonsible for terrorism.Religion is full of irrational beleifs with no evidence that these beleifs are true or whatever and if people don't beleive the same as someone else they get killed. Nazis killed the jews is an example.Its ironic the fact that religion is suposed to bring peace 'n' shit but if religion was abolished by everyone prehaps we would see that peace.

While it is true FUNDAMENTALIST religion has caused terrible wars, you seem to lump everyone into a catergory. You also seem to be a very biggoted person. Go ahead, abolish religion, you'll find that it will solve NOTHING. Name one war in the past 50 years caused PURELY by religion.

(this isn't directed at the post directly above)The way I know it, being saved means realizing you've sinned, asking God for forgiveness(repenting), and afterwards attempting to live as God wants you to. (I realize that's not the same for everyone.) But I've always understood that the prayer itself is key to being saved, but my doctrine doesn't believe baptismal is necessary. Baptismal is a testifying act, saying to the world, "I'm trying to follow God, I'd like you to know about it."Sexpot, do you have a specific doctrine (Baptist, Lutheran,etc.) that you believe and/or were raised in?

Christians r cool, its just the pope n the vatican that have had some major problems in the past 2000 years...no1 else to blame but them..., their "Other religions r blasphemy", " masturbation is wrong", "being homosexual is wrong" statement are a bunch of crap. there is an actual passage in the bible that outright says an act of homosexuality is wrong, but the bible was written by the jews...not christians...so y do they follow the same bible...2 different religions...should have 2 different bibles, otherwise ur pretty much sayin they believe the same shyt. yes i went off on a different subject...probably...im juust venting about how dumb the papacy is...

"y do they have the same Bible"

Christianity is a direct descendant off of Judaism. Jesus was a Jew, remember that. The Old Testament was written by Jews yes...but before the time of Christ. Now, here comes the kicker...the Old Testament foretold Jesus' coming and all the miracles he would perform as well as the end of days. How can you believe in the New Testament without knowing the prophecy of the Old??? You can't, it's like trying to understand Quantum physics with absolutely no study or background.

The Old Testament is a precursor to Christianity...we wouldn't have Christianity if not for the Jews. Again, the Old Testament serves as a base to build a foundation (the doctrine of the New Testament) upon.

Based on your thinking, the Protestants should have a separate Bible, well, the Mormons have tried and failed. It has been proven historically and theologically wrong 33 times. Each of those times it's been rewritten to suit the "new-found knowledge". BTW, and this is off-topic, the founder of Mormonism, I am completely drawing a blank on his name :scream_cat: :confused:, has been proven, through historical documentation to be crazy.

Anyway, back to the original topic...

Jews, Muslims, and Christians = Same God, different views of Jesus, the Messiah, and Muhammed.