RoR: Forum

You cannot say Capill is indicative of Christianity anymore than you can say Peron is indicative of Libertariansim. Take your fatwa somewhere else, and spare us the collective judgment.

Post 1

Tuesday, July 19, 2005 - 12:00am

In light of the Roman Catholic abuses, the Mormon and Amish controversies et al., I think there isn't a lot about Christianity that would make it look good.

get stuffed, Ruth, quite frankly. Christianity is and always will be a poison on the land and in the hearts and minds of gullible individuals everywhere. Take it to the dissent, mystic.

Post 2

Tuesday, July 19, 2005 - 12:05am

Ruth,

Please learn to read. The reference was not to Christianity, some forms of which amount to no more than a bit of craziness in an otherwise commendable life, but to Christianism - forcing others, whether little girls or grown citizens, to submit to the will of "Godly men" like Mr Capill and his "Christian Heritage Party."

Post 3

Tuesday, July 19, 2005 - 6:24am

Adam, I'm glad you're drawing a distinction among various kinds of Christians. I find that many self-identified Christians loathe the kind of "Christianism" you describe. That's why, for connotative usefulness, I prefer to describe the nutcases as "Christian fundamentalists," or "Calvinists"--akin to Muslim fundamentalists or "Islamists." The fundamentalist versions of most religions produce mindless True Believers. But not all adherents of a particular philosophy or religion are fundamentalists, by any means.

For example, some self-styled modern "Christians," in the tradition of Norman Vincent Peale, Robert Schuller and Joel Osteen, seem to me to be warmed-over Enlightenment-era deists. They don't interpret the Bible literally, but seem to treat it as filled with metaphors, which they translate into a generally benevolent, individualist code of ethics. In any case, they couldn't be farther removed from the mindset of Augustine, Calvin and the Puritans. They have selectively, creatively reinterpreted "Christianity" to be compatible even with many Enlightenment-modernist premises, including individualism, self-esteem, wealth, seeking personal happiness on earth, etc. Certainly they do so in a contradictory context; but while all still pay lip service to "faith," they still exhort their audiences to live by their "God-given" reason.

It's very hard to generalize about an "ism" divided into so many sects whose premises and conclusions diverge so diametrically. Which is why I insist that we judge individuals as individuals, and try to understand what they uniquely believe, rather than tarring them with the broad brush of some generic label. Perhaps that is what Ruth is trying to encourage, and if so, I agree with her.

Post 4

Tuesday, July 19, 2005 - 7:04am

Robert,

You seem to be missing the distinction between fundamentalism - a religious doctrine that may be equally compatible with enlightenment-style tolerance of others' lives and with political Christianism - with Christianism itself, where Christianism is the political doctrine that Christians are entitled to use political force to impose their will on non-believers and other non-Christians.

I have no problem with fundamentalists of any religion peacefully following their doctrines, as long as they leave me unmolested and able to live my life according to my own judgement. I do have a big problem with political religionists - Islamists, Christianists and so on - forcibly imposing their will on the rest of us.

Let's keep that distinction clear.

Post 5

Tuesday, July 19, 2005 - 9:29am

Here, let the local heretic throw down on this one:

Original Sin is a fucked-up, mistaken principle. It has absolutely nothing to do with the teachings of Jesus Christ, period, end of story. You could write book after book about why it even arrived in the first place, but in the end it comes down to basics:

1.Unintentional translation/interpretation errors
2. Intentional translation/interpretation errors

...Option number 2 being the most useful. "Original Sin" is something that is incredibly easy and fun to turn into mincemeat. Many Christians and other, er, what you folks around here might call "religionists" do it on a regular basis. Let's just leave it to say that Jesus, like any decent humanitarian, prophet, or other variety of decent thinker, never accepted, nor taught the principle that man is "evil" by nature, mainly because aside from it just being bullshit, it is not pragmatic, although, like any good guilt trip, you can get a lot of mileage out of it.

"Evil" is not a thing. It is the result of hateful thoughts.

Fundamentalists, and those who are fond of expeditious exit strategies often use "sin," "evil," etc. as a dodge for just being hateful fuckheads, because there are those who will buy it, and it can even make them feel better. The BTK killer had a picture of a gargoyle thing. It is also a wonderful manipulation tool.

There is an entire population of normal, rational Christian folks out there (note: I am not a Christian) that know all about this theological error. They do not believe in Original Sin, selective salvation, or any of this other nastiness.

Fundamental Christianity has no remorse about using this kind of thing on its own kind, as I have written about elsewhere. A very sweet version of this: I happen to be working with a group called The Christian Alliance for Progress (I am a Unitarian Universalist, and I can work with this movement because I am in-line with the actual non-fucked-with teachings of Jesus., and attend a church that welcomes Christians along with many others). www.christianalliance.org . This is a very strong little group that has had enough of Fundamentalism, and we launched about 3 weeks ago- we are out to put a stop to all this hating and other nonsense coming from the religious right. It's obviously getting them unhappy- here's a letter that Jerry Falwell sent to his congregation about us: http://www.falwell.com/?a=p&content=1103229198 Feel free to behold his shittiness. This resulted in a giant influx of hate mail to our site.

So, really, this isn't a standard of Christianity. It's about hateful people, it's about Fundamentalists. Don't throw out babies with dirty bathwater.

Post 6

Tuesday, July 19, 2005 - 9:44am

Adam-

Fundamentalism is not ever compatible with the freedoms of others, unless the practicioners are living in a vacuum. There is always someone in the target sites. christian fundamentalists abhore homosexuals, for instance. They don't have to go to the political forum to do their hating. Unfortunately, they tend to go full spectrum. If they are not politically active, they support only their own kind wherever possible. Fundamentalism can sometimes be difficult to grasp because it is so repugnant and diametric to any sane way of thinking. You're an atheist. To them, that means you are evil, you are one of Satan's little playthings. It means that you are contributing to the downward spiral of morals in the country. In your case, they would find you too far in your Godlessness to be re-educated. You are a "heretic", you knowingly scorn God's Word<tm>. Fundamentalists are in favor of establishing a state religion. Correction: in their view, we already have that, just look at a dollar bill- the job of The Faithful is to put things right again.

They just don't have the resources to come after you yet, but they surely would. I'm a church-goer, and they think I'm some kind of sicko hippie faggot loving pagan, which, I guess, I am to a certain extent. :)

(Edited by Rich Engle on 7/19, 2:38pm)

Post 7

Tuesday, July 19, 2005 - 5:36pm

Sorry, but the doctrine of Original Sin is the 'reason for being' of Christianity - it is why the legend of the cross, and the rising from the grave... without that odiest doctrine, there would be no cause for the religion... so, to have Christians say they not believe in Original Sin is to be hypocritical - they have no choice... now, if they wish to believe in a socalled 'Jesus of Love', so be it - but that is not Christianity, and to call it that is a sham...

Post 8

Wednesday, July 20, 2005 - 10:31am

Robert,

That is far from the fact. Original Sin is not indigenous to Christianity, it does not exist in the teachings of Jesus Christ. On the other hand, the teachings of Christ have certainly been twisted into supporting that ugly concept. Original Sin can be tracked historically, just as the origins of Christianity can. Christ, in fact, did not even appear to be a deist, but was more in line with eastern systems of thought like Taoism. Christianity is about the possibility of change, transformation, much like Buddhism is, but without some of the pessimism found in Buddhism.

If you want to understand how Christianity got to where it's at, a good place to start is by studying the emperor Constantine, and how he "standardized" Christianity (and why).

Principles that you might consider a priori to Christianity are not. This would include core elements like the Trinity itself, which many who follow Christianity do not recognize at all.

I am not a Christian, but simply someone that has studied it enough along with many other religions to know that it is primarily about two things- a moral code based on tolerance, kindness, and acceptance, and a system of thought with the aim of transformation, or self-evolution. All the things about guilt, evil, hell, and so forth are simply nonsense. They are vehicles for control, like other vehicles.

(Edited by Rich Engle on 7/20, 10:42am)

Post 9

Wednesday, July 20, 2005 - 10:33am

*sigh* Buddhism isn't pessimistic.

Sarah

Post 10

Wednesday, July 20, 2005 - 12:52pm

Sarah-

It's a beautiful way of thought. I meant something very mild in that, in terms of how it is sometimes perceived, how the writing is looked at. There's a certain tone people get off of it in terms of how they describe transformation, in terms of ridding oneself of the material. Sometimes the writing shows a certain sadness.

Post 11

Wednesday, July 20, 2005 - 1:17pm

Rich,

Buddhism is an oft misunderstood religion. It developed as a reaction to the Hindu caste system and said that anyone could escape samsara (the cycle of rebirth), that it was an individual effort instead of a birthright. I don't think that's pessimistic.

People put way too much emphasis on Buddhism and material possessions. There are no strict guides to "transformation." Part of what it took from Hinduism was the strong emphasis on differences in individual preferences, i.e. one person is scholarly and another is creative or whatever. So what developed was people who wanted to live a monastic life could do so and reach the same end as people who wanted to own a business. Even in the more dogmatic sects that developed there was none of the, "Those Theravada Buddhists will never reach enlightenment but we Mahayana Buddhists will."

There are different interpretations regarding anatta (no-self) and I suppose you could view certain stronger interpretations as pessimistic if they reach the absolute-lack-of-human-nature type arguments of today, but that doesn't account for all interpretations.

Sarah

Post 12

Thursday, July 21, 2005 - 9:02am

Sarah-

Agree.

Thursday, July 21, 2005 - 9:35am

*double take*

Rich,

What sort of trickery is this? There's not supposed to be any agreement on an internet forum. You must be plotting something. I'm on to you, bub.

Sarah

Post 14

Thursday, July 21, 2005 - 11:10am