What I believe
Dec. 20th, 2007 01:07 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
toothycatWell, part of it at least, because some people are interested.
It's worth noting that I don't speak for Serge here - we may share a LJ (because we only really use it to read other peoples' posts ;) and we may be married, but we aren't linked at the mind ;) Also, my beliefs have changed quite a bit over the years and I don't promise I won't change my mind on some things or the way I said them tomorrow.
This (in italics) is the Apostles' Creed, anyway, one of the earliest creeds of Christianity. I'm going to start with it but probably not end - I'm posting this late at night, and religion and belief are complicated, never mind the tangles my head can get into. There will probably be more, depending on what questions get asked.
I believe in God, the Father Almighty, creator of heaven and earth.
I believe in a Creator, who made the universe. I am, among many other things, an evolutionary biologist who is currently masquerading as a geneticist; I think God created everything and that evolution is the tool he used to do it, the brush with which he painted the world. I don't believe that is incompatible with Genesis, nor do I think that belief in a literal Creation is unChristian or in any way incompatible with Christianity (it does annoy me when non-Christians become convinced that one has to leave one's brain at the door when one enters a church).
I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord.
So yeah, the Trinity. I suppose I think of the Trinity in a very vague and fuzzy way. I am not only a scientist; in fact, first and foremost, although I think I tend to logical and rational thinking (at least, I try to) I would identify myself as a storyteller before I identify as a scientist. As such, I recognise that not everything is divisible or explainable in the current human languages and vocabulary. Possibly a good analogy for the Trinity is the three phases of water; ice, liquid, steam. They're all water, but different aspects. Anyway, I believe that there is one God and three persons in the Trinity, and I recognise that there are some things beyond my current comprehension. I'm willing to accept the Trinity on faith.
He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary.
Was Jesus born of a virgin? Does it matter if he was the product of rape or fornication? I don't think (as I understand Catholics do) that Mary was sinless. However, if you're going to swallow the idea that God is all powerful and made the universe, is it really so hard to believe that he could cause a virgin to be pregnant? There are much harder things in Christianity to handle than that, after all. So yes, I do believe he was born of a virgin, and then obviously God (the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Trinity) would have had a hand in it.
He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried. He descended to the dead. On the third day He rose again.
The subject of atonement is never an easy one to explain. There are so many explanations and I have met people who insist that unless you accept their personal choice (usually penal substitutionary atonement, for those who are interested), you're not a proper Christian. That kind of attitude annoys me.
To go back to the beginning, I believe that every person born gets things wrong (except Jesus). We tend to stray, just like an apple, left to its own devices with nothing to support it, tends to fall. My view is that God wants us all to be with him; he loves us and longs for us to know him. However, because we have done wrong things (of our own free will, I should add), we cannot exist in the same place as God. His goodness and holiness and our wrongness or sinfulness literally cannot co-exist, like shadows can't exist when a dazzling light illuminates every corner of a room.
The entire Old Testament consists of God making covenants with his people, which they then broke. Those covenants - well, that covenant; it gets restated but it's pretty much the same one - consist of a promise on the part of Israel, God's people, to obey God's laws, and on God's part to forgive their sins and provide them with the promised land and what they need to survive - more, every good thing. God does actually enjoy giving us good things. (Note: I'm not a theologian. I could be getting this vastly wrong, but it's my understanding and a quick and probably somewhat flawed summary). The Israelites couldn't keep their covenant, and went through cycles of disobeying, being warned, being punished (which was also written into the covenant) and repenting and being rescued.
The new covenant is one where God upholds both sides, and because he is perfect, the covenant remains unbroken. He provides the reward, and he also provides the perfect life and obedience required to claim it. Because Jesus died - whatever the exact theological mechanism - we are permitted to claim his perfect life as ours, and so we receive his reward. We can then be in God's presence after death, because our sin has been removed.
Hell's not mentioned in the creed, but it did come up in previous conversations, so here's what I think. If someone chooses not to let God get rid of their sin (via Jesus), then God has no choice but to let them exist apart from him. I think that is hell; not a place of punishment as such but a place of being apart from God, who is the source and centre of everything that exists.
He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
Jesus was perfect himself, and thus did not remain damned. Like I say, I don't pretend to understand how it all works.
He will come again to judge the living and the dead.
As it says. I have no idea when this will be.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the Holy Catholic Church, the communion of Saints, the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting.
Whoo, lots there. I've already mentioned the Spirit. The 'holy catholic church' means the worldwide church, not that part of it that is the Roman Catholic church, although they are a part of that worldwide church. I think God is rather less bothered by denominational divides than we (Christian) like to think. I'm sure he'd rather have heartfelt devotion than absolute doctrinal correctness. (Do I get excommunicated now? ;).
The communion of saints, as I understand it, means that we're part of the family of believers ('saints' means Christians here, and makes no inferences about how holy an individual Christian is). As such, I should consider every Christian a part of my family. Even the ones I disagree violently with ^^;;
The resurrection of the body is interesting. I actually don't believe in souls - well, rather, I think it's an unnecessary term. We are built out of meat, our minds reside in the yellowish matter that is our brain. So to me it makes sense that it's our bodies that get resurrected, because without them, we are not ourselves. Mind and body are irrevocably linked. I don't think people born with disabilities will be resurrected with those disabilities; I don't know how it works. But I do believe that, in heaven, we will have bodies. And hopefully there will be jaffa cakes too ;)
Life everlasting is reasonably clear, but I should say that I have absolutely no idea what it will be like - except that it will be everything earthly life should be but isn't quite. Everything will be clearer, richer, more satisfying, more real. I love the accounts of heaven in Revelations, and I'm looking forward to finding out what it will be like, but I have no idea what it will actually be. I think - I suspect - that there will be paper and pencils there for me, though :)
----
That's it for the Creed. Here's a chunk of conversation from Rob's LJ that may (or may not) be of interest. Rob's parts are in italics.
I'd be interested to know what you think happens to non Christians who haven't heard the gospel
As far as I understand it, they are judged on their lives as they are. God knows what their response would be had they heard, and their lives should bear that out. I believe that is supported in the Bible, although I can't remember where and I could be wrong.
those who hear it and dismiss it
Depends on why. If all they hear/see is Jack Chick, I can't see God blaming them! ^^;;
and those who actively reject it.
See above. I honestly don't think we can tell what a person's eternal fate is. That doesn't mean I think Christians shouldn't tell people about Jesus; actively knowing him, in my opinion, is better than not.
....
Do you think that the only method God has of preventing people going to hell is if those people choose to become Christians?
I think that the only way to God is through Jesus. I don't think that that necessarily limits people to a particular set of rules or a brand of Christianity, but I would of course be very wary of recommending anything other than following Jesis (since that's the only thing I know that's guaranteed to work). I don't think, for example, that a Muslim who has no knowledge of Christ and who sincerely tried to follow Allah would necessarily be damned, and if he is saved, then it must be through Jesus somehow, since he is the only name by which men may be saved. But if I met that Muslim and he asked me what I would recommend, I would recommend Christianity every time (roughly speaking - obviously more thought and consideration would go into it ;).
----
Once, a friend asked Serge what Christianity was about, and he said, 'knowing Jesus'. I don't think I have the kind of relationship with Jesus that, say, Paul the Apostle did. I'd like to, but I don't. I do think that Serge's is a good, brief explanation. Like I said, I don't think correct doctrine is the be-all and end-all; if it were, people with limited mental faculties would be excluded, and that can't be the case. So I do think it boils down to trusting God.
That, for me, is a gift. I was brought up as a Christian, I made the commitment when I was 4 and I was baptised when I was about 11, I think. I have never doubted God's existence, (lots of other things, but never his existence). I did spend several weeks thinking that I couldn't be a Christian, because I couldn't see any sign of God in my life. I thought about it, and came to the conclusion that if, as I believed, God existed, and he was the God of the Bible, then I must be a Christian because I had committed myself to following him and I meant it. And for everything I said above, for all my woolly reasoning and the arguments that may be brought to bear, above all else I trust in God and I believe he can and will do the things he has promised.
I'm going to finish with a fantastic quote that I love to bits. "Man's chief purpose is to glorify God and enjoy him forever." I think (after a swift google) it's from the Westminster Shorter Catechism. I strive to do both of those.
Any questions, go ahead. I don't promise to be able to answer them, satisfactorily or not. I don't have enough time to handle large online conversations (note that I am posting this at 1:14 in the morning and I'm getting up at 5:45). But I can try :)
It's worth noting that I don't speak for Serge here - we may share a LJ (because we only really use it to read other peoples' posts ;) and we may be married, but we aren't linked at the mind ;) Also, my beliefs have changed quite a bit over the years and I don't promise I won't change my mind on some things or the way I said them tomorrow.
This (in italics) is the Apostles' Creed, anyway, one of the earliest creeds of Christianity. I'm going to start with it but probably not end - I'm posting this late at night, and religion and belief are complicated, never mind the tangles my head can get into. There will probably be more, depending on what questions get asked.
I believe in God, the Father Almighty, creator of heaven and earth.
I believe in a Creator, who made the universe. I am, among many other things, an evolutionary biologist who is currently masquerading as a geneticist; I think God created everything and that evolution is the tool he used to do it, the brush with which he painted the world. I don't believe that is incompatible with Genesis, nor do I think that belief in a literal Creation is unChristian or in any way incompatible with Christianity (it does annoy me when non-Christians become convinced that one has to leave one's brain at the door when one enters a church).
I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord.
So yeah, the Trinity. I suppose I think of the Trinity in a very vague and fuzzy way. I am not only a scientist; in fact, first and foremost, although I think I tend to logical and rational thinking (at least, I try to) I would identify myself as a storyteller before I identify as a scientist. As such, I recognise that not everything is divisible or explainable in the current human languages and vocabulary. Possibly a good analogy for the Trinity is the three phases of water; ice, liquid, steam. They're all water, but different aspects. Anyway, I believe that there is one God and three persons in the Trinity, and I recognise that there are some things beyond my current comprehension. I'm willing to accept the Trinity on faith.
He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary.
Was Jesus born of a virgin? Does it matter if he was the product of rape or fornication? I don't think (as I understand Catholics do) that Mary was sinless. However, if you're going to swallow the idea that God is all powerful and made the universe, is it really so hard to believe that he could cause a virgin to be pregnant? There are much harder things in Christianity to handle than that, after all. So yes, I do believe he was born of a virgin, and then obviously God (the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Trinity) would have had a hand in it.
He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried. He descended to the dead. On the third day He rose again.
The subject of atonement is never an easy one to explain. There are so many explanations and I have met people who insist that unless you accept their personal choice (usually penal substitutionary atonement, for those who are interested), you're not a proper Christian. That kind of attitude annoys me.
To go back to the beginning, I believe that every person born gets things wrong (except Jesus). We tend to stray, just like an apple, left to its own devices with nothing to support it, tends to fall. My view is that God wants us all to be with him; he loves us and longs for us to know him. However, because we have done wrong things (of our own free will, I should add), we cannot exist in the same place as God. His goodness and holiness and our wrongness or sinfulness literally cannot co-exist, like shadows can't exist when a dazzling light illuminates every corner of a room.
The entire Old Testament consists of God making covenants with his people, which they then broke. Those covenants - well, that covenant; it gets restated but it's pretty much the same one - consist of a promise on the part of Israel, God's people, to obey God's laws, and on God's part to forgive their sins and provide them with the promised land and what they need to survive - more, every good thing. God does actually enjoy giving us good things. (Note: I'm not a theologian. I could be getting this vastly wrong, but it's my understanding and a quick and probably somewhat flawed summary). The Israelites couldn't keep their covenant, and went through cycles of disobeying, being warned, being punished (which was also written into the covenant) and repenting and being rescued.
The new covenant is one where God upholds both sides, and because he is perfect, the covenant remains unbroken. He provides the reward, and he also provides the perfect life and obedience required to claim it. Because Jesus died - whatever the exact theological mechanism - we are permitted to claim his perfect life as ours, and so we receive his reward. We can then be in God's presence after death, because our sin has been removed.
Hell's not mentioned in the creed, but it did come up in previous conversations, so here's what I think. If someone chooses not to let God get rid of their sin (via Jesus), then God has no choice but to let them exist apart from him. I think that is hell; not a place of punishment as such but a place of being apart from God, who is the source and centre of everything that exists.
He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
Jesus was perfect himself, and thus did not remain damned. Like I say, I don't pretend to understand how it all works.
He will come again to judge the living and the dead.
As it says. I have no idea when this will be.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the Holy Catholic Church, the communion of Saints, the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting.
Whoo, lots there. I've already mentioned the Spirit. The 'holy catholic church' means the worldwide church, not that part of it that is the Roman Catholic church, although they are a part of that worldwide church. I think God is rather less bothered by denominational divides than we (Christian) like to think. I'm sure he'd rather have heartfelt devotion than absolute doctrinal correctness. (Do I get excommunicated now? ;).
The communion of saints, as I understand it, means that we're part of the family of believers ('saints' means Christians here, and makes no inferences about how holy an individual Christian is). As such, I should consider every Christian a part of my family. Even the ones I disagree violently with ^^;;
The resurrection of the body is interesting. I actually don't believe in souls - well, rather, I think it's an unnecessary term. We are built out of meat, our minds reside in the yellowish matter that is our brain. So to me it makes sense that it's our bodies that get resurrected, because without them, we are not ourselves. Mind and body are irrevocably linked. I don't think people born with disabilities will be resurrected with those disabilities; I don't know how it works. But I do believe that, in heaven, we will have bodies. And hopefully there will be jaffa cakes too ;)
Life everlasting is reasonably clear, but I should say that I have absolutely no idea what it will be like - except that it will be everything earthly life should be but isn't quite. Everything will be clearer, richer, more satisfying, more real. I love the accounts of heaven in Revelations, and I'm looking forward to finding out what it will be like, but I have no idea what it will actually be. I think - I suspect - that there will be paper and pencils there for me, though :)
----
That's it for the Creed. Here's a chunk of conversation from Rob's LJ that may (or may not) be of interest. Rob's parts are in italics.
I'd be interested to know what you think happens to non Christians who haven't heard the gospel
As far as I understand it, they are judged on their lives as they are. God knows what their response would be had they heard, and their lives should bear that out. I believe that is supported in the Bible, although I can't remember where and I could be wrong.
those who hear it and dismiss it
Depends on why. If all they hear/see is Jack Chick, I can't see God blaming them! ^^;;
and those who actively reject it.
See above. I honestly don't think we can tell what a person's eternal fate is. That doesn't mean I think Christians shouldn't tell people about Jesus; actively knowing him, in my opinion, is better than not.
....
Do you think that the only method God has of preventing people going to hell is if those people choose to become Christians?
I think that the only way to God is through Jesus. I don't think that that necessarily limits people to a particular set of rules or a brand of Christianity, but I would of course be very wary of recommending anything other than following Jesis (since that's the only thing I know that's guaranteed to work). I don't think, for example, that a Muslim who has no knowledge of Christ and who sincerely tried to follow Allah would necessarily be damned, and if he is saved, then it must be through Jesus somehow, since he is the only name by which men may be saved. But if I met that Muslim and he asked me what I would recommend, I would recommend Christianity every time (roughly speaking - obviously more thought and consideration would go into it ;).
----
Once, a friend asked Serge what Christianity was about, and he said, 'knowing Jesus'. I don't think I have the kind of relationship with Jesus that, say, Paul the Apostle did. I'd like to, but I don't. I do think that Serge's is a good, brief explanation. Like I said, I don't think correct doctrine is the be-all and end-all; if it were, people with limited mental faculties would be excluded, and that can't be the case. So I do think it boils down to trusting God.
That, for me, is a gift. I was brought up as a Christian, I made the commitment when I was 4 and I was baptised when I was about 11, I think. I have never doubted God's existence, (lots of other things, but never his existence). I did spend several weeks thinking that I couldn't be a Christian, because I couldn't see any sign of God in my life. I thought about it, and came to the conclusion that if, as I believed, God existed, and he was the God of the Bible, then I must be a Christian because I had committed myself to following him and I meant it. And for everything I said above, for all my woolly reasoning and the arguments that may be brought to bear, above all else I trust in God and I believe he can and will do the things he has promised.
I'm going to finish with a fantastic quote that I love to bits. "Man's chief purpose is to glorify God and enjoy him forever." I think (after a swift google) it's from the Westminster Shorter Catechism. I strive to do both of those.
Any questions, go ahead. I don't promise to be able to answer them, satisfactorily or not. I don't have enough time to handle large online conversations (note that I am posting this at 1:14 in the morning and I'm getting up at 5:45). But I can try :)
no subject
Date: 2008-01-09 04:44 pm (UTC)I am taking offence because my wife has been publically accused of doing something (ramming her religion down someone else's throat) that she has not, in fact, done. What is even more galling is the way the accusations take precisely the form of the thing my wife is accused of doing. Religion does not come into it - I would have felt just the same way if the first post in this thread had been about garden gnomes.
I will start by saying that I don't think you *do* get the minority thing
I immigrated from Russia aged nine with no knowledge of English. Whatever privileges I may have, I fought for them and won them. This, however, is not relevant to the issue.
Secondly, my view on privacy when it comes to the internet is that there is none. Public LJ is not your living room, it's public. Likewise, a public LJ entry is not confined to "your" space, it's public information.
My web space is not a public space, in the sense of a sign in the street or a city park. It is my space, like my house and garden. Parts of it, like LJ, are like rented property, but that doesn't make them any less mine to control.
Now, like my house and garden, I do things to my LJ that are directly visible to passers-by, and I may do things that passers-by have to take some action in order to observe, like maybe walk through into my walled garden or open an LJ cut. I can also lock things up inside my house, and lock up entries in LJ. I can post signs visible from the street that warn people what will happen if they come inside.
Now, you appear to me to be saying that if someone walks into my garden and takes offence at, say, a garden gnome I have put there, what I have actually done is "rammed" that gnome "down their throats", and it is perfectly reasonable for them to stand there in my garden and repeatedly tell me so until I apologise and remove it; and also that my garden should be completely bare, because anything I might like to put in it might offend someone that comes in, and I should keep my garden gnomes inside the house under lock and key; whereas I really do not see that: it is not the front wall of the house where all the passers-by can see, it is the garden, which, although not locked, is still no less my own space. It is the passer-by's choice to come in and look.
It is your religion
As far as I am concerned, religion is not the issue here. The issue is whether writing whatever I like in my own livejournal, religious or not, equates to ramming that thing down other people's throats. I do not see that it does. If anything did, that would be posting my opinions in other people's livejournals.
no subject
Date: 2008-01-09 09:07 pm (UTC)It doesn't look like there can be a productive outcome to further conversation between us on this subject.
If our livejournal offends you, I humbly suggest not reading it any more.
no subject
Date: 2008-01-10 09:02 pm (UTC)You also say in your userinfo:
I'm completely with you on the second bit, and I don't like to see you or anyone else getting attacked in their own LJ. I think that the
(For the record, I'm an atheist, previously a non-Christian theist :-) )
no subject
Date: 2008-01-10 10:23 pm (UTC)Huh? I don't find your livejournal offensive, so don't feel the need to stop reading it.
You are the one who was offended enough by our livejournal to come here and post false accusations about my wife ramming her religion down your throat. You have STILL not explained why you made the choice to read the post under the cut, why you think your making this choice somehow equates to us "ramming" that post "down your throat", or what you are still doing here if you find the whole matter so offensive and oppressive.
no subject
Date: 2008-01-11 12:47 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-01-11 11:37 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-01-11 11:58 am (UTC)Is there anyone you've found who sees this the same way as you? If not perhaps you should stop for a moment and think why that is. Is it that things are terribly stacked against you here because only
You've taken things to the level now where people are starting IRL to say they feel ashamed to be associated with atheism (however technically wrong such a statement may be) because of the way you're acting. If you're just going to continue ignoring what they're saying and attacking them for no reason then please please stop. It would be nice though if you'd listen and reply to some of the people here like
no subject
Date: 2008-01-12 12:39 am (UTC)Er, except when I told her to cry me a river and get some new friends, of course. I'm afraid my annoyance got the better of me at that stage.
I think we've about reached the limits of the debate now, and our next move should be to deploy the lolcat image macros.
no subject
Date: 2008-01-11 07:49 pm (UTC)Those are intended for emphasis. And yes, I am his wife (I was very amused to be described as a trophy wife, by the way ;) Do I get to have a trophy husband if we move to Russia?).
And I notice you can't be bothered with the other branch of the thread now you've realised you can't trump me with your oh-so-carefully elided Terrible Life Experiences.
I thought you'd both decided that trying to out-"I've had a terrible-life" each other was a bad idea? But I lost track of that, LJ is a terrible medium for debating.
I'd be curious to know why experiencing difficulties being a (Caucasian) foreign child brought to England (knowing you weren't going back home, ever) - does not compare to being a (Caucasian) foreigner in Spain. Do the Spanish tend to overt racism more than the English? (That sounds terrible, but it's not meant to be so. I don't think I've ever been to Spain).
If you read back, you'll find that your wife came to a perfectly satisfactory resolution of the question some time ago.
I did? I was actually reading your debate with Serge with some interest. My one and only question is why you read the post in the first place knowing you would disagree with it.
And that is because even when I am dealing with insane belief systems, I am still perfectly willing to be polite to people who are not aggressive and unpleasant to me.
I'm sorry, but you didn't come across as being polite during your debate with me. Not terribly rude, as such, but brusque and dismissive. It's quite possible to disagree violently and be exceedingly polite about it, and I know you are a good writer with an excellent grasp of how to use words, so I was assuming you meant the tone in which you were writing. If I'm wrong there, I'm sorry - I know it's difficult to convey feeling in a text-only medium, and people's points of view on what is rude vary hugely. I've debated with a very nice guy on Usenet who would descend into really quite pointed rudeness when he violently disagreed with his opponent, and he just didn't see how he was being rude.
But this has turned into a testosterone war for you, hasn't it?
I don't think it has..
It's about the principle of making me back down, now.
I think all Serge wanted was, like me, to understand why you read the post.
You have never acknowledged for a moment that it is in any way possible *you* have given *me* offence;
I did. I don't know if Serge has offended you in the argument, like I said, I lost track. But the original post which offended you was mine, and I've acknowledged that I understand it offended you and I am sorry it did so. I said that ages ago, before Christmas.
it is on you to either compromise - as your wife had the wisdom to do - or walk away from the argument.
I didn't compromise as such. I recognise that we have differing viewpoints. I'm more than happy for you to have the right to express your viewpoint, and if I didn't want you here, you'd have been banned by now. I'm a little confused as to (a) why the same courtesy you ask for in your profile ("I post stuff which is personal to me, and if you want to have a moral maze debate about the content and/or make judgements about what I "ought" to be doing, do it in your own webspace.") cannot be extended to me, and (b) why you read the post in the first place, but since the argument just keeps spiralling without any satisfactory resolution, I'm OK to leave it if you are ^^
no subject
Date: 2008-01-10 09:20 am (UTC)It is precisely the fact that I am finally winning it that gives me the gall to say "hang in there and you will prevail".
I refuse to be drawn into a "my life was worse than yours" showdown, since I feel that "look how bad it was, see me not whinge" is just as bad as using my position as an emotional crutch to lean on and batter other people with used to be.
I will concede that I don't know what it's like to be you, but ONLY if you concede that you have no clue what it was like to be me.
no subject
Date: 2008-01-11 02:03 pm (UTC)Look, be civil. There's nothing evident about it; you have a strongly held belief that it is the case, which you're entitled to. Please treat the other people here like sensible human beings and respect their right to have opinions with which you disagree.
Actually, it looks like it was you who brought minority status (nationality, sexuality) up first, a couple of times. He only mentioned it in response to your directly saying he'd never been in the position of being in a minority.
no subject
Date: 2008-01-10 09:51 am (UTC)there is such a thing as privilege you don't realise you have. I learnt a lot about that when I spent a year being hated simply for not being Spanish, while I lived in Madrid.
But here you say
You're misinterpreting what I mean by privilege. The language and culture barrier, the xenophobia problem, is not the same thing as the privilege gap.
So you learnt about privilege when you were English in Spain, but
(Actually, I think it's very obvious
no subject
Date: 2008-01-10 10:04 am (UTC)Were they the same kind of direct and rational complaints you're making on this thread?
no subject
Date: 2008-01-10 10:09 am (UTC)Those were my thoughts exactly.
no subject
Date: 2008-01-13 01:09 am (UTC)You don't like what is being said? Then exercise your right as a free human being and DON'T READ IT! You complain about it being rammed down your throat? It was behind a cut with a huge disclaimer attached to it. You certainly go out of your way to be offended, don’t you?
You are coming across as the very thing you are trying (and failing) to argue against. Your attitude is one of complete intolerance and you are slamming and insulting people who are (supposedly) friends of yours based on their religious beliefs. This is representative of the very worst type of religious intolerance. Yes, Christianity, especially the Catholic Church, has a poor track record when it comes to accepting other ways of life. But you know what? Most of that is in the past and by and large people get over it. I would suggest you do likewise but first you would have to get over yourself and that would appear to be a task of the Herculean type.
Reading through your comments I can only assume one of two things.
1. You are deliberately going out of your way to pick a fight and upset as many people as possible, which makes you the lowest form of life on the Internet. And believe me, I deal with thousands of such people on a daily basis. I know what I'm talking about.
2. You genuinely believe everything you are saying. Dear God I pity you. I mentioned God there. Hope that doesn't offend or make you feel subjugated or oppressed. Not my intention.
So what else? My own religious views are rather private and you are the last person I would dream of sharing them with. However I will state this; the Christian community is one that is, at its very core, about helping others, forgiveness, and generally being a good human being. What is so wrong about that? No! Stop! Don't bring any of the bullshit into this. What is wrong about the core values mentioned? Yes, there are flaws, there are mistakes. But when is there not? You think Christianity is alone in this? Islam preaches love and peace and yet people twist its meanings to justify acts of atrocity the equal of any in the Christian world. That does not make Islam evil by any means. The Christian community is made up of humans. Humans are flawed. Some have more flaws than others.
You mentioned you were bisexual. Well done. No, seriously, have a medal. That makes you part of a minority does it? You know what? I'm Cumbrian, so statistically so am I. Do not bring something into this conversation that is irrelevant.
You complain that you can't get away from Christianity? I sympathise, I really do. I tried getting away from Coca Cola and Co-op but the fuckers are still all around me. Its tough, it really is.
You say you have nothing against Toothycat as people. Then why make such attacks on their faith? If said I hated bisexuals because they make me sick (I'd be lying) but said I said I had nothing against you personally (also lying), how would that make you feel?
To sum up, your beliefs are yours, and no one can take them away from you. No one should. They don't have the right. But at the same time you should offer the same courtesy to others. Especially if these people are your friends. If they aren't your friends then what the hell are you doing on this LJ? If you want to offend someone then fuck off and do it somewhere else. The Internet is a big place and I'm sure that somewhere out there is a place where your ignorance and intolerance will be accepted, or at the very least, ignored.
It only leaves me to congratulate Toothycat on the manner in which they have been responding to these personal attacks against their faith, integrity and their way of life. Guys, you represent the very best in the Christian community. YOU on the other hand, represent all that is bad about atheism, or indeed any religious standpoint.
Man, I wish I could say things like this on certain forums.